IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v13y2025i10p1592-d1654661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship Between Individual Willingness to Collaborate and the Performance of Collaborative Public Crisis Governance: An Agent-Based Model

Author

Listed:
  • Shao-nan Shan

    (School of Business, Shenyang University, Shenyang 110044, China
    Faculty of International Social Sciences, Yokohama National University, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan)

  • Yue Wang

    (School of Business, Shenyang University, Shenyang 110044, China)

  • Jin-jin Hao

    (School of Business, Shenyang University, Shenyang 110044, China)

  • Ran Guo

    (School of Economics and Management, Dalian Minzu University, Dalian 116600, China)

  • Yun-sen Zhang

    (School of Business, Shenyang University, Shenyang 110044, China)

Abstract

Purpose—Through the study, we discovered the key factors for decision makers involved in public crisis governance with respect to deciding whether to cooperate or not, and to understanding how they relate to governance performance. Methodology—This study extends the classic NK model, constructs an agent-based model to simulate the decision-making process of collaborative public crisis governance, and analyzes the effects of individual trust level, the level of cooperative relationship between individuals, and the standard deviation of the individual trust level on governance performance. Findings—This study found that when the complexity of a public crisis event is high, a high level of trust in the participants and a slightly lower level of inter-individual partnership would be appropriate in order to improve the responsiveness of governance decisions. If a small number of high-quality governance decisions are pursued, and there are high levels of trust and standard deviations of trust levels of the participating governance agents, as well as a strong level of partnership between individuals, it will result in more in-depth, comprehensive and high-quality governance decisions. Value—Although this study has slight shortcomings concerning the homogeneity of the choice of participating governance agents and the sensitivity of the simulation experiment, it has some theoretical contributions regarding decision making for collaborative public crisis governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Shao-nan Shan & Yue Wang & Jin-jin Hao & Ran Guo & Yun-sen Zhang, 2025. "The Relationship Between Individual Willingness to Collaborate and the Performance of Collaborative Public Crisis Governance: An Agent-Based Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:10:p:1592-:d:1654661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/10/1592/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/10/1592/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    2. Sánchez de Pablo González del Campo, Jesús David & Peña García Pardo, Isidro & Hernández Perlines, Felipe, 2014. "Influence factors of trust building in cooperation agreements," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 710-714.
    3. James, Steffan & Liu, Zheng & Stephens, Victoria & White, Gareth R.T., 2022. "Innovation in crisis: The role of ‘exaptive relations’ for medical device development in response to COVID-19," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Jerker Denrell & James G. March, 2001. "Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 523-538, October.
    5. Erik Persson & Mikael Granberg, 2021. "Implementation through collaborative crisis management and contingency planning: the case of dam failure in Sweden," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(10), pages 1335-1348, October.
    6. Gerald C. Kane & Maryam Alavi, 2007. "Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation of Exploration and Exploitation Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 796-812, October.
    7. Wamsler, Christine, 2017. "Stakeholder involvement in strategic adaptation planning: Transdisciplinarity and co-production at stake?," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 148-157.
    8. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2007. "Patterned Interactions in Complex Systems: Implications for Exploration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1068-1085, July.
    9. Hrelja, Robert & Rye, Tom & Mullen, Caroline, 2018. "Partnerships between operators and public transport authorities. Working practices in relational contracting and collaborative partnerships," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 327-338.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    2. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    3. Devaki Rau & Thorvald Haerem, 2010. "Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: A theoretical model and key issues for future research," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 287-297, July.
    4. Friederike Wall, 2016. "Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 135-193, January.
    5. Friederike Wall, 2023. "Modeling managerial search behavior based on Simon’s concept of satisficing," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 265-299, June.
    6. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    7. Ning Nan & Robert Zmud & Emre Yetgin, 2014. "A complex adaptive systems perspective of innovation diffusion: an integrated theory and validated virtual laboratory," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 52-88, March.
    8. Helmut M. Dietl & Markus Lang & Eric Lucas & Dirk Martignoni, 2012. "Learning Through Inaccurate Replication," Working Papers 312, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    9. Stephan Leitner & Friederike Wall, 2015. "Simulation-based research in management accounting and control: an illustrative overview," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 105-129, August.
    10. Friederike Wall, 2021. "Modeling Managerial Search Behavior based on Simon's Concept of Satisficing," Papers 2104.14002, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    11. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    13. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    14. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    15. Mohammed Akhmaaj, Asmaeil Ali & Sharif, Mohamed Omar, 2024. "The effects of planned behavior model constructs and technology acceptance model constructs on online purchasing behavior: An empirical study on internet users in the Libya city of Tripoli," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    16. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    17. Kristin Thomas & Evalill Nilsson & Karin Festin & Pontus Henriksson & Mats Lowén & Marie Löf & Margareta Kristenson, 2020. "Associations of Psychosocial Factors with Multiple Health Behaviors: A Population-Based Study of Middle-Aged Men and Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    19. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    20. Muhammad Shahid Qureshi & Saadat Saeed & Syed Waleed Mehmood Wasti, 2016. "Erratum to: The impact of various entrepreneurial interventions during the business plan competition on the entrepreneur identity aspirations of participants," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 6(1), pages 1-1, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:10:p:1592-:d:1654661. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.