IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14318-d1249702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Decision for a Port Shore Power Supply System Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory and an Improved Gray Target

Author

Listed:
  • Chaojun Ding

    (School of Naval Architecture and Maritime, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316022, China)

  • Tianshou Liu

    (School of Naval Architecture and Maritime, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan 316022, China)

Abstract

Considering carbon neutral development strategies, ecological ports and green growth concepts have become the future development trend of ports. As an important technology for green port construction, the stable operation of port shore power systems is particularly important. However, as a new field of transmission system, the development of port shore power is also facing many new risks and challenges. For example, the shore power system has security risks as well as technical and economic difficulties. There are also problems such as the lack of regulations on shore power systems. To ensure the safe and stable operation of a port grid system, this paper proposes a risk decision method for a transmission system in a market environment based on interval number and cumulative prospect theory. Based on the constructed risk evaluation index system of a port shore power supply system, a risk decision model based on cumulative prospect theory and an improved gray target risk model (CPT-IGT) are constructed considering the uncertainty and ambiguity of the index attributes and weight information as well as the risk attitude held by decision-makers; these models are developed with improved interval gray number and cumulative prospect theory. Finally, a case study applied to the risk decision of a port shore power supply system verified the reasonableness and effectiveness of the method. The results show that the proposed method has some advantages in dealing with language terms, representing language uncertainty, and reflecting risk decisions in different environments. The research can provide a theoretical basis for the risk assessment of a port power system in the future and provide suggestions for the green growth of the port.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaojun Ding & Tianshou Liu, 2023. "Risk Decision for a Port Shore Power Supply System Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory and an Improved Gray Target," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14318-:d:1249702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14318/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14318/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winkel, R. & Weddige, U. & Johnsen, D. & Hoen, V. & Papaefthimiou, S., 2016. "Shore Side Electricity in Europe: Potential and environmental benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 584-593.
    2. 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..
    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. Lintong Jia & Zhongxiang Tong & Chaozhe Wang & Shenbo Li, 2016. "Aircraft Combat Survivability Calculation Based on Combination Weighting and Multiattribute Intelligent Grey Target Decision Model," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2016, pages 1-9, February.
    5. Serrano González, J. & Burgos Payán, M. & Riquelme Santos, J., 2013. "Optimum design of transmissions systems for offshore wind farms including decision making under risk," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 115-127.
    6. Zhengxin He & Jasmine Siu Lee Lam & Maohan Liang, 2023. "Impact of Disruption on Ship Emissions in Port: Case of Pandemic in Long Beach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, 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. Shiwei Peng & Kaixin Qiu & Bowei Yang & Jifeng Ai & An Zhou, 2024. "Experimental Study on the Durability Performance of Sustainable Mortar with Partial Replacement of Natural Aggregates by Fiber-Reinforced Agricultural Waste Walnut Shells," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-30, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    17. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    18. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    19. 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.
    20. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.

    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:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14318-:d:1249702. 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.