| Literature DB >> 35162349 |
Jida Liu1, Yuwei Song1, Shi An1, Changqi Dong1.
Abstract
To reveal the interaction and influence mechanism between emergency rescue entities, and to explore and optimize a cooperation mechanism of emergency rescue entities, a tripartite evolutionary game model of emergency rescue cooperation based on government rescue teams, social emergency organizations, and government support institutions was constructed. The stability of each game subject's strategy choice was explored. Simulation analysis was applied to investigate the influence mechanism of key parameters on the evolution of the game subject's strategy combination. The research results show that government rescue teams, social emergency organizations, and government support institutions have consistent political demands and rescue targets in emergency rescue cooperation. The game subjects are driving forces for each other to choose positive strategies. The game evolution process of the emergency cooperation model shows a "mobilization-coordination" feature. At the same time, the emergency capital stock formed based on trust relationships, information matching, and institutional norms between game subjects can promote the evolution of the game system toward (1,1,1). In addition, for government organizations with limited emergency resources, the average allocation of emergency resources is not the optimal solution for emergency rescue efficiency. However, it is easier to achieve the overall target of emergency rescue cooperation by investing limited emergency resources in key variables that match the on-site situation. On this basis, combined with the practice of emergency rescues in emergencies, countermeasures and solutions are proposed to optimize the mechanism and improve the efficiency of emergency rescue cooperation.Entities:
Keywords: emergency capital stock; emergency cooperation; emergency management; emergency rescue; evolutionary game theory
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162349 PMCID: PMC8835695 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031326
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The game relationship between the government rescue team, the social emergency organization, and the government support institution.
Definition of parameters.
| Symbol | Definition | Ranges |
|---|---|---|
|
| The benefits of disaster loss reduction and social security stability gained by the government rescue team through the implementation of emergency operations. | |
|
| The incentive and compensation income obtained by the government support institution under the positive response strategy. | |
|
| The organization, manpower, equipment, and technical costs paid by the government rescue team to achieve the rescue target and carry out the emergency rescue work. | |
|
| The organization cost and communication transaction cost paid by the social emergency organization participating in emergency rescues. | |
|
| The cost paid by the government support institution to provide various support measures, emergency procurement, compensation, and reward for the rescue organization. | |
|
| The rewards and support obtained by the social emergency organization from government departments. | |
|
| The compensation for the cost of manpower, equipment, and materials paid by the social emergency organization from the governments. | |
|
| Total perception of losses caused by emergencies and derivative disasters for the government rescue team. | |
|
| Total perception of losses caused by emergencies and derivative disasters for the government support institution. | |
|
| The punishment and accountability obtained by the government rescue team from the superior governments. | |
|
| The punishment and accountability obtained by the government support institution from the superior governments. | |
|
| The benefits of trust and social reputation obtained by the social emergency organization from the recognition of the government departments. | |
|
| The additional support costs paid by the emergency rescue organizations to maintain the rescue efficiency of the government rescue team and the social emergency organization. | |
|
| The emergency capital stock formed between the government rescue team and the social emergency organization based on trust relationships and institutional norms. | |
|
| The emergency capital stock formed between the government support institution and the social emergency organization based on information matching. | |
|
| The additional management costs paid by the government rescue team to dissipate the redundancy of emergency rescue cooperation. | |
|
| The additional management costs paid by the social emergency organization to dissipate the redundancy of emergency rescue cooperation. | |
|
| The implementation efficiency of emergency rescues. | 0 ≤ |
|
| The effect coefficient of emergency cooperation. | 0 ≤ |
|
| The intensity coefficient of emergency support. | 0 ≤ |
The payoff matrix under the government support institution’s positive response strategy.
| The Government Support Institution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive Response ( | ||||
|
|
|
| Orderly participation ( |
|
| Disordered participation (1 − |
| |||
| Negative collaboration (1 − | Orderly participation ( |
| ||
| Disordered participation (1 − |
| |||
The payoff matrix under the government support institution’s negative response strategy.
| The Government Support Institution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative Response (1 − | ||||
| The government rescue team | Positive collaboration ( | The social emergency organization | Orderly participation ( |
|
| Disordered participation (1 − |
| |||
| Negative collaboration (1 − | Orderly participation ( |
| ||
| Disordered participation (1 − | ||||
Figure 2Evolutionary phase diagram of the government rescue team’s strategy.
Figure 3Evolutionary phase diagram of the social emergency organization’s strategy.
Figure 4Evolutionary phase diagram of the government support institution’s strategy.
Figure 5Evolution trajectory of the game system under different emergency capital stocks between the government rescue team and the social emergency organization. (a) The influence of A1 on the evolution of the game system. (b) The influence of A1 on the evolution of the government rescue team. (c) The influence of A1 on the evolution of the social emergency organization. (d) The influence of A1 on the evolution of the government support institution.
Figure 6Evolution trajectory of the game system under different emergency capital stocks between the government support institution and the social emergency organization. (a) The influence of A2 on the evolution of the game system. (b) The influence of A2 on the evolution of the government rescue team. (c) The influence of A2 on the evolution of the social emergency organization. (d) The influence of A2 on the evolution of the government support institution.
Figure 7Evolution trajectory of the game system under different effect coefficients of emergency cooperation. (a) The influence of θ on the evolution of the game system. (b) The influence of θ on the evolution of the government rescue team. (c) The influence of θ on the evolution of the social emergency organization. (d) The influence of θ on the evolution of the government support institution.
Figure 8Evolution trajectory of the game system under different implementation efficiencies of emergency rescues. (a) The influence of α on the evolution of the game system. (b) The influence of α on the evolution of the government rescue team. (c) The influence of α on the evolution of the social emergency organization. (d) The influence of α on the evolution of the government support institution.
Figure 9Evolution trajectory of the game system under different intensity coefficients of emergency support. (a) The influence of ω on the evolution of the game system. (b) The influence of ω on the evolution of the government rescue team. (c) The influence of ω on the evolution of the social emergency organization. (d) The influence of ω on the evolution of the government support institution.