IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v46y2025i6p3448-3466.html

Who Will Pay for the “Mine Toxic Land”?—A Dynamic Game and Simulation Study of Negative Externality Governance in Rare Earth Mines Based on Prospect Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Xiang Guo
  • Ligang Xu
  • Rongfu Liu
  • Zhengfang Zhong

Abstract

The contradiction between economic development and the negative externalities generated by the extraction of ionic rare earth elements, such as resource depletion and environmental pollution, is becoming increasingly prominent. Based on prospect theory, this paper utilizes the perceived value of game players to construct a perceived benefit matrix that differs from the traditional benefit matrix and a tripartite game model. On the basis of the game analysis of the evolution of static reward and punishment mechanisms, three dynamic mechanisms, namely, dynamic reward, dynamic punishment, and dynamic reward and punishment, are successively introduced for analysis. The study demonstrated that under the static reward and punishment mechanism, the three‐party evolutionary game is not asymptotically stable. After the introduction of the dynamic mechanism, the evolutionary game becomes asymptotically stable, and all players in the tripartite game show a positive willingness to govern. Furthermore, varying value sensitivity coefficients result in a relatively stable perceived value of governance behaviors in rare earth mine development enterprises. With different value sensitivity coefficients, the perceived value of governance behaviors by rare earth product development enterprises remains relatively stable, while the perceived value of governance behaviors by the government and rare earth product application enterprises is more variable.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiang Guo & Ligang Xu & Rongfu Liu & Zhengfang Zhong, 2025. "Who Will Pay for the “Mine Toxic Land”?—A Dynamic Game and Simulation Study of Negative Externality Governance in Rare Earth Mines Based on Prospect Theory," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 46(6), pages 3448-3466, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:6:p:3448-3466
    DOI: 10.1002/mde.4543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4543
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/mde.4543?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. Haiyang Xia & Tijun Fan & Xiangyun Chang, 2019. "Emission Reduction Technology Licensing and Diffusion Under Command-and-Control Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 477-500, February.
    2. Martin Walther & Markus Münster, 2021. "Conditional Risk Premiums and the Value Function of Prospect Theory," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 74-83, January.
    3. Packey, Daniel J. & Kingsnorth, Dudley, 2016. "The impact of unregulated ionic clay rare earth mining in China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 112-116.
    4. Chige Li & Hengkai Li & Yanbing Zhou & Xiuli Wang, 2024. "Detailed Land Use Classification in a Rare Earth Mining Area Using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Data for Sustainable Agricultural Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Kuifeng Wang & Paul Liu & Fengsheng Sun & Shengwen Wang & Gong Zhang & Taiping Zhang & Guodong Chen & Jinqiu Liu & Gangchao Wang & Songkun Cao, 2023. "Progress in Realizing the Value of Ecological Products in China and Its Practice in Shandong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-30, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Yan Zhao & Ruyan Cheng, 2024. "A multiagent collaborative development strategy for environmental pollution liability insurance based on an evolutionary game," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(4), pages 2443-2458, June.
    8. Weilong Yang & Yi Zhou & Chaozhu Li, 2023. "Assessment of Ecological Environment Quality in Rare Earth Mining Areas Based on Improved RSEI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.
    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. Felix Reichenbach & Martin Walther, 2023. "Financial recommendations on Reddit, stock returns and cumulative prospect theory," Digital Finance, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 421-448, June.
    2. Bradley, Ian, 2003. "The representative bettor, bet size, and prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 409-413, March.
    3. Michael R. CARTER & Alain de JANVRY & Elisabeth SADOULET & Alexandros SARRIS, 2014. "Index-based weather insurance for developing countries: A review of evidence and a set of propositions for up-scaling," Working Papers P111, FERDI.
    4. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1002-1023, June.
    6. Sweksha Srivastava & Abha Aggarwal, 2025. "The Efficiency Analysis and Ranking Employing Data Envelopment Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Incorporating Cumulative Prospect Theory," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 1-34, September.
    7. Robert Sugden, 2022. "Debiasing or regularisation? Two interpretations of the concept of ‘true preference’ in behavioural economics," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 765-784, April.
    8. Patrick Beissner & Tim Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2026. "Betting under Common Beliefs: The Effect of Probability Weighting," Papers 2602.24194, arXiv.org.
    9. Heiko Karle & Georg Kirchsteiger & Martin Peitz, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Consumption Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 101-120, May.
    10. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    11. Muhammad Kashif & Thomas Leirvik, 2022. "The MAX Effect in an Oil Exporting Country: The Case of Norway," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    13. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    14. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil & Xu, Xiaogeng, 2025. "Risk taking on behalf of others: Does the timing of uncertainty revelation matter?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 13/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    15. Wang, Jianqiu & Wu, Ke & Yang, Sijie & Zhou, Dexin, 2024. "Asymmetry and the Cross-section of Option Returns," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    17. Soo Hong Chew & Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "Ellsberg meets Keynes at an urn," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(3), pages 1133-1162, July.
    18. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2009. "A characterization of the 2-additive Choquet integral through cardinal information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445132, HAL.
    19. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.

    More about this item

    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:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:6:p:3448-3466. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

    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.