| Literature DB >> 31324046 |
Zongjie Pi1, Xin Gao1, Linyan Chen2, Jinghua Liu1.
Abstract
Evidence shows that there are many work-related accidents and injuries happening in construction projects and governments have taken a series of administrative measures to reduce casualties in recent years. However, traditional approaches have reached a bottleneck due to ignoring market forces, and thus new measures should be conducted. This study develops a perspective of safety performance (SP) for construction projects in China and puts forward a conception of the safety information system by using several brainstorming sessions to strengthen the safety supervision of participants in the construction industry. This system provides rating information to the public, and bad performance contractors enter into a blacklist which will influence their economic activities. Considering the limited rationality of government and various contractors, this paper builds a reasonable evolutionary game model to verify the feasibility of the safety information system. The analysis results show that there is not a single set of evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs), as different situations may lead to different ESSs. The efficiency of applying the safety information system (the blacklist) in the construction industry can be proved by reducing the government's safety supervision cost and by enhancing construction safety at the same time.Entities:
Keywords: construction industry; evolutionary game; safety performance
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31324046 PMCID: PMC6650957 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16132443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Relationships among participants and their duties.
Figure 2Structure of safety information system in construction industry.
Summary of notations.
| Symbol | Description |
|---|---|
|
| Normal business revenue to the contractors, |
|
| Revenue to the contractors when they do not obey the rules and the government have the safety supervision, |
|
| Cost of safety construction to the contractors who obey the rules, |
|
| Cost of safety supervision to the government, |
|
| Biggest loss caused by safety accidents, |
|
| Accident probability when contractors obey the rules, |
|
| Accident probability when contractors do not obey the rules, |
|
| All types of administrative penalties which government imposes by adopting supervisory measures when contractors do not obey the rules, |
|
| The government revenues, |
|
| Benefit coefficient of government which based on the assumption that the government’s benefits are positively correlated with the normal business revenue to the contractors, |
|
| Safety accident cost coefficient to the government when the government supervises contractors, |
|
| Safety accident cost coefficient to the government when the government does not supervise contractors, |
Payoff matrix between government and contractors.
| Contractors | Government | |
|---|---|---|
| Supervise | Not Supervise | |
| Obey |
|
|
| Not Obey |
|
|
Judging standard of ESS.
| Sign of det | Sign of tr | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Negative | Uncertain | A saddle points. |
| Positive | Positive | An unstable point. |
| Positive | Negative | A stable point. An ESS is found. |
Equation of detJ and trJ of five possible equilibrium points.
| Equilibrium | Equation of det |
|---|---|
| E |
|
|
| |
| E |
|
|
| |
| E |
|
|
| |
| E |
|
|
| |
| E |
|
|
|
Representation of formulas.
| Symbol | Formula | Symbol | Formula |
|---|---|---|---|
| a |
| c |
|
| b |
| d |
|
Figure 3Diagram of classification.
Proposition 1: Analysis of local stability of equilibrium.
| Equilibrium | Case 1 | Case 2-1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| det | tr | Result | det | tr | Result | |
| E1(0,0) | + | - | Stable | + | - | Stable |
| E2(0,1) | - | ± | Saddle | + | + | Unstable |
| E3(1,0) | - | ± | Saddle | - | ± | Saddle |
| E4(1,1) | + | + | Unstable | - | ± | Saddle |
|
|
| |||||
| E1(0,0) | + | - | Stable | + | - | Stable |
| E2(0,1) | + | + | Unstable | - | ± | Saddle |
| E3(1,0) | - | ± | Saddle | + | + | Unstable |
| E4(1,1) | - | ± | Saddle | - | ± | Saddle |
| E5(x*,y*) | + | 0 | Center | |||
|
| ||||||
| E1(0,0) | + | - | Stable | |||
| E2(0,1) | + | + | Unstable | |||
| E3(1,0) | + | + | Unstable | |||
| E4(1,1) | + | - | Stable | |||
Note: + represents the sign is positive; - represents sign is negative; ± represents the sign is uncertain.
Figure 4Diagram on dynamic evolution of equilibrium points in , (a) Case 1 (b) Case 2-1 (c) Case 2-2 (d) Case 3 (e) Case 4.
Proposition 2: Analysis of local stability of equilibrium.
| Equilibrium | Case 5 | Case 6 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| det | tr | Result | det | tr | Result | |
| E1(0,0) | - | ± | Saddle | - | ± | Saddle |
| E2(0,1) | + | - | Stable | + | - | Stable |
| E3(1,0) | - | ± | Saddle | + | + | Unstable |
| E4(1,1) | + | + | Unstable | - | ± | Saddle |
Note: + represents the sign is positive; - represents sign is negative; ± represents the sign is uncertain.
Figure 5Diagram on dynamic evolution of equilibrium points in , (a) Case 5 (b) Case 6.
Proposition 3: Analysis of local stability of equilibrium.
| Equilibrium | Case 7 | Case 8 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| det | tr | Result | det | tr | Result | |
| E1(0,0) | - | ± | Saddle | + | + | Unstable |
| E2(0,1) | + | + | Unstable | - | ± | Saddle |
| E3(1,0) | + | - | Stable | + | - | Stable |
| E4(1,1) | - | ± | Saddle | - | ± | Saddle |
Note: + represents the sign is positive; - represents sign is negative; ± represents the sign is uncertain.
Figure 6Diagram on Dynamic Evolution of Equilibrium Points in , (a) Case7 (b) Case 8.
Proposition 4: Analysis of local stability of equilibrium.
| Equilibrium | Case 4 | Case 9 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| det | tr | Result | det | tr | Result | |
| E1(0,0) | + | - | Stable | - | ± | Saddle |
| E2(0,1) | + | + | Unstable | + | + | Unstable |
| E3(1,0) | + | + | Unstable | - | ± | Saddle |
| E4(1,1) | + | - | Stable | + | - | Stable |
|
|
| |||||
| E1(0,0) | - | ± | Saddle | + | - | Unstable |
| E2(0,1) | - | ± | Saddle | - | ± | Saddle |
| E3(1,0) | + | + | Unstable | - | ± | Saddle |
| E4(1,1) | + | - | Stable | + | - | Stable |
Note: + represents the sign is positive; - represents sign is negative; ± represents the sign is uncertain.
Figure 7Diagram on Dynamic Evolution of Equilibrium Points in , (a) Case 4 (b) Case 9 (c) Case 10 (d) Case 11.
Proposition 5: Analysis of local stability of equilibrium.
| Equilibrium | Case 12 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| det | tr | Result | |
| E1(0,0) | - | ± | Unstable |
| E2(0,1) | - | ± | Unstable |
| E3(1,0) | - | ± | Unstable |
| E4(1,1) | - | ± | Unstable |
| E5(x*,y*) | + | 0 | Center |
Note: + represents the sign is positive; - represents sign is negative; ± represents the sign is uncertain.
Figure 8Diagram on dynamic evolution of equilibrium points in
Figure 9Circular process of evolutionary game between government and contractors in Case 12.
Category of cases based on stable points.
| Stable Point | Category | Ultimate Strategy |
|---|---|---|
|
| Case 1, Case 2, Case 3, Case 4 | {not to obey the rules, not to supervise} |
|
| Case 5, Case 6 | {not to obey the rules, supervise} |
|
| Case 7, Case 8 | {obey the rules, not to supervise} |
|
| Case 4, Case9, Case10, Case 11 | {obey the rules, supervise} |
| None | Case 12 | Circular process |