Emergency decision-making combining cumulative prospect theory and group decision-making

With respect to the characteristic of risk and the potential evolvement of scenarios in emergency management analysis, this study proposes an emergency decision-making method with interval probability based on cumulative prospect theory and group decision-making. Under emergency risk environment, th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Granular computing (Internet) 2019-01, Vol.4 (1), p.39-52
Hauptverfasser: Liu, Wenjing, Li, Lei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:With respect to the characteristic of risk and the potential evolvement of scenarios in emergency management analysis, this study proposes an emergency decision-making method with interval probability based on cumulative prospect theory and group decision-making. Under emergency risk environment, there is a tremendous need to consider decision-maker’s psychological behavior which affects the decision results. In addition, an emergency decision generally involves joint participation among departments, which inevitably brings about group decision-making. Therefore, aiming at decision problems in emergency management, this paper provides an algorithm of emergency group decision-making considering psychological behaviors. For illustration and verification, a numerical example and two comparisons are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of proposed method. The contribution of this study is characterized by three aspects. First, cumulative prospect theory is introduced to quantify the impact of psychological behaviors. Second, group decision-making is considered as a think tank, which makes the decision more persuasive than single-person methods. Third, this study proposes a novel intelligent optimization algorithm, plant growth simulation algorithm, to integrate the different individual evaluations.
ISSN:2364-4966
2364-4974
DOI:10.1007/s41066-018-0086-5