IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2163-d749010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolutionary Game Model of Internal Threats to Nuclear Security in Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plants Based on RDEU Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Susu Ni

    (School of Economics Management and Law, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China)

  • Shuliang Zou

    (School of Economics Management and Law, University of South China, Hengyang 421001, China)

  • Jiahua Chen

    (Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Emergency Safety Technology and Equipment for Nuclear Facilities, Hengyang 421001, China)

Abstract

The internal threat to nuclear security is one of the most serious problems in the physical protection supervision of spent fuel reprocessing plants. Both insiders and nuclear security departments have obvious characteristics of situational decision making and even irrational decision making. Combined with Game theory and RDEU theory, the RDEU Game model of insiders and nuclear security departments was constructed to analyze the existence of equilibrium solutions of two-way strategies under different emotional states. From a dynamic point of view, the influence and change process of emotion on participants’ decision-making behavior were analyzed. Then, the model was numerically simulated to verify its accuracy and effectiveness, which showed that different emotional states and intensities would not only affect the final result of evolutionary equilibrium, but also change the evolution speed of the strategies. In addition, compared with insiders, the intensity of pessimism in the nuclear security department had a greater impact on the game equilibrium. Finally, we present some reasonable recommendations to prevent and protect nuclear security events at spent fuel reprocessing plants by strengthening the emotional supervision and guidance of insiders and the nuclear security department.

Suggested Citation

  • Susu Ni & Shuliang Zou & Jiahua Chen, 2022. "Evolutionary Game Model of Internal Threats to Nuclear Security in Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plants Based on RDEU Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2163-:d:749010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2163/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2163/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fei He & Jun Zhuang & Nageswara S. V. Rao, 2020. "Discrete game-theoretic analysis of defense in correlated cyber-physical systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 741-767, November.
    2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    3. Zou, Bowen & Yang, Ming & Zhang, Yuxin & Benjamin, Emi-Reynolds & Tan, Ke & Wu, Wenfei & Yoshikawa, Hidekazu, 2018. "Evaluation of vulnerable path: Using heuristic path-finding algorithm in physical protection system of nuclear power plant," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 90-99.
    4. Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Yanwei Zhang & Kaifeng Duan, 2020. "The Weapon of the Weak: An Analysis of RDEU Game in the Conflict of Farmland Expropriation under the Influence of Emotion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, April.
    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. Hongbo Guo & Mengtong Lu & Lili Ding, 2022. "The Effect of Consumer Sentiment on Manufacturers’ Green Technology Innovation: A RDEU Evolutionary Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Cuiyue Wei & Shoulong Xu & Shuliang Zou & Fang Zhao & Zhiwei Qin & Hanfeng Dong & Zhixiong Hou, 2022. "Risk Analysis and Evaluation of Nuclear Security Radiation Events in Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.

    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. Hongbo Guo & Mengtong Lu & Lili Ding, 2022. "The Effect of Consumer Sentiment on Manufacturers’ Green Technology Innovation: A RDEU Evolutionary Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2021. "Entry-Proofness and Discriminatory Pricing under Adverse Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(8), pages 2623-2659, August.
    3. Ralph W. Bailey & Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2005. "Ambiguity and Public Good Provision in Large Societies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(5), pages 741-759, December.
    4. 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).
    5. Drouhin, Nicolas, 2015. "A rank-dependent utility model of uncertain lifetime," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 208-224.
    6. Choo, Weihao & de Jong, Piet, 2015. "The tradeoff insurance premium as a two-sided generalisation of the distortion premium," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 238-246.
    7. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    8. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 2001. "The independence axiom and asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 537-572, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    11. 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.
    12. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    14. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    15. Haliassos, Michael & Hassapis, Christis, 2001. "Non-expected Utility, Saving and Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 69-102, January.
    16. Houba, Harold & Tieman, Alexander F. & Brinksma, Rene, 1998. "The Nash bargaining solution for decision weight utility functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 41-48, July.
    17. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub & Edmund Phelps, 2012. "Contracting for Innovation under Knightian Uncertainty," Cahiers de recherche 18-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    18. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    19. Courtault, Jean-Michel & Gayant, Jean-Pascal, 1998. "Local risk aversion in the rank dependent expected utility model: First order versus second order effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 207-212, May.
    20. A. Alventosa & Y. Gómez & V. Martínez-Molés & J. Vila, 2016. "Location and Innovation Optimism: a Behavioral-Experimental Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 890-904, December.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2163-:d:749010. 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.