IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2577-d1053200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolutionary Game Analysis of the Utilization of Construction Waste Resources Based on Prospect Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Yuling Wang

    (School of Management Engineering, Zhejiang Guangsha Vocational and Technical University of Construction, Dongyang 322100, China)

  • Chunfu Wang

    (School of CML Engineering Architecture, Zhejiang Guangsha Vocational and Technical University of Construction, Dongyang 322100, China)

  • Xiaopeng Deng

    (School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China)

  • Zezhou Wu

    (Sino-Australia Joint Research Center in BIM and Smart Construction, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China)

Abstract

Strengthening the resource utilization of construction waste can improve the environment, alleviate resource shortage, and build a harmonious ecological environment between man and nature. Prospect theory was integrated into trilateral evolutionary game theory to analyze the processes of resource utilization of construction waste among local government, construction enterprises, and the public by establishing the perceived payoff matrix of the three players in the game and using the replication dynamic equation to analyze their strategy choices and evolution path. The results showed that the strategies of the three players depended on the strategies chosen by the other side, the perceived value of the relevant parameters, and the numerical relations among them. Under the conditions that the local government reasonably controlled the supervision cost and the degree of rewards and punishments, the construction enterprise promoted the resource-based technology and management means, and the public enhanced the sense of social responsibility, the game model would evolve toward the ideal state of (1,1,1), to realize the resource utilization of construction waste.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuling Wang & Chunfu Wang & Xiaopeng Deng & Zezhou Wu, 2023. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of the Utilization of Construction Waste Resources Based on Prospect Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2577-:d:1053200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2577/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2577/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ritzberger, Klaus & Weibull, Jorgen W, 1995. "Evolutionary Selection in Normal-Form Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1371-1399, November.
    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. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    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. Yan Li & Jiale Zhang, 2024. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of Low-Carbon Incentive Behaviour of Power Battery Recycling Based on Prospect Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-24, March.
    2. Xinpei Qiao & Hyukku Lee & Qi Shen & Yuchao Li, 2023. "Research on the Tripartite Evolutionary Game of Zero-Waste City Construction in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-19, July.

    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. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    2. Shoshan, Vered & Hazan, Tamir & Plonsky, Ori, 2023. "BEAST-Net: Learning novel behavioral insights using a neural network adaptation of a behavioral model," OSF Preprints kaeny, Center for Open Science.
    3. 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.
    4. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    5. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    6. Felici, Marco & Kenny, Geoff & Friz, Roberta, 2023. "Consumer savings behaviour at low and negative interest rates," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    8. Dominika Czyz & Karolina Safarzynska, 2023. "Catastrophic Damages and the Optimal Carbon Tax Under Loss Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 303-340, June.
    9. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    11. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    13. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    14. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    15. Carlo Barone & Katherin Barg & Mathieu Ichou, 2021. "Relative risk aversion models: How plausible are their assumptions?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 33(2), pages 143-175, May.
    16. Mohit Anand & Ruiqing Miao & Madhu Khanna, 2019. "Adopting bioenergy crops: Does farmers’ attitude toward loss matter?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 435-450, July.
    17. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Asset Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 623-628, May.
    18. repec:dgr:rugsom:14022-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Edsel L. Beja, 2017. "The Asymmetric Effects of Macroeconomic Performance on Happiness: Evidence for the EU," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 52(3), pages 184-190, May.
    20. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & George Ward & Femke De Keulenaer & Bert Van Landeghem & Georgios Kavetsos & Michael I. Norton, 2018. "The Asymmetric Experience of Positive and Negative Economic Growth: Global Evidence Using Subjective Well-Being Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 362-375, May.
    21. de Koning, Koen & Filatova, Tatiana & Bin, Okmyung, 2017. "Bridging the Gap Between Revealed and Stated Preferences in Flood-prone Housing Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.

    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:3:p:2577-:d:1053200. 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.