IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i7p1518-d158594.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the Evolution Game of Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Behavior Based on Prospect Theory under Environmental Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Hong Shen

    (College of Architecture & Environment, Sichuan University, No. 24 South Section 1, Yihuan Road, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Ying Peng

    (College of Architecture & Environment, Sichuan University, No. 24 South Section 1, Yihuan Road, Chengdu 610065, China)

  • Chunxiang Guo

    (College of Business, Sichuan University, No. 24 South Section 1, Yihuan Road, Chengdu 610065, China)

Abstract

With the development of the construction industry, increasing concern over construction and demolition waste (CDW) has initiated a wave of environmental regulation by the government in order to reduce the environmental impact and ensure sustainable development. Research on behavioral decision-making can offer a theoretical basis for the government and individuals. This paper aims to study the behavioral decision-making of stakeholders in CDW recycling under environmental regulation. Considering the limited rationality of stakeholders and the difference in reference points, an evolutionary game model including contractors and manufacturers of construction materials is proposed based on the prospect theory of behavioral economics. The results indicate that, only when the perceived benefits of one or both stakeholders for participation under the environmental regulation exceed those for non-participation, can the CDW recycling system eventually evolve to a stable state in which both stakeholders choose to participate. In addition, factors such as the initial strategy, production cost, technology, subsidies, recycling benefits, and the degree of perception of the stakeholders, exert certain influences on the stable state. To attain the required stable state, the government should increase the subsidies for the stakeholders and strengthen the publicity regarding recycling effects to improve the perceived benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong Shen & Ying Peng & Chunxiang Guo, 2018. "Analysis of the Evolution Game of Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Behavior Based on Prospect Theory under Environmental Regulation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:7:p:1518-:d:158594
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1518/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/7/1518/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mingming Hu & Ester Van Der Voet & Gjalt Huppes, 2010. "Dynamic Material Flow Analysis for Strategic Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Beijing," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 14(3), pages 440-456, June.
    2. Wang, Jiayuan & Yuan, Hongping & Kang, Xiangping & Lu, Weisheng, 2010. "Critical success factors for on-site sorting of construction waste: A china study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 931-936.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Lu, Weisheng & Yuan, Hongping, 2010. "Exploring critical success factors for waste management in construction projects of China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 201-208.
    5. Yuan, Hongping & Wang, Jiayuan, 2014. "A system dynamics model for determining the waste disposal charging fee in construction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 988-996.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "Evolutionary Games in Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 637-666, May.
    8. Howard Raiffa, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms: Comment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 690-694.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deng Li & Ying Peng & Chunxiang Guo & Ruwen Tan, 2019. "Pricing Strategy of Construction and Demolition Waste Considering Retailer Fairness Concerns under a Governmental Regulation Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Xingwei Li & Ruonan Huang & Jiachi Dai & Jingru Li & Qiong Shen, 2021. "Research on the Evolutionary Game of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) Recycling Units’ Green Behavior, Considering Remanufacturing Capability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-32, September.
    3. Qixiang Wang & Linghui Kong & Jin Li & Bangyi Li & Fan Wang, 2020. "Behavioral Evolutionary Analysis between the Government and Uncertified Recycler in China’s E-Waste Recycling Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Hongyu Long & Hongyong Liu & Xingwei Li & Longjun Chen, 2020. "An Evolutionary Game Theory Study for Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Considering Green Development Performance under the Chinese Government’s Reward–Penalty Mechanism," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Lili Ding & Zhimeng Guo & Yuemei Xue, 2023. "Dump or recycle? Consumer's environmental awareness and express package disposal based on an evolutionary game model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6963-6986, July.
    6. Tinggui Chen & Yuling Zhang & Jianjun Yang & Guodong Cong & Guozhang Jiang & Gongfa Li, 2021. "Behavior Strategy Analysis Based on the Multi-Stakeholder Game under the Plastic Straw Ban in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-33, December.
    7. Li Wang & Yanhong Lv & Siyu Huang & Yu Liu & Xinrong Li, 2023. "The Evolution of Research on C&D Waste and Sustainable Development of Resources: A Bibliometric Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Yanmin Ouyang & Haoran Zhao, 2022. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Collaborative Prevention and Control for Public Health Emergencies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-20, November.
    9. Wenke Wang & Xiaoqiong You & Kebei Liu & Yenchun Jim Wu & Daming You, 2020. "Implementation of a Multi-Agent Carbon Emission Reduction Strategy under the Chinese Dual Governance System: An Evolutionary Game Theoretical Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-21, November.
    10. Yingxia Xue & Fang Liu & Guangbin Wang & Jungang Shao, 2023. "Research on Strategy Evolution of Contractor and Resident in Construction Stage of Old Community Renovation Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcello Basili & Carlo Zappia, 2010. "Ambiguity and uncertainty in Ellsberg and Shackle," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(3), pages 449-474.
    2. Wang, Zhihong & Li, Yangyang & Gu, Fu & Guo, Jianfeng & Wu, Xiaojun, 2020. "Two-sided matching and strategic selection on freight resource sharing platforms," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 559(C).
    3. Sun, Wenjun & Zhu, Changfeng & Li, Hui, 2022. "Evolutionary game of emergency logistics path selection under bounded rationality," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PB).
    4. Carlo Zappia, 2008. "Non-Bayesian decision theory ante-litteram: the case of G. L. S. Shackle," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 0408, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    5. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "A quantitative and qualitative test of the Allais paradox using health outcomes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 35-48, February.
    6. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    7. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    8. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    9. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    10. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    11. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    13. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    14. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    15. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    16. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    17. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    18. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    20. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:7:p:1518-:d:158594. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.