考虑风险态度和自信行为的应急响应等级决策方法

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2021.1618

Abstract

Abstract:

The level of emergency response is an important basis for effective， orderly and effective emergency disposal.In the case of increasing complexity， uncertainty and harmfulness of emergency events， decision-maker usually cannot accurately determine the emergency response level in a short period of time， and it is necessary to organize experts in many fields to conduct consultations and judgements. For the decision-making scenarios where experts have different judgements on the response levels， the voting mechanisms， such as the principle of minority obeying majority， cannot be well applied because these decision-making methods based on the deterministic information is not suitable for complex uncertain decision-making in emergency environment. In this paper， both the complexity of experts' risk attitudes and expert self-confidence behavior are considered to resolve the conflicts in the judgement of the response levels， so as to provide support for decision maker to accurately determine the emergency response level. First， a method for generating evidence， that is influenced by experts' riskattitude， is proposed to transform the incomplete judgement information provided by experts into the form of evidence using evidence theory. Then， from the two different aspects of judgement reliability and expert weight， the measurement method of evidence reliability is proposed for the fusion of conflict evidence， and an optimizing decision method of processing different judgements on the response levels is further developed.Finally， the effectiveness and scientificity of the proposed method are verified by an example. The results show that the consideration of experts' risk attitude can improve the accuracy of judgment， and it is beneficial and necessary to consider self-confident behavior in decision making to improve decision quality. There is both theoretical and practical significance for improving the government'semergency management capabilities.

Key words: emergency decision-making, risk attitude, self-confident behavior, emergency response level, evidence theory

CLC Number:

C934

Lei Zhang,Xin Ye. Decision-Making Method of Emergency Response Level Considering Riskattitude and Self-confident Behavior[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(6): 120-128.

Figures/Tables 8

风险态度	风险系数 $θ$
较强风险规避(S-RA)	0.1
一般风险规避(G-RA)	0.3
风险中立(RN)	0.5
一般风险偏好(G-RP)	0.7
较强风险偏好(S-RP)	0.9

$E$	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	研判信度	风险态度
$e 1$	√		$s 4$	G-RP
$e 2$		√	$s 5$	RN
$e 3$	√		$s 5$	G-RA
$e 4$		√	$s 4$	G-RP
$e 5$	√		$s 5$	S-RA

专家	焦元及其BPA
$e 1$	$m 1 h 2 = 0.7140, m 1 h 1, h 2 = 0.2860$
$e 2$	$m 2 h 3 = 0.8333, m 2 h 2, h 3, h 4 = 0.1667$
$e 3$	$m 3 h 2 = 0.6823, m 3 h 2, h 3 = 0.3177$
$e 4$	$m 4 h 3 = 0.7140, m 4 h 2, h 3 = 0.2860$
$e 5$	$m 5 h 2 = 0.5586, m 5 h 2, h 3 = 0.4414$

专家	焦元及其BPA
$e 1$	$m ? 1 h 2 = 0.4380, m ? 1 h 1, h 2 = 0.1754, m ? 1 Ω = 0.3866$
$e 2$	$m ? 2 h 3 = 0.7667, m ? 2 h 2, h 3, h 4 = 0.1534, m ? 1 Ω = 0.0799$
$e 3$	$m ? 3 h 2 = 0.4613, m ? 3 h 2, h 3 = 0.2148, m ? 3 Ω = 0.3239$
$e 4$	$m ? 4 h 3 = 0.7140, m ? 4 h 2, h 3 = 0.2860$
$e 5$	$m ? 5 h 2 = 0.5530, m ? 5 h 2, h 3 = 0.4370, m ? 1 Ω = 0.0100$

决策方法	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级	决策结果
$M$	0.0146	0.5680	0.4029	0.0146	Ⅱ级
$M *$	-	0.4141	0.5859	-	Ⅲ级

决策方法	$R 1$	$R 2$	$R 3$	$R 4$	$R 5$
$M$	0.5201	0.5338	0.5731	0.7656	1
$M *$	0.6134	0.9201	0.6761	1	0.9899

