Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management

Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: 2017
Autor(a) principal: URTIGA, Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo
Orientador(a): MORAIS, Danielle Costa
Banca de defesa: Não Informado pela instituição
Tipo de documento: Tese
Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
Idioma: eng
Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pos Graduacao em Engenharia de Producao
Departamento: Não Informado pela instituição
País: Brasil
Palavras-chave em Português:
Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/29108
Resumo: Models are proposed to handle participatory decision processes in watershed committees (WSCs) in Brazil. In summary, the focus is on three different decision problems regarding water management, namely: i) conflicts regarding the use of water, usually regarding water allocation and pollution; ii) prioritizing and choosing alternatives to address a specific watershed problem; iii) and choosing among combinations of alternatives, rather than a single alternative, considering how an individual alternative can complement or substitute another alternative in the same combination of alternatives. Regarding the first decision problem, a WSC has to arbitrate conflicts with respect to the multiple uses of water. The decision makers (DMs) involved in the dispute have to negotiate an agreement. A framework is proposed to assist in identifying issues that can transform a distributive negotiation into an integrative one. This is managed by identifying values that are shared among DMs. Values can be created by using techniques from Value-Focused Thinking to analyze DMs’ value systems and, subsequently, aggregating individual information in a tree of objectives that represents all DMs’ objectives. The framework promotes cooperation and reduces conflicts by having DMs interact with the same purpose, which is to mutually increase the beneficial results of the negotiation. It also assists DMs to visualize an integrative negotiation with different issues of their interest to be negotiated, thus allowing them to think about tradeoff relations. In relation to the second problem, a WSC considers a set of alternatives to solve problems faced by the watershed they represent. For this purpose, this study proposes a model that assists the group decision process by structuring objectives, identifying criteria to evaluate alternatives and identifying alternatives based on the DMs’ objectives. The DMs evaluate the alternatives using an individual value-function. Afterwards, the individual value-functions are aggregated into a group value-function so as to rank the alternatives based on the DMs’ preferences. With this model, the DMs are able to take part in the decision-making process from starting to understand the problem, identifying objectives, creating alternatives, until the process of choosing attributes and selecting alternatives. Thus, the model promotes the DMs’ engagement throughout the whole decision-making process. The third and last decision problem tackled in this study concerns the fact that WSCs faces situations where a solution of a problem is to choose a combination of alternatives instead of choosing a single alternative. In this case, it is important to consider how alternatives together meet the DMs’ objectives. The possible combinations of alternatives are systematically generated using an option form approach. DMs individually rank combinations based on their preferences by providing ordinal information in an interactive way, thus reducing the cognitive burden of making many comparisons or defining tradeoffs. In this approach, each DM expresses his or her preferences using logical preference statements regarding combinations of alternatives by what is called an alternative prioritizing approach. A group recommendation is obtained after aggregating the final individual ranks using the Weighted Voting System by Quartile. A case study for each model is presented to illustrate their applicability.
