IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v15y2018i2p55-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling and Validating Public–Private Partnerships in Disaster Management

Author

Listed:
  • Peiqiu Guan

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Jing Zhang

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Vineet M. Payyappalli

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260)

  • Jun Zhuang

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260)

Abstract

This paper applies game theory and expected utility theory models to study the optimal public–private partnerships (PPPs) in disaster preparedness considering the uncertain consequences of the disasters, the investment costs, and the private sector’s potential risk attitudes, including risk-seeking behavior, risk aversion, and risk neutrality. We study the private sector’s best response and the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium solutions. Our results show that the public sector provides the least amount of subsidy to the risk-averse private sector and the highest amount of subsidy to the risk-seeking private sector. On the contrary, the risk-averse private sector invests the most, and the risk-seeking private sector invests the least. Finally, we validate the model results using a two-stage experiment with 91 participants. This paper provides insights into how to construct win–win PPPs in disaster preparedness with considerations of the private sector’s risk behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Peiqiu Guan & Jing Zhang & Vineet M. Payyappalli & Jun Zhuang, 2018. "Modeling and Validating Public–Private Partnerships in Disaster Management," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 55-71, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:55-71
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2017.0361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2017.0361
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2017.0361?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. S. Dodgson, 1986. "Benefits of Changes in Urban Public Transport Subsidies in the Major Australian Cities," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 62(2), pages 224-235, June.
    2. Paul Raschky & Hannelore Weck-Hannemann, 2007. "Charity hazard - A real hazard to natural disaster insurance," Working Papers 2007-04, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    3. Vicki M. Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat & Jaime Menoyo & Rae Zimmerman & Alison M. Culpen, 2008. "Optimal Resource Allocation for Defense of Targets Based on Differing Measures of Attractiveness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 763-770, June.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Mohsen Golalikhani & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Modeling Arbitrary Layers of Continuous‐Level Defenses in Facing with Strategic Attackers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 533-547, April.
    6. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2007. "Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters---Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 976-991, October.
    7. Brookshire, David S & Thayer. Mark A & Tschirhart, John & Schulze, William D, 1985. "A Test of the Expected Utility Model: Evidence from Earthquake Risks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 369-389, April.
    8. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2015. "Modeling Public–Private Partnerships in Disaster Management via Centralized and Decentralized Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 173-189, December.
    9. Terrence August & Tunay I. Tunca, 2006. "Network Software Security and User Incentives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1703-1720, November.
    10. Paul Schultz, T., 2004. "School subsidies for the poor: evaluating the Mexican Progresa poverty program," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 199-250, June.
    11. Kenneth J. Arrow & Robert C. Lind, 1974. "Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 3, pages 54-75, Palgrave Macmillan.
    12. repec:inm:ordeca:v:14:y:2015:i:4:p:173-189 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    14. Dodgson, J S, 1986. "Benefits of Changes in Urban Public Transport Subsidies in the Major Australian Cities," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 62(177), pages 224-235, June.
    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. Vicki M. Bier & Simon French, 2020. "From the Editors: Decision Analysis Focus and Trends," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8, March.
    2. Feng, Zhuo & Song, Jinbo & Yang, Xiaoxing & Guo, Ran, 2023. "Contractual flexibility, firm effort, and subsidy design: A comparison of PPP project contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(1), pages 484-496.
    3. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).

    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. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2015. "Modeling Public–Private Partnerships in Disaster Management via Centralized and Decentralized Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 173-189, December.
    2. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüs, 2015. "On the value of terrorist’s private information in a government’s defensive resource allocation problem," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 533-555, June.
    3. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling Resources Allocation in Attacker‐Defender Games with “Warm Up” CSF," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 776-791, April.
    4. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    5. Ridwan Al Aziz & Meilin He & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "An Attacker–defender Resource Allocation Game with Substitution and Complementary Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1481-1506, July.
    6. Mohammad Ebrahim Nikoofal & Morteza Pourakbar & Mehmet Gumus, 2023. "Securing containerized supply chain through public and private partnership," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(7), pages 2341-2361, July.
    7. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    8. Mohsen Golalikhani & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Modeling Arbitrary Layers of Continuous‐Level Defenses in Facing with Strategic Attackers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 533-547, April.
    9. Xiaojun (Gene) Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2014. "Modeling Credible Retaliation Threats in Deterring the Smuggling of Nuclear Weapons Using Partial Inspection---A Three-Stage Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 43-62, March.
    10. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    11. Ian W. H. Parry & Kenneth A. Small, 2009. "Should Urban Transit Subsidies Be Reduced?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 700-724, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    14. Andrea Morone & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2006. "Valuing Protection against Low Probability, High Loss Risks: Experimental Evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-34, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    15. Zhang, Jing & Wang, Yan & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Modeling multi-target defender-attacker games with quantal response attack strategies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    16. Deng, Guoying & Gan, Li & Hernandez, Manuel A., 2015. "Do natural disasters cause an excessive fear of heights? Evidence from the Wenchuan earthquake," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 79-89.
    17. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    19. Haven, Emmanuel & Khrennikova, Polina, 2018. "A quantum-probabilistic paradigm: Non-consequential reasoning and state dependence in investment choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 186-197.
    20. Kobi Kriesler & Shmuel Nitzan, 2009. "Framing-based Choice: A Model of Decision-making Under Risk," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 25, pages 65-89.

    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:inm:ordeca:v:15:y:2018:i:2:p:55-71. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.