References 32

1	中华人民共和国国务院. 国家突发公共事件总体应急预案［EB/OL］.（2006-1-8）［2021-7-21］..
	State Council of the People's Republic of China. Master state plan for rapid response to public emergencies ［EB/OL］. （2006-1-8）［2021-7-21］..
2	中共中央国务院. 法治政府建设实施纲要（2021-2025年）［N］. 人民日报， 2021-08-12（001）.
	The Communist Party of China Central Committee， the State Council. The outline for building a law-based government （2021-2025）［N］.The People's Daily， 2021-08-12（001）.
3	薛澜.学习四中全会《决定》精神，推进国家应急管理体系和能力现代化［J］.公共管理评论，2019，1（3）： 33-40.
	Xue L. Advancing the modernization of national emergency management system and capability： A rallyingcry from the fourth plenary session of the 19th CPC Central Committee［J］. China Public Administration Review，2019， 1（3）： 33-40.
4	刘金培，杨宏伟，陈华友，等. 基于交叉效率DEA与群体共识的区间乘性语言偏好关系群决策［J］. 中国管理科学， 2020， 28（2）： 190-198.
	Liu J P， Yang H W， Chen H Y， et al. Group decision making with interval multiplicative linguistic preferencerelations based on cross-efficiency DEA and group consensus［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science，2020， 28（2）： 190-198.
5	尹儇鹏，徐选华，陈晓红. 风险视域下的大群体应急决策策略选择研究［J］.系统工程理论与实践， 2021， 41（3）： 678-690.
	Yin X P， Xu X H， Chen X H. Study on the selection of large group emergency decision-making strategies under theperspective of risk［J］. Systems Engineering—Theory & Practice， 2021， 41（3）： 678-690.
6	Liao H， Wu X， Mi X， et al. An integrated method for cognitive complex multiple experts multiple criteria decision making based on ELECTRE III with weighted Borda rule［J］. Omega， 2020， 93： 102052.
7	Schulze M. A new monotonic， clone-independent， reversal symmetric， and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method［J］. Social Choice and Welfare， 2011， 36（2）：267-303.
8	沃尔夫·盖特纳. 社会选择理论基础［M］. 上海：格致出版社， 2013.
	Gaerthner W. A primer in social choice theory［M］. Shanghai： Truth & Wisdom press， 2013.
9	Dempster A P. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping［J］. Annals of Mathematical Statistics， 1967， 38（2）： 325-339.
10	张自欣，王亮，王应明，等.基于证据推理的突发事件预警方法研究［J］.中国管理科学，2015， 23（S1）： 291-296.
	Zhang Z X， Wang L， Wang Y M， et al. Study on the early-warning method of emergency event based on evidential reasoning［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2015， 23（S1）： 291-296.
11	Xue W， Xu Z， Wang H， et al. Hazard assessment of landslide dams using the evidential reasoning algorithm withmulti-scale hesitant fuzzy linguistic information［J］. Applied Soft Computing， 2019， 79： 74-86.
12	陈雪龙，王亚丽.考虑信息源相关性的多属性应急决策方法［J］.系统工程理论与实践，2018， 38（8）： 2045-2056.
	Chen X L， Wang Y L. The method for multi-attribute emergency decision-making considering the interdependence between information sources［J］. Systems Engineering—Theory & Practice， 2018， 38（8）： 2045-2056.
13	狄鹏，倪子纯，尹东亮. 基于云模型和证据理论的多属性决策优化算法［J］.系统工程理论与实践， 2021， 41（4）： 1061-1070.
	Di P， Ni Z C， Yin D L. A multi-attribute decision making optimization algorithm based on cloud model andevidence theory［J］. Systems Engineering—Theory & Practice， 2021， 41（4）： 1061-1070.
14	Li P， Wei C. An emergency decision-making method based on D-S evidence theory for probabilistic linguistic term sets［J］.International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction， 2019， 37： 101178.
15	马珍珍，朱建军，王翯华，等. 考虑决策者可靠性自判的语言群决策方法［J］. 控制与决策， 2017， 32（2）：323-332.
	Ma Z Z， Zhu J J， Wang H H， et al. Linguistic group decision-making method considering decision makers'reliability of self-selection［J］. Control and Decision， 2017， 32（2）：323-332.
