An integrated multiple criteria preference ranking approach to the Canadian west coast port congestion conflict

An integrative conflict analysis approach, incorporating an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) based preference ranking method into the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR), is employed to investigate the Canadian west coast port congestion dispute. The Canadian west coast has historically been an important gateway connecting North America to Asia thanks to its specific geographical and strategic location. Despite successful operations and maintenance of the port facilities to handle international trade during the past few decades, the west coast is now facing increasing congestion problems, resulting in significant delays in transporting goods from the west coast to other parts of Canada and the USA. The strategic analyses carried out in this research suggest potential resolutions in which Canada would expand port facilities at various locations, encouraging traders to continue choosing the Canadian west coast as one of their trade gateways to North America

Preference Elicitation in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

Flexible approaches for eliciting preferences of decision makers involved in a conflict are developed along with applications to real-world disputes. More specifically, two multiple criteria decision making approaches are proposed for capturing the relative preferences of a decision maker participating in a conflict situation. A case study in logistics concerned with the conflict arising over the expansion of port facilities on the west coast of North America as well as a transportation negotiation dispute are used to illustrate how these approaches can be integrated with the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution, a practical conflict analysis methodology. Ascertaining the preferences of the decision makers taking part in a conflict constitutes a key element in the construction of a formal conflict model. In practice, the relative preferences, which reflect each decision maker’s objectives or goals in a given situation, are rather difficult to obtain. The first method for preference elicitation is to integrate an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) preference ranking method with the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. The AHP approach is used to elicit relative preferences of decision makers, and this preference information is then fed into a graph model for further stability analyses. The case study of the Canadian west coast port congestion conflict is investigated using this integrated model. Another approach is based on a fuzzy multiple criteria out-ranking technique called ELECTRE III. It is also employed for ranking states or possible scenarios in a conflict from most to least preferred, with ties allowed, by the decision maker according to his or her own value system. The model is applied to a transportation negotiation dispute between the two key parties consisting of shippers and carriers

Initial State Stabilities and Inverse Engineering in Conflict Resolution

Two original contributions are made which extend the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: one is a new family of solution concepts, while the other is a novel methodological approach. In addition to theoretical contributions, applications to complex energy problems are demonstrated; in particular, the consideration of the ongoing Trans Mountain Expansion Project is the first of its kind. The family of solution concepts, called initial state stabilities, is designed to complement existing solution concepts within the Graph Model framework by modelling both risk-averse and risk-seeking decision-makers. The comparison which underpins these concepts examines the consequences of moving from a given starting state to those of remaining in that state. The types of individuals modelled by these stability concepts represent a new class of decision-makers which, up until now, had not been considered in the Graph Model paradigm. The innovative methodology presented is designed to "inverse engineer" decision-makers’ preferences based on their observable behaviour. The algorithms underlying the inverse engineering methodology are based on the most commonly used stability concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution and function by reducing the set of possible preference rankings for each decision-maker. The reduction is based on observable moves and counter-moves made by decision-makers. This procedure assists stakeholders in optimizing their own decision-making process based on information gathered about their opponents and can also be used to improve the modelling of strategic interactions. In addition to providing decision-makers and analysts with up-to-date preference information about opponents, the methodology is also equipped with an ADVICE function which enriches the decision-making process by providing important information regarding potential moves. Decision-makers who use the methods introduced in this thesis are provided with the expected value of each of their possible moves, with the probability of the opponent’s next response, and with the opponent reachable states. This insightful data helps establish an accurate picture of the conflict situation and in so doing, aids stakeholders in making strategic decisions. The applicability of this methodology is demonstrated through the study of the conflict surrounding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia, Canada