id UFPE_de8967bf8f2258fc36ea5af1dfe50cf4
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ufpe.br:123456789/29108
network_acronym_str UFPE
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UFPE
repository_id_str
spelling URTIGA, Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújohttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2441992607273697http://lattes.cnpq.br/0425151719064564MORAIS, Danielle Costa2019-02-13T17:43:50Z2019-02-13T17:43:50Z2017-10-25https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/29108Models are proposed to handle participatory decision processes in watershed committees (WSCs) in Brazil. In summary, the focus is on three different decision problems regarding water management, namely: i) conflicts regarding the use of water, usually regarding water allocation and pollution; ii) prioritizing and choosing alternatives to address a specific watershed problem; iii) and choosing among combinations of alternatives, rather than a single alternative, considering how an individual alternative can complement or substitute another alternative in the same combination of alternatives. Regarding the first decision problem, a WSC has to arbitrate conflicts with respect to the multiple uses of water. The decision makers (DMs) involved in the dispute have to negotiate an agreement. A framework is proposed to assist in identifying issues that can transform a distributive negotiation into an integrative one. This is managed by identifying values that are shared among DMs. Values can be created by using techniques from Value-Focused Thinking to analyze DMs’ value systems and, subsequently, aggregating individual information in a tree of objectives that represents all DMs’ objectives. The framework promotes cooperation and reduces conflicts by having DMs interact with the same purpose, which is to mutually increase the beneficial results of the negotiation. It also assists DMs to visualize an integrative negotiation with different issues of their interest to be negotiated, thus allowing them to think about tradeoff relations. In relation to the second problem, a WSC considers a set of alternatives to solve problems faced by the watershed they represent. For this purpose, this study proposes a model that assists the group decision process by structuring objectives, identifying criteria to evaluate alternatives and identifying alternatives based on the DMs’ objectives. The DMs evaluate the alternatives using an individual value-function. Afterwards, the individual value-functions are aggregated into a group value-function so as to rank the alternatives based on the DMs’ preferences. With this model, the DMs are able to take part in the decision-making process from starting to understand the problem, identifying objectives, creating alternatives, until the process of choosing attributes and selecting alternatives. Thus, the model promotes the DMs’ engagement throughout the whole decision-making process. The third and last decision problem tackled in this study concerns the fact that WSCs faces situations where a solution of a problem is to choose a combination of alternatives instead of choosing a single alternative. In this case, it is important to consider how alternatives together meet the DMs’ objectives. The possible combinations of alternatives are systematically generated using an option form approach. DMs individually rank combinations based on their preferences by providing ordinal information in an interactive way, thus reducing the cognitive burden of making many comparisons or defining tradeoffs. In this approach, each DM expresses his or her preferences using logical preference statements regarding combinations of alternatives by what is called an alternative prioritizing approach. A group recommendation is obtained after aggregating the final individual ranks using the Weighted Voting System by Quartile. A case study for each model is presented to illustrate their applicability.FACEPECAPESAPACModelos são propostos para auxiliar decisões participativas em comitês de bacia hidrográfica (WSCs) no Brasil. Em suma, o foco está em três problemas de decisão diferentes relacionados à gestão de recursos hídricos, são eles: (i) gestão do uso da água, principalmente em relação à alocação e poluição da água; ii) priorização e escolha de alternativas para abordar um problema específico enfrentado por bacias hidrográficas; iii) escolha entre combinações de alternativas, em vez da escolha de uma única alternativa, considerando como uma alternativa pode complementar ou substituir outra na mesma combinação de alternativas. Em relação ao primeiro problema de decisão, um WSC deve arbitrar conflitos em relação aos múltiplos usos da água. Os decisores (DMs) envolvidos na disputa pelo uso da água devem negociar um acordo. Um framework é proposto para auxiliar na identificação de questões que podem transformar uma negociação distributiva em uma integrativa, através da criação de valor, baseado no método Value-Focused Thinking. O framework promove cooperação e reduz conflitos ao ter DMs interagindo com o propósito de aumentar mutuamente os resultados da negociação. Ele também auxilia DMs a visualizar uma negociação integrativa, em que diferentes questões de interesse estão envolvidas, permitindo-lhes pensar sobre relações de tradeoff. Em relação ao segundo problema, um WSC considera um conjunto de alternativas para resolver problemas enfrentados pela bacia hidrográfica que eles representam. Para este propósito, este estudo propõe um modelo que auxilia o processo de decisão do grupo, ao