16	Dong Y C， Liu W Q， Chiclana F， et al. Are incomplete and self-confident preference relations better inmulticriteria decision making？ A simulation-based investigation［J］. Information Sciences， 2019， 492： 40-57.
17	Ma Z Z， Zhu J J， Chen Y. A probabilistic linguistic group decision-making method from a reliability perspectivebased on evidential reasoning［J］. IEEE Transactions on Systems， Man， and Cybernetics： Systems. 2020， 50（7）： 2421-2435.
18	Fu C， Xue M， Chang W， et al. An evidential reasoning approach based on risk attitude and criterion reliability［J］.Knowledge-Based Systems， 2020， 199： 105947.
19	陈俊霖，李沁雪，张春萍，等. 应急环境下时间压力和决策者风险态度对决策行为的影响实验研究［J］. 中国管理科学， 2015， 23（S1）： 349-358.
	Chen J L， Li Q X， Zhang C P， et al. An experimental study on the effect of risk perference and time constraint on emergency decision makings［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2015， 23（S1）： 349-358.
20	陈晓红，李慧，谭春桥. 考虑不同心理行为偏好的混合随机多属性决策［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2018， 38（6）： 1545-1556.
	Chen X H， Li H， Tan C Q. A hybrid stochastic multi-attribute decision-making method considering different psychological behavior［J］.Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice， 2018， 38（6）： 1545-1556.
21	Zhou W， Xu Z. Generalized asymmetric linguistic term set and its application to qualitative decision making involving riskappetites［J］. European Journal of Operational Research. 2016， 254（2）： 610-621.
22	徐选华，王麟麟，陈晓红. 公众关注主题下的大群体风险性应急决策方法［J］. 系统工程学报， 2019， 34（4）： 511-525.
	Xu X H， Wang L L， Chen X H. Large group risky emergency decision-making under the public concern themes［J］.Journal of Systems Engineering， 2019， 34（4）： 511-525.
23	Xu X， Wang L， Chen X， et al. Large group emergency decision-making method with linguistic risk appetites based on criteria mining［J］. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2019， 182： 104849.
24	查勇，宋阿丽，杨宏林，等. 考虑决策者风险偏好的机会约束DEA模型［J］. 管理科学学报， 2014， 17（1）： 11-20.
	Zha Y， Song A L， Yang H L， et al. Chance constrained DEA model considering decision maker's risk appetite［J］.Journal of Management Science in China， 2014， 17（1）： 11-20.
25	蒋雯，邓鑫洋. D-S证据理论信息建模与应用［M］. 北京：科学出版社， 2018.
	Jiang W， Deng X Y. Information modeling and application of D-S evidence theory［M］. Beijing： Science Press， 2018.
26	Yang J B， Xu D L. Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination［J］. Artificial Intelligence， 2013， 205：1-29.
27	Herrera F， Herrera-Viedma E. Linguistic decision analysis： Steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information［J］. Fuzzy Sets and systems. 2000， 115（1）： 67-82.
28	Jiang Y P， Fan Z P， Ma J. A method for group decision making with multi-granularity linguistic assessment information［J］.Information Sciences， 2008， 178（4）：1098-1109.
29	Butler J， Morrice D J， Mullarkey P W. A multiple attribute utility theory approach to ranking and selection［J］.Management Science， 2001， 47（6）：800-816.
30	Smets P， Kennes R. The transferable belief model［J］.Artificial Intelligence， 1994， 66（2）： 191-234.
31	杨晓萍，廉伟健，李孟杰，等. 基于Pignistic概率函数和相关系数的证据组合方法［J］. 通信学报， 2019， 40（3）： 73-79.
	Yang X P， Lian W J， Li M J， et al. Evidence combination method based on pignistic function transformation and correlation coefficient［J］. Journal on Communication， 2019， 40（3）： 73-79.
32	Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence［M］. Priceton： Priceton University Press， 1976.

