Game Theory–Based Multistakeholder Planning for Electronic Waste Management

Abstract

Stakeholder decision making is needed for implementing policies that affect both initial purchase decisions of electronic gadgets and ultimate decisions about land disposal/recycling or storage of electronic waste. In consumer electronics, a long-term relationship between manufacturer and consumer might lead to contracts that create incentives for consumers to return used electronic gadgets. The result could be more effective economically and environmentally for involved stakeholders like manufacturers, consumers, and society as a whole. If a stakeholder can further obtain more profit through collaborating with others in some coalition, it will be preferred to collaborate rather than participating individually. This paper discusses the noncooperation as well as cooperation of stakeholders and gives a formulation for the calculation of their profits. After that, based on game theory, a scheme to decide which strategy is better suited, gaining the maximum profit, to a stakeholder and also the profit allocation of each stakeholder in the coalitions rationally and impartially is proposed. Results for stakeholders verified the principle that cooperation is better than competition.

Enhanced Time-of-Use Electricity Price Rate Using Game Theory

“…The player with maximum contribution can obtain more profit. Every participant in coalition wants maximum profit [42]. In cooperative GT, Shapley value, a solution concept is proposed in [43].…”

“…For coalition S, ν(S) describes the total expected sum of marginal distribution that a member of S can obtain. In Equation (10), numerator is equal to the number of permutations of S whereas denominator is the total number of permutation [42]. Permutation is used to find out all the possibilities in which coalition can formed, for N homes it is calculated as 2 N .…”

Multi-stakeholder policy modeling for collection and recycling of spent portable battery waste

“…They simulated the results and found that implementation of such schemes could be more cost-effective and better for increasing its social acceptability. Kaushal and Nema (2013a) conducted a study on the deposit-refund system for environmentally safe handling of computer waste, and they proposed EPR-based schemes to investigate the relationships between manufacturers and consumers. An oil recovery program in western Canada is another example of a deposit-refund scheme.…”

“…The present study is motivated by the researchers’ work on the deposit-refund system that aims to develop EPR schemes for a variety of products (Cahill et al, 2010; Kaushal and Nema, 2013a; Lin and Chiu, 2015; Silveira and Chang, 2011) and these are discussed in the literature review section. These studies present the framework of EPR schemes with a wide range of models but the economic accountability of the stakeholders (SCMs) during simulation of EPR policy has not been focused upon with reference to the market scenario of a particular area.…”