A Dynamic Decision-Making Model for Regional Governance Based on Adaptive Preference Learning
Keywords:
Adaptive Preference Learning, Dynamic Decision-Making, Regional Governance, Reinforcement Learning, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)Abstract
This research develops a dynamic decision-making model for regional governance based on adaptive preference learning to address the limitations of traditional static policy frameworks. The study integrates decision theory, reinforcement learning, Bayesian preference modeling, and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) into a unified system capable of capturing evolving stakeholder preferences and responding to rapidly changing socio-economic conditions. The model consists of four core components data input layer, preference learning engine, policy decision module, and real-time feedback system which collectively enable continuous updating of decision parameters and ongoing evaluation of policy outcomes. Using a mixed-method approach that combines stakeholder surveys, historical governance data, performance indicators, and computational simulations, the study demonstrates that the adaptive model significantly improves decision accuracy, responsiveness, and alignment with citizen needs. The system’s dynamic feedback loops allow policies to be refined in real time, enhancing predictive capability and reducing the risks associated with rigid or outdated policy assumptions. Results show that the model outperforms traditional governance approaches in terms of decision efficiency, data-driven fairness, and the ability to anticipate emerging issues. Although challenges remain such as data sparsity, computational complexity, infrastructure limitations, and potential resistance from policymakers the findings highlight the model’s practical value for modern regional governance. The research contributes theoretically by advancing the application of adaptive learning in public policy decision-making and practically by offering a framework that supports faster, smarter, and more citizen-centric governance. Overall, the study underscores the potential of adaptive preference learning to transform regional decision-making in increasingly complex and uncertain environments.
Downloads
References
A. Haveri, “Complexity in local government change: Limits to rational reforming,” Public Manag. Rev., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 31–46, 2006.
M. Janssen and H. Van Der Voort, “Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1. Elsevier, pp. 1–5, 2016.
P. Kulkarni, Reinforcement and systemic machine learning for decision making. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
F. Blanco-Mesa, A. M. Gil-Lafuente, and J. M. Merigó, “Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making,” Comput. Math. Organ. Theory, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 441–472, 2018.
G. Campanella and R. A. Ribeiro, “A framework for dynamic multiple-criteria decision making,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 52–60, 2011.
A. N. Manning, “Identifying quality management practices used within Holmes Partnership schools of education.” University of Pittsburgh, 2004.
K. J. Bowen et al., “Implementing the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’: towards addressing three key governance challenges—collective action, trade-offs, and accountability,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., vol. 26, pp. 90–96, 2017.
D. Huang and L. Luo, “Consumer preference elicitation of complex products using fuzzy support vector machine active learning,” Mark. Sci., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 445–464, 2016.
H. Doloi, “Assessing stakeholders’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects,” Facilities, vol. 30, no. 11/12, pp. 531–550, 2012.
S. R. Harrison and M. E. Qureshi, “Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models,” in Natural Resources Forum, Wiley Online Library, 2000, pp. 11–19.
G. S. Reddy, R. Srinivasu, M. P. C. Rao, and S. R. Rikkula, “Data warehousing, data mining, OLAP and OLTP technologies are essential elements to support decision-making process in industries,” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng., vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 2865–2873, 2010.
C. Pahl-Wostl, “Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modeling processes,” Integr. Assess., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 2002.
M. B. Islam and G. Governatori, “RuleRS: a rule-based architecture for decision support systems,” Artif. Intell. Law, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 315–344, 2018.
P. Chakrabarti and M. Frye, “A mixed-methods framework for analyzing text data: Integrating computational techniques with qualitative methods in demography,” Demogr. Res., vol. 37, pp. 1351–1382, 2017.
E. A. Eriksson and K. M. Weber, “Adaptive foresight: navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 462–482, 2008.
T. O. Nyumba, K. Wilson, C. J. Derrick, and N. Mukherjee, “The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation,” Methods Ecol. Evol., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 20–32, 2018.
E. Bertone, O. Sahin, R. Richards, and A. Roiko, “Modelling with stakeholders: a systems approach for improved environmental decision making under great uncertainty,” in iEMSs 2016, International Environmental Modelling & Software Society (iEMSs), 2016.
M. De Gemmis, L. Iaquinta, P. Lops, C. Musto, F. Narducci, and G. Semeraro, “Preference learning in recommender systems,” Prefer. Learn., vol. 41, no. 41–55, p. 48, 2009.
S. Husbands, S. Jowett, P. Barton, and J. Coast, “How qualitative methods can be used to inform model development,” Pharmacoeconomics, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 607–612, 2017.
J. Hassler, P. Krusell, K. Storesletten, and F. Zilibotti, “The dynamics of government,” J. Monet. Econ., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1331–1358, 2005.
R. Barthel et al., “An integrated modelling framework for simulating regional-scale actor responses to global change in the water domain,” Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1095–1121, 2008.
M. T. Escobar and J. M. Moreno-Jimenéz, “Aggregation of individual preference structures in AHP-group decision making,” Gr. Decis. Negot., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 287–301, 2007.
C. Wirth, R. Akrour, G. Neumann, and J. Fürnkranz, “A survey of preference-based reinforcement learning methods,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 18, no. 136, pp. 1–46, 2017.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jonhariono Sihotang, Juliana Batubara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
