FAIRNESS PREFERENCE BASED DECISION-MAKING MODEL FOR CONCESSION PERIOD IN PPP PROJECTS

被引:10
|
作者
Yan, Xue [1 ]
Chong, Heap-Yih [2 ]
Zhou, Jing [1 ]
Sheng, Zhaohan [1 ]
Xu, Feng [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ, Sch Management & Engn, 22 Hankou Rd, Nanjing 210093, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Curtin Univ, Sch Built Environm, Perth, WA 6102, Australia
基金
中国国家自然科学基金; 国家自然科学基金重大项目;
关键词
Concession period; fairness preference; Nash bargaining game; PPP projects; PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS; GAME-THEORY; NEGOTIATION;
D O I
10.3934/jimo.2018137
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Both government and private sector have the characteristic of fairness preference when deciding a suitable concession period for infrastructure projects. The appropriate concession period is helpful to construct the Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) project, to alleviate governments financial burden, and to boast the economic growth. Therefore, this paper aims to develop a decision-making model of concession period with fairness preference based on the two sides equitable utilities. To better describe decision makers fair psychology, the Nash bargaining game solution was adopted as a fair reference point. The results show that the concession period with fairness preference will become longer than that without fairness preference. Furthermore, the longer the concession period is, the better construction quality of the infrastructure project (highway) is. So, decision makers with fairness preference tend to make good decisions. In conclusion, the developed decision-making model renders useful references for both government and private sector in negotiating the concession period for infrastructure projects.
引用
收藏
页码:11 / 23
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Ranking environmental projects model based on multicriteria decision-making and the weight sensitivity analysis
    Jiang Yan~1 Tian Dagang~1 Pan Yue~2 1.Coll.of Management
    2.Dept.of Control Science and Engineering
    Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2007, (03) : 534 - 539
  • [42] Circadian preference and decision-making styles
    Tonetti, Lorenzo
    Fabbri, Marco
    Boreggiani, Michele
    Guastella, Pietro
    Martoni, Monica
    Ruiz Herrera, Noelia
    Natale, Vincenzo
    BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH, 2016, 47 (04) : 573 - 581
  • [43] Principal Fairness for Human and Algorithmic Decision-Making
    Imai, Kosuke
    Jiang, Zhichao
    STATISTICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 38 (02) : 317 - 328
  • [44] Fairness in Decision-Making - The Causal Explanation Formula
    Zhang, Junzhe
    Bareinboim, Elias
    THIRTY-SECOND AAAI CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE / THIRTIETH INNOVATIVE APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CONFERENCE / EIGHTH AAAI SYMPOSIUM ON EDUCATIONAL ADVANCES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2018, : 2037 - 2045
  • [45] Contrastive Counterfactual Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making
    Mutlu, Ece Cigdem
    Yousefi, Niloofar
    Garibay, Ozlem Ozmen
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2022 AAAI/ACM CONFERENCE ON AI, ETHICS, AND SOCIETY, AIES 2022, 2022, : 499 - 507
  • [46] Fairness measures for decision-making and conflict resolution
    Sampat, Apoorva M.
    Zavala, Victor M.
    OPTIMIZATION AND ENGINEERING, 2019, 20 (04) : 1249 - 1272
  • [47] Pushing the Limits of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making
    Shah, Nisarg
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-SECOND INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, IJCAI 2023, 2023, : 7051 - 7056
  • [48] Fairness and intentionality in children's decision-making
    Castelli I.
    Massaro D.
    Sanfey A.G.
    Marchetti A.
    International Review of Economics, 2010, 57 (3) : 269 - 288
  • [49] Fairness, Equality, and Power in Algorithmic Decision-Making
    Kasy, Maximilian
    Abebe, Rediet
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2021 ACM CONFERENCE ON FAIRNESS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND TRANSPARENCY, FACCT 2021, 2021, : 576 - 586
  • [50] METHODOLOGY IN THE DECISION-MAKING OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTS
    PIAU, V
    JANNETEAU, M
    COURQUIN, C
    DEQUEIROZ, CG
    MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGY III : THE KEY TO GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS, VOLS 1 AND 2, 1991, : 1205 - 1216