IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p1964-d1599288.html

Enhancing Inland River Shore Power Utilization: A Game Theory and Prospect Theory Approach to Optimizing Incentive Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Wenxue Cai

    (Department of Electronic Business, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Cailian Xie

    (Department of Electronic Business, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Yimiao Gu

    (Department of Electronic Business, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China)

Abstract

The development of the shipping and port industry has significantly driven both the Chinese and global economies. However, the environmental impact of their carbon footprint cannot be overlooked. Recently, the industry has made strides in implementing various environmental protection measures, with the promotion and adoption of shore power technology in inland port areas emerging as promising avenues for sustainable development. Despite widespread promotion and the establishment of shore power facilities in inland river areas, the utilization rate remains low. This is primarily due to the minimal benefits that inland river ships gain from using shore power that often fail to meet their expectations. The traditional income function based on rational agent theory is inadequate, leading to existing incentive measures that do not effectively encourage shore power usage by inland river ships. Therefore, it is essential to analyze this issue from the perspective of behavioral economics. This paper introduces the reference point effect from prospect theory and designs an incentive mechanism for inland river shore power based on game theory principles. The goal is to explore how government subsidies and penalties can be adjusted to create effective incentives for shore power usage, ultimately seeking to improve the adoption rate of shore power among inland river ships and enhance the overall environmental quality of inland river ports.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenxue Cai & Cailian Xie & Yimiao Gu, 2025. "Enhancing Inland River Shore Power Utilization: A Game Theory and Prospect Theory Approach to Optimizing Incentive Mechanisms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-27, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:1964-:d:1599288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/1964/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/1964/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winkel, R. & Weddige, U. & Johnsen, D. & Hoen, V. & Papaefthimiou, S., 2016. "Shore Side Electricity in Europe: Potential and environmental benefits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 584-593.
    2. Javad Nasiry & Ioana Popescu, 2011. "Dynamic Pricing with Loss-Averse Consumers and Peak-End Anchoring," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1361-1368, December.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "Evolutionary Games in Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 637-666, May.
    5. Hanyu Lu & Lufei Huang, 2021. "Optimization of Shore Power Deployment in Green Ports Considering Government Subsidies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    6. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    7. Wang, Jinggai & Zhong, Meisu & Wang, Tianni & Ge, Ying-En, 2023. "Identifying industry-related opinions on shore power from a survey in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 65-81.
    8. Wang, Lifen & Liang, Chengji & Shi, Jian & Molavi, Anahita & Lim, Gino & Zhang, Yue, 2021. "A bilevel hybrid economic approach for optimal deployment of onshore power supply in maritime ports," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    9. Ritzberger, Klaus & Weibull, Jorgen W, 1995. "Evolutionary Selection in Normal-Form Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1371-1399, November.
    10. Peng, Ya-Ting & Wang, Yadong & Li, Zhi-Chun & Sheng, Dian, 2023. "Subsidy policy selection for shore power promotion: Subsidizing facility investment or price of shore power?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 128-147.
    11. Chaojun Ding & Tianshou Liu, 2023. "Risk Decision for a Port Shore Power Supply System Based on Cumulative Prospect Theory and an Improved Gray Target," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-16, September.
    12. Vipin, B. & Amit, R.K., 2019. "Describing decision bias in the newsvendor problem: A prospect theory model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 132-141.
    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. Zhang, Xiang & Zhang, Liwen & Xi, Haoning & Shao, Zhiqi & Bell, Michael G.H., 2026. "Shore power adoption strategies of shipping companies and pricing decisions of the port under subsidies and carbon taxes: A game theoretical analysis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    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. Wang, Jinggai & Li, Huanhuan & Yang, Zaili & Ge, Ying-En, 2024. "Shore power for reduction of shipping emission in port: A bibliometric analysis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Jonathan Newton, 2018. "Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-67, May.
    3. Sheng, Dian & Wu, Pin & Guo, Qianwen Vivian & Jiang, Jiehui & Liu, Baoli, 2025. "Integrated shore power deployment problem in an inland shipping network," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 26-40.
    4. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Liu, Xiao-xiao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2020. "Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    5. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    6. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    7. Arbel, Yuval & Ben-Shahar, Danny & Gabriel, Stuart, 2014. "Anchoring and housing choice: Results of a natural policy experiment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 68-83.
    8. Hui Yu & Wei Wang & Baohua Yang & Cunfang Li, 2019. "Evolutionary Game Analysis of the Stress Effect of Cross-Regional Transfer of Resource-Exhausted Enterprises," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-16, November.
    9. Jonathan E. Alevy & Michael S. Haigh & John List, 2006. "Information Cascades: Evidence from An Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," NBER Working Papers 12767, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Wei Wang & Yanbin Li & Jinzhong Li & Yun Li, 2024. "Can pumped-storage power stations stimulate rural revitalization? Evidence from the four-party evolutionary game," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 595-645, July.
    11. Shao, Shuai & Xu, Min & Tan, Zhijia & Zhen, Lu, 2024. "Ship deployment problem with green technology adoption for an inland river carrier under non-identical streamflow and speed limits," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 46-56.
    12. Li, Zhendong & Shi, Lefeng & He, Weijun, 2025. "A adaptability mechanisms study of traffic liability-division in autonomous vehicle era," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 566-578.
    13. Eil, David & Lien, Jaimie W., 2014. "Staying ahead and getting even: Risk attitudes of experienced poker players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 50-69.
    14. Demichelis, Stefano & Ritzberger, Klaus, 2003. "From evolutionary to strategic stability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 51-75, November.
    15. Fırat Yaman & Patricia Cubí-Mollá & Sergiu Ungureanu, 2023. "Which Decision Theory Describes Life Satisfaction Best? Evidence from Annual Panel Data," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 893-916, March.
    16. Viglia, Giampaolo & Abrate, Graziano, 2014. "How social comparison influences reference price formation in a service context," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 168-180.
    17. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    18. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    19. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    20. Jonathan E. Alevy & Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2007. "Information Cascades: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 151-180, February.

    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:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:1964-:d:1599288. 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.