Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, Y. and Du, Z. (2026) Use of system dynamics model for stability analysis of contractor and government environmental strategies for transportation infrastructure. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 24(3), pp. 755-777. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the interplay between infrastructure development and environmental protection, focusing on how governmental regulations shape contractor behavior and exploring policy mechanisms that reconcile economic and ecological objectives. Design/methodology/approach – An integrated framework combining evolutionary game theory and system dynamics simulation models the interactions between contractors and regulatory agencies. Computational experiments assess the effects of penalties and public reporting systems on behavioral stability. Findings – Analysis reveals three significant outcomes: (1) Pure strategy solutions fail to achieve evolutionary stability regardless of parameter configurations; (2) Mixed strategy equilibria demonstrate conditional stability, particularly when public reporting systems are operational; (3) While both financial penalties and public disclosure influence short-term behavior modification, only robust public monitoring systems generate sustainable compliance patterns over extended periods. Research limitations/implications – The findings deepen understanding of how government–contractor interactions shape sustainable infrastructure development, emphasizing the pivotal role of regulatory design and behavioral adaptation in achieving enduring environmental and economic balance. Practical implications – Policymakers should prioritize public reporting and strengthen monitoring systems to align contractor incentives with ecological goals. Combining penalty mechanisms with transparent oversight offers a coherent and lasting approach to advancing green construction and maintaining regulatory compliance. Originality/value – This study proposes a novel framework integrating evolutionary game theory with system dynamics, rarely applied in infrastructure governance. It captures dynamic feedback between contractors and regulators and shows that transparency mechanisms outperform punitive measures in sustaining compliance, offering clear guidance for policy optimization.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; environmental strategy evolution; policy optimization; strategy stability; transport infrastructure sustainability |
| Index terms: | adaptation, configuration, experiment, transport infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, system dynamics, regulatory agency, behaviour modification, compliance, methodology, regulation, infrastructure development, evolution, stability, penalty, monitoring, regulatory compliance, environmental protection, transparency, strategy, regulator, evolutionary game, governance, interaction |
| Subjects: | research methods, user focus, control systems, environmental engineering, infrastructure engineering, management, regulatory law, sociology, data collection methods, environmental science, economic theory, business, structural engineering, systems engineering, administrative law, political science, computing systems, behavioral psychology, infrastructure and transport systems, health safety and environment, environmental policy, professional development |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Health and Safety, Information Management, Site Management, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here