| Literature DB >> 35614166 |
Hui Zhao1, Xin Liu2, Yiting Wang1.
Abstract
Sponge City Public Private Partnership (PPP) project is a significant step to promote the construction of resilient city and sustainable development. Private companies take advantage of information asymmetry and regulatory loopholes to take opportunistic behavior, which affects the project delivery quality and public interests. In order to reveal the decision-making mechanism of the main stakeholders, this paper constructs an evolutionary game model of private companies, citizens and the government from a fresh perspective of perceived value. First, the traditional payoff matrix is modified by combining Prospect Theory and Mental Accounting. Next, this paper analyzes the strategic evolution law and stability conditions of game players by replicated dynamic equation. Finally, Nanganqu project is used for empirical simulation to verify the effectiveness of this model. Results indicate that, (1) due to the complexity of the project and the bounded rationality of the participants, there is no evolutionary stable strategy in this game system. (2) The behavioral decision of participants is affected by perceived incomes and perceived costs. (3) Government punishment and reputation loss can effectively curb the opportunistic behavior. All above studies are expected to improve the management of Sponge City PPP projects, providing theoretical guidance for the government to make scientific decisions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35614166 PMCID: PMC9132952 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12830-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Sketch of sponge city.
Figure 2Statistics of Sponge City distribution.
Figure 3The construction area of Sponge City projects in China.
Figure 4The value functions of cost and income mental accounting.
Figure 5The weigh function of mental accounting.
Figure 6Main stakeholders of Sponge City PPP project.
Figure 7Cost–benefit diagram of opportunistic and hardworking construction.
Parameter definitions of tripartite evolutionary game model.
| Parameters | Description |
|---|---|
| The total construction investment of SC PPP project | |
| The construction cost when private companies choose strategy P1 | |
| The reputation loss for private companies when opportunistic behavior is revealed | |
| Fines of opportunistic behavior for private companies | |
| The compensation for citizens from private companies | |
| The ecological income for citizens when private companies choose strategy P1 | |
| The cost for citizens when choosing strategy C1 | |
| The rewards income of citizens for revealing under strategy G1 | |
| The income when the government choose strategy G1 | |
| The income when the government choose strategy G2 | |
| The additional supervision cost for the government to handle public reports | |
| The reputation loss for government when opportunistic behavior is revealed | |
| Discount coefficient of cost under opportunistic construction | |
| Discount coefficient of income under opportunistic construction |
Figure 8Game tree and traditional expected payoff.
Perceived payoff matrix based on Prospect Theory and Mental Accounting.
| The government G1 | The government G2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Citizens C1 | P1: | P1: |
| C1: | C1: | |
| G1: | G2: | |
| Citizens C2 | P1: | P1: |
| C2: | C2: | |
| G1: | G2: | |
| Citizens C1 | P2: | P2: |
| C1: | C1: | |
| G1: | G2: | |
| Citizens C2 | P2: | P2: |
| C2: | C2: | |
| G1: | G2: | |
Figure 9Replicated dynamic phase diagram of private company.
Figure 10Replicated dynamic phase diagram of citizen.
Figure 11Replicated dynamic phase diagram of the government.
Equilibrium points and eigenvalues of tripartite evolutionary game model.
| Equilibrium points | Eigenvalues | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Figure 12Location of the study area.
Initial parameter values of tripartite evolutionary game model.
| Parameters | Rationale | Value/hundred million RMB |
|---|---|---|
| According to the official documents, the project cost in the contract is 756 million RMB and other costs of project construction are 121 million RMB. Therefore, the total construction investment | 8.77 | |
| The total construction area of this project is 3.84 km2. Under the hardworking construction strategy P1, we assume that the construction cost per square kilometer is 1.8 hundred RMB, then the value of | 6.912 | |
| The total population of Wuhan is 12.3 million. Assuming that the reputation value of each person is 10 RMB, so that | 1.23 | |
| Government penalty | 0.877 | |
| The compensation from the private companies to the public is assumed to be 1.1 times the benefit of opportunistic behavior. Thus, the value of | 0.836 | |
| The environmental benefit from hardworking behavior of private companies is set at 1.2 times the value of construction cost | 8.2944 | |
| The total population of Wuhan is 12.3million. The supervision cost per person is assumed to be 10RMB, with a total value of 1.23 hundred million RMB | 1.23 | |
| The value of rewards for reporting opportunistic behavior by the public is assumed to be equal to the value of opportunistic income of private companies. Thus, the initial value of | 0.76 | |
| Under the strict regulation strategy G1, the government’s income is set to be equal to the construction investment | 8.77 | |
| Under the loose regulation strategy G2, the government’s income is assumed to be equal to the value of discount coefficient | 7.805 | |
| The total public budget expenditure of Qingshan District in Wuhan in 2021 is 19.92 hundred million RMB. The additional Supervision cost is calculated at 10% of the total expenditure, which is 1.992 hundred million RMB | 1.992 | |
| Based on the total population of Wuhan, the reputation loss for the government is assumed to be 1.23 hundred million RMB | 1.23 | |
| We assume that the construction costs per square kilometer under strategy G1 and strategy G2 are 1.8 hundred million RMB and 1.6 hundred million RMB, respectively. Thus, the value of | 0.89 | |
| The value of discount coefficient of income | 0.89 |
Figure 13Evolutionary path diagram under various initial probabilities.
Figure 14Evolution of strategies under different cost reference values .
Figure 15Behavior evolution of three players under different government punishments .
Figure 16Behavior evolution of three players under different supervision cost .
Figure 17Behavior evolution of three players under different discount coefficient .
Figure 18Behavior evolution of three players under different reputation loss .