How to evaluate the emergency management performance of mass incident is the key problem for policymaker to improve the social management. Performance evaluation of emergency management in mass incident has the unconventional characteristics with conflict of value judgment among stockholders, structural embedability that a mass incident happens in the special context of social structure, and linguistic fuzziness about the evaluation information. Considering the conflict of value judgment among local governmental officer, social vulnerable group and interest group, the 2-tuple linguistic model of performance evaluation is proposed with the maximal deviation principle.Firstly, the index system of performance evaluation of emergency management is build under the dimensions of social structure, emergent strategy and evaluating index, which includes efficiency, equity, convergence, stability and flexibility. Secondly, in accord with the disposal principles declared by Chinese government that local government should "facilitate the resolution of the outstanding issues with worse public opinion", the attribute should be given the higher weight because the larger deviation is, the better reflecting the conflict. Choosing the survey data of the boiler house demolition case in 2011 Dalian city, three multi-attribute decision-making models are compared with each others and the index sensitivity analysis is discussed. The strategy of neutral government as intercessor and the far-sighted strategy have the better performance, and the tit-for-tat strategy has the worst performance. Relative to fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model and 2-tuple linguistic model with the minimal deviation principle, the maximal deviation principle is better reflected the conflict characteristic of value judgment. The contribution of this paper is a new problem in the field of emergency management is proposed, which is how to evaluate the emergency management performance of mass incident with conflict of value judgment among stockholders. The resolving method should be maximal deviation principle, which can reflect the conflict of value judgment.
LIU De-hai
. Performance Evaluation Two-tuple Linguistic Model in Emergency Management of Mass Incident Based Maximal Deviation Principle[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016
, 24(4)
: 138
-147
.
DOI: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2016.04.016
[1] Rosenthal U, Charles M T, Hart P T. Coping with crises: the management of disasters, riots and terrorism[M]. Springville:Charles C Thomas Pub. Ltd., 1989.
[2] 刘德海,政府不同应急管理模式下群体性突发事件的演化分析[J]. 系统工程理论与实践,2010,30(11):1968-1976.
[3] 刘铭传,王玲.政府应急管理组织绩效评测模型研究[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2006,8(1):64-68.
[4] Wang Shouyang, Yu L, Lai K K. Crude oil price forecasting with TEI@I methodology[J]. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 2005,18(2):145-166.
[5] Zhang Guangquan, Ma Jun, Lu Jie. Emergency management evaluation by a fuzzy multi-criteria group decision support system[J]. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2009,23(4): 517-527.
[6] 刘德海, 于倩, 马晓南, 等. 基于最小偏差组合权重的突发事件应急能力评价模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2014, 22(11): 79-86.
[7] Herrera F, Martinez L. A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words [J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2000, 8(6): 746-752.
[8] 廖貅武, 李垣, 董广茂. 一种处理语言评价信息的多属性群决策方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践,2006,26(9): 90-98.
[9] 王欣荣, 樊治平. 基于二元语义信息处理的一种语言群决策方法[J]. 管理科学学报,2003, 6(5): 1-5.
[10] 徐泽水. 语言多属性决策的目标规划模型[J]. 管理科学学报, 2006, 9(2): 9-16.
[11] Dong Yucheng, Xu Yinfeng, Li Hongyi. On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 189(2): 430-444.
[12] 刘德海. 群体性事件的演化与评估[M]. 北京:中国社会科学出版社,2012.
[13] 新华社. 着力解决群众反映强烈突出问题. 解放日报, 2011-01-12日.
[14] Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness [J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1985, 91(3): 481-510.
[15] 刘德海.群体性突发事件中政府机会主义行为的演化博弈分析[J].中国管理科学, 2010, 18(1):175-183.
[16] Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Emergency Management Association.State Capability Assessment for Readiness (CAR). Working Paper,Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Emergency Management Association,1997.
[17] 罗成琳, 李向阳. 突发性群体事件及其演化机理分析[J]. 中国软科学, 2009,(6):163-177.
[18] 刘德海, 王维国. 维权型群体性突发事件社团网络结构与策略的协同演化机制[J]. 中国管理科学, 2012, 20 (3): 185-192.
[19] Sandbu M E. Fairness and the roads not taken: An experimental test of non-reciprocal set-dependence in distributive preferences[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2007, 61(1): 113-130.
[20] Rückert U, Raedt L D. An experimental evaluation of simplicity in rule learning[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2008,172(1):19-28.
[21] 徐寅峰,刘德海.群体性突发事件产生根源的主观博弈分析[J]. 预测,2004, 23(6): 43-45.
[22] Stahl D O. Rule learning in symmetric normal-form games: theory and evidence[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2000,32(1):105-138.
[23] Young P, Foster D. Stochstic evolutionary game dynamics[J]. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1990, 38(2): 219-232.
[24] Heller D. An evolutionary approach to learning in a changing environment[J]. Journal of Economic Theory, 2004, 114(1): 31-55.
[25] 胡百精.中国危机管理报告(2006)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[26] 韩志明. 利益表达、资源动员与议程设置:对于"闹大"现象的描述性分析[J]. 公共管理学报, 2012, 9(2): 52-66.
[27] Herrera F, Martinez L. The 2-tuple linguistic computational model versus the computational model based on the extension principle. Analysis of the Linguistic Description, Accuracy and Consistency . working Paper, Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, 2000.
[28] Xu Zeshui. Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making [J]. Omega, 2005, 33(3): 249-254.
[29] Xu Zeshui. Group decision making based on multiple types of linguistic preference relations [J]. Information Sciences, 2008, 178(2): 452-467.
[30] Kapferer B, Strategy and transaction in an african factory [M].Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1972.
[31] 樊金石. 数十业主挡住卡车去路. 半岛晨报,2011-5-24.
