| Literature DB >> 36267556 |
Abstract
The adoption of intelligent construction technology (ICT) is regarded as one of the important strategies for the transformation and upgrading of the Chinese construction industry and the achievement of high-quality development. In the ICT adoption process, the government is the driving subject, the owner is an important subject, and ICT is applied in practice by the general contractor. This study first analyses the evolutionary process and the impact of participants' strategy choices on the system equilibrium by establishing a tripartite evolutionary game framework which includes the government, the owner, and the general contractor as the main stakeholders; then tests the feasibility and rationality of the model by analysing the ESS corresponding to the three phases of ICT adoption. The results show that the conditions for each ESS to be established mainly depend on the relationship between the costs and benefits of each stakeholder, and that owners are more sensitive to government subsidies and penalties than general contractors, so the government should establish a dynamic reward and punishment mechanism based on the results of the model. High adoption costs are a key barrier to ICT adoption for both owners and general contractors. This paper provides a new framework for research related to ICT adoption and a reference for the strategic adjustment of stakeholders in ICT adoption.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36267556 PMCID: PMC9578914 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9372443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
The specific applications of Evolutionary Game Theory in three areas.
| Research area | Author | Research content |
|---|---|---|
| Green building technology adoption | Yang et al. [ | They developed an evolutionary game optimization model to reveal the game strategy changes of various stakeholders and the effects of environmental policies on the adoption of green building technologies (GBTs) among alliance-based construction enterprises in order to hasten the adoption of GBTs among construction enterprises. |
| Chen et al. [ | To clarify how policy influences GBT adoption, this study developed a subsidised evolutionary game model to determine how government policy with positive incentives influences GBT adoption, with government and construction stakeholders selected as game players. | |
|
| ||
| BIM adoption | Liu [ | Based on evolutionary game theory, Liu [30] analyses the evolutionary process between government and developers in BIM adoption decisions, with a view to validating the effectiveness of government-developer interaction in promoting BIM adoption through mathematical modelling. |
| Jia et al. [ | To promote the application of BIM technology in PPP projects, Jia et al. [ | |
|
| ||
| Prefabricated construction | Wang et al. [ | To stimulate the adoption of prefabricated construction method, an evolutionary game model was established on the basis of variables influencing the strategy selection of game players for determining the effective incentive policies. The result shows that the incentives proposed by the government should not only target real estate enterprises but also focus on consumers, manufacturers of prefabricated components and contractors. |
| Li et al. [ | Li et al. [ | |
Figure 1The action mechanism between the government, owner, and general contractor of ICT adoption.
Description of major parameters.
| Parameters | Meaning |
|---|---|
|
| Social benefits to the government when only one of the owner and the general contractor proactively adopts ICT |
|
| Social benefits to the government when both the owner and the general contractor proactively adopt ICT |
|
| Social damage caused by passive government promotion and passive adoption by owners |
|
| The cost to the government when actively promoting |
|
| Subsidies (land concessions, tax concessions, etc.) received by owners who proactively adopt when the government actively promotes ICT |
|
| Subsidies (financial compensation, etc.) for the general contractor's efforts when the government actively promotes ICT |
|
| Penalties for passive adoption of ICT by owners when actively promoted by the government |
|
| Penalties for lack of effort by general contractors when actively promoted by the government |
|
| Impairment value for owners' proactive ICT adoption when government passively promotes it |
|
| Costs paid by owners for proactive ICT adoption |
|
| Excess cost to owners for passive ICT adoption |
|
| Costs incurred by general contractor efforts |
|
| The benefits of passive ICT adoption by owners |
|
| Benefits from the owner's proactive adoption of ICT (including financial benefits, reputational benefits, etc.) |
|
| Fixed income for general contractors |
|
| Owner's reward for general contractor's efforts |
|
| Value of impairment to the owner for ICT adoption due to lack of effort by general contractor |
Game payoff matrix.
| Stakeholders | Owners | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Proactive adoption ( | Passive adoption (1 − | ||
| Government | General |
|
|
| Contractors |
|
| |
| Effort ( |
|
| |
|
| |||
| Active promotion ( | General |
| − |
| Contractors |
|
| |
| Lack of effort (1-z) |
|
| |
|
| |||
| Government | General |
|
|
| Contractors |
|
| |
| Effort ( |
|
| |
|
| |||
| Passive promotion (1 − | General |
| − |
| Contractors |
|
| |
| Lack of effort (1 − |
|
| |
Eigenvalues and stability conditions for each equilibrium point.
| Equilibrium points | Eigenvalue | Stability conditions | Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| (0,0,0) | B1-C4 | L-C1 + P1 + P2 | C3-C2-D-S1 + S2 |
| ESS |
| (1,0,0) | C1-L-P1-P2 | B1-C4 + G2 + P2 | C3-C2 + G1 + P1-S1 + S2 |
| ESS |
| (0,1,0) | B1-C4 | P2-G1-C1 | C2-C3 + D + S1-S2 |
| ESS |
| (0,0,1) | C4-B1 | L-G2-C1 + P1 | C3-C2-D-S1 + S2 |
| ESS |
| (1,1,0) | C1 + G1-P2 | B1-C4 + G2 + P2 | C2-C3-G1-P1 + S1-S2 |
| ESS |
| (1,0,1) | C1 + G2-L-P1 | C4-B1-G2-P2 | C3-C2 + G1 + P1-S1 + S2 |
| ESS |
| (0,1,1) | C4-B1 | -C1-G1-G2 | C2-C3 + D + S1-S2 |
| ESS |
| (1,1,1) | C1 + G1 + G2 | C4-B1-G2-P2 | C2-C3-G1-P1 + S1-S2 |
| Unstable |
The parameter values for each stage in the evolutionary game model.
| Parameter | R1 | R2 | L | C1 | G1 | G2 | P1 | P2 | D | C2 | C3 | C4 | S1 | S2 | S3 | B1 | B2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | 5 | 10 | 6 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 25 | 10 | 15 | 25 | 35 | 20 | 5 | 10 |
| Development | 5 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 4 | 25 | 15 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 25 | 5 | 10 |
| Maturity | 5 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 35 | 50 | 25 | 8 | 4 |
Figure 2Evolution process of the system in the initial stage.
Figure 3Evolution process of the system in the development stage.
Figure 4Evolution process of the system in the maturity stage.
Figure 5Impact of government financial subsidy G on the strategy evolution of the system.
Figure 6Impact of government penalty P on the strategy evolution of the system.
Figure 7Impact of cost C2, C4 on the strategy evolution of the system.