Modeling to Generate Alternatives: The HSJ Approach and an Illustration Using a Problem in Land Use Planning

E. Downey Brill, Jr., Shoou-Yuh Chang and Lewis D. Hopkins
Additional contact information
E. Downey Brill, Jr.: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Shoou-Yuh Chang: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Lewis D. Hopkins: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Management Science, 1982, vol. 28, issue 3, 221-235

Abstract: Public-sector planning problems are typically complex, and some important planning issues cannot be captured within a mathematical programming model of a problem; such issues may be qualitative in nature, unknown, or unrevealed by decisionmakers. Furthermore, there are often numerous solutions to a mathematical formulation that are nearly the same with respect to modeled issues but that are drastically different from each other in decision space. In such cases, some of these solutions may be significantly better than others with respect to unmodeled issues. Thus, a potentially important role of programming models is to generate a small number of alternative solutions that are feasible, perform well with respect to modeled issues, and are significantly different with respect to the decisions they specify. Such a set of alternatives may aid analysts and decision makers in understanding the problem and may serve as a catalyst for human creativity and invention. The Hop, Skip, and Jump (HSJ) method has been developed for this purpose. It is designed to produce alternative solutions that are very different from previously generated solutions. Each solution generated is good in the sense that it meets targets specified for modeled objectives. The technique is described in this paper, and is illustrated using a multiobjective linear programming model of a land use planning problem provided by a regional planning commission. In this case, the method is shown to be capable of generating alternative solutions that perform well with respect to the modeled objectives and that are drastically different with respect to the land use pattern specified. Differences among solutions are discussed using visual inspection as well as simple quantitative measures. The technique can be used to extend the capabilities of existing mathematical programming packages.

Keywords: mathematical programming; policy analysis; planning (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1982
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (31)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.3.221 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:28:y:1982:i:3:p:221-235

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Management Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().