auxiliar a estruturar objetivos, identificar critérios para avaliar alternativas e identificar alternativas com base nos objetivos dos DMs. Os DMs avaliam as alternativas usando uma função valor individual. Posteriormente, as funções valor individuais são agregadas em uma função valor do grupo, de modo a ordenar as alternativas com base nas preferências dos DMs. Com este modelo, os DMs podem participar do processo de tomada de decisão desde seu início, ao entender e definir o problema, identificar objetivos, criar alternativas, até o processo de escolha de atributos e seleção de alternativas. Assim, o modelo promove o envolvimento dos DMs em todo o processo de tomada de decisão. O terceiro e último problema de decisão abordado diz respeito ao fato de que WSCs enfrentam situações em que a solução de um problema é escolher uma combinação de alternativas em vez de escolher uma única alternativa. Neste caso, é importante considerar como as alternativas em conjunto atendem aos objetivos dos DMs. As possíveis combinações de alternativas são geradas sistematicamente usando uma abordagem chamada de Option Form. Os DMs classificam individualmente as combinações de alternativas com base em suas preferências, fornecendo informações ordinais de forma interativa, reduzindo, assim, o fardo cognitivo de terem que fazer muitas comparações ou definir relações de tradeoff. Nesta abordagem, cada DM expressa suas preferências sobre as combinações de alternativas pelo que é chamado de Altervative Prioritizing Approach. Uma recomendação de grupo é obtida após a agregação das avaliações individuais do DMs usando o Sistema de Votação Ponderada por Quartil. Um estudo de caso para cada modelo é apresentado para demonstrar sua aplicabilidade.engUniversidade Federal de PernambucoPrograma de Pos Graduacao em Engenharia de ProducaoUFPEBrasilAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazilhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessEngenharia de produçãoWater resources managementGroup decision makingProblem structuringValue-focused thinkingCombination of alternativesStructuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources managementinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesisdoutoradoreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFPEinstname:Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)instacron:UFPETHUMBNAILTESE Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo Urtiga.pdf.jpgTESE Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo Urtiga.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg1232https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/6/TESE%20Marcella%20Maia%20Bezerra%20de%20Ara%c3%bajo%20Urtiga.pdf.jpg3709b0a5cc46948b4dbe5c3cf7387945MD56ORIGINALTESE Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo Urtiga.pdfTESE Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo Urtiga.pdfapplication/pdf3270900https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/1/TESE%20Marcella%20Maia%20Bezerra%20de%20Ara%c3%bajo%20Urtiga.pdff3871e1a80d00719c26aa6aa24b9b99eMD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82311https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/3/license.txt4b8a02c7f2818eaf00dcf2260dd5eb08MD53CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8811https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/4/license_rdfe39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34MD54TEXTTESE Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo Urtiga.pdf.txtTESE Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo Urtiga.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain233758https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/5/TESE%20Marcella%20Maia%20Bezerra%20de%20Ara%c3%bajo%20Urtiga.pdf.txt63e51edc3049a39c97ac731de8dd20cdMD55123456789/291082019-10-25 09:32:54.56oai:repositorio.ufpe.br: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Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://repositorio.ufpe.br/oai/requestattena@ufpe.bropendoar:22212019-10-25T12:32:54Repositório Institucional da UFPE - Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)false
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
title Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
spellingShingle Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
URTIGA, Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo
Engenharia de produção
Water resources management
Group decision making
Problem structuring
Value-focused thinking
Combination of alternatives
title_short Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
title_full Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
title_fullStr Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
title_full_unstemmed Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
title_sort Structuring negotiation and participatory decision making processes for integrated water resources management
author URTIGA, Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo
author_facet URTIGA, Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo
author_role author
dc.contributor.authorLattes.pt_BR.fl_str_mv http://lattes.cnpq.br/2441992607273697
dc.contributor.advisorLattes.pt_BR.fl_str_mv http://lattes.cnpq.br/0425151719064564
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv URTIGA, Marcella Maia Bezerra de Araújo
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv MORAIS, Danielle Costa
contributor_str_mv MORAIS, Danielle Costa
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Engenharia de produção
Water resources management
Group decision making
Problem structuring