	m₁			m₂			m₃			m₄			m₅
	k_ij	d_ij	c_ij	k_ij	d_ij	c_ij	k_ij	d_ij	c_ij	k_ij	d_ij	c_ij	k_ij	d_ij	c_ij
m₁	0	0	0	0.8333	0.7746	0.8045	0	0.0002	0.0002	0.7140	0.6753	0.6949	0	0.0024	0.0017
m₂	0.8333	0.7746	0.8045	0	0	0	0.5686	0.7540	0.6678	0	0.0072	0.0051	0.4655	0.7081	0.5992
m₃	0	0.0002	0.0002	0.5686	0.7540	0.6678	0	0	0	0.4872	0.6553	0.5774	0	0.0011	0.0008
m₄	0.7140	0.6753	0.6949	0	0.0072	0.0051	0.4872	0.6553	0.5774	0	0	0	0.3988	0.6109	0.5159
m₅	0	0.0024	0.0017	0.4655	0.7081	0.5992	0	0.0011	0.0008	0.3988	0.6109	0.5159	0	0	0

[1]	Lei Zhang, Keke Han, Xin Ye. Emergency Decision-making Method Considering the Influence of Expert and the Consistency of Valuation from the Perspective of Generalized Z-numbers Evidence [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2025, 33(6): 160-170.
[2]	Xuanhua Xu,Ting Xiao,Xiaohong Chen. A consensus Model for Large-group Emergency Decision-making Based on Group Wisdomfusion under Social Network Environment [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(2): 285-297.
[3]	ZHAO Meng, ZHANG Chen-xi, HU Yi-qi, LI Gang. Multi-attribute Group Decision Making Method based on Aspiration Satisfaction Function [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28(2): 220-230.
[4]	DU Yuan-wei, YANG Na. Double-layer Distributed Fusion Decision Method in Big Data Environment [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(5): 127-138.
[5]	HUANG Jin-bo, LI Zhong-fei, ZHOU Hong-tao. Risk Hedging Efficiency in the Perspective of Expected Utility [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(3): 9-17.
[6]	CHEN Guo, QI Er-shi. Knowledge Transfer between Enterprises under Asymmetric Risk Attitude [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016, 24(12): 82-90.
[7]	DU Yuan-Wei, DUAN Wan-Chun, HUANG Qing-Hua, YANG Na. DecisionMaking Method for Integrating Subjective Evidences Based on Brain Storming Principles [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23(3): 130-140.
[8]	WEN Feng-hua, CHAO You-cong, LIU Zhi-feng, YANG Xiao-guang. Research on House Money Effect at the Market Level [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2012, (4): 45-51.
[9]	BAO Xing, SUN Qi. The Influence of Manager’s Risk Attitude to Procurement Decision When System’s Capacity Was Partially Injured [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2012, (2): 87-92.
[10]	LIANG Chang-yong, YE Chun-sen, ZHANG En-qiao. A New Method of Combination Rules of Evidences Based on Concordance Evidences Conflict [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2010, 18(4): 152-157.
[11]	YANG Shan-lin, DING Shuai, FU Chao. A Software Trustworthiness Evaluation Model Considering Correlation of Information Sources [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2009, 17(6): 163-169.
[12]	DONG Da-yong, JIN Wei-dong. A Subjective Model of the Distribution of Returns and Empirical Analysis [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2007, 15(1): 112-120.
[13]	ZHAO Yan, CHEN Xiao-jian . Entrepreneur Team in Venture Business [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2004, (1): 122-130.
[14]	Li Jianfeng, Xu Liancang. Risky Decision Making Behavior of Managers:An empirical research [J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 1996, (3): 17-26.

Decision-Making Method of Emergency Response Level Considering Riskattitude and Self-confident Behavior

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 32

Related Articles 14

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0