Value-focused thinking
Combination of alternatives
topic Engenharia de produção
Water resources management
Group decision making
Problem structuring
Value-focused thinking
Combination of alternatives
description Models are proposed to handle participatory decision processes in watershed committees (WSCs) in Brazil. In summary, the focus is on three different decision problems regarding water management, namely: i) conflicts regarding the use of water, usually regarding water allocation and pollution; ii) prioritizing and choosing alternatives to address a specific watershed problem; iii) and choosing among combinations of alternatives, rather than a single alternative, considering how an individual alternative can complement or substitute another alternative in the same combination of alternatives. Regarding the first decision problem, a WSC has to arbitrate conflicts with respect to the multiple uses of water. The decision makers (DMs) involved in the dispute have to negotiate an agreement. A framework is proposed to assist in identifying issues that can transform a distributive negotiation into an integrative one. This is managed by identifying values that are shared among DMs. Values can be created by using techniques from Value-Focused Thinking to analyze DMs’ value systems and, subsequently, aggregating individual information in a tree of objectives that represents all DMs’ objectives. The framework promotes cooperation and reduces conflicts by having DMs interact with the same purpose, which is to mutually increase the beneficial results of the negotiation. It also assists DMs to visualize an integrative negotiation with different issues of their interest to be negotiated, thus allowing them to think about tradeoff relations. In relation to the second problem, a WSC considers a set of alternatives to solve problems faced by the watershed they represent. For this purpose, this study proposes a model that assists the group decision process by structuring objectives, identifying criteria to evaluate alternatives and identifying alternatives based on the DMs’ objectives. The DMs evaluate the alternatives using an individual value-function. Afterwards, the individual value-functions are aggregated into a group value-function so as to rank the alternatives based on the DMs’ preferences. With this model, the DMs are able to take part in the decision-making process from starting to understand the problem, identifying objectives, creating alternatives, until the process of choosing attributes and selecting alternatives. Thus, the model promotes the DMs’ engagement throughout the whole decision-making process. The third and last decision problem tackled in this study concerns the fact that WSCs faces situations where a solution of a problem is to choose a combination of alternatives instead of choosing a single alternative. In this case, it is important to consider how alternatives together meet the DMs’ objectives. The possible combinations of alternatives are systematically generated using an option form approach. DMs individually rank combinations based on their preferences by providing ordinal information in an interactive way, thus reducing the cognitive burden of making many comparisons or defining tradeoffs. In this approach, each DM expresses his or her preferences using logical preference statements regarding combinations of alternatives by what is called an alternative prioritizing approach. A group recommendation is obtained after aggregating the final individual ranks using the Weighted Voting System by Quartile. A case study for each model is presented to illustrate their applicability.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2017-10-25
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2019-02-13T17:43:50Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2019-02-13T17:43:50Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis
format doctoralThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/29108
url https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/29108
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/br/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv Programa de Pos Graduacao em Engenharia de Producao
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv UFPE
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv Brasil
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFPE
instname:Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)
instacron:UFPE
instname_str Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)
instacron_str UFPE
institution UFPE
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UFPE
collection Repositório Institucional da UFPE
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/6/TESE%20Marcella%20Maia%20Bezerra%20de%20Ara%c3%bajo%20Urtiga.pdf.jpg
https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/1/TESE%20Marcella%20Maia%20Bezerra%20de%20Ara%c3%bajo%20Urtiga.pdf
https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/3/license.txt
https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/4/license_rdf
https://repositorio.ufpe.br/bitstream/123456789/29108/5/TESE%20Marcella%20Maia%20Bezerra%20de%20Ara%c3%bajo%20Urtiga.pdf.txt
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 3709b0a5cc46948b4dbe5c3cf7387945
f3871e1a80d00719c26aa6aa24b9b99e
4b8a02c7f2818eaf00dcf2260dd5eb08
e39d27027a6cc9cb039ad269a5db8e34
63e51edc3049a39c97ac731de8dd20cd
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UFPE - Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv attena@ufpe.br
_version_ 1793516149820882944