Application of Game Theory in solving the nuclear waste treatment conflict between countries using ε-MOEA


Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 24 November 2025

Document Type : ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Authors

Faculty of Information Technology, Hanoi University, Hanoi, Vietnam

Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The management of high-level nuclear waste is a pressing global challenge, with over 400,000 metric tons in temporary storage worldwide. International disputes frequently arise due to disagreements over site selection, cost allocation, environmental risks, and long-term liability, often leading to negotiation deadlocks. Existing governance frameworks lack structured mechanisms to balance the competing objectives of multiple stakeholders, including waste-producing ("Disposer") nations and potentially affected ("Affected") nations. This paper aims to resolve these transboundary nuclear waste treatment conflicts by developing a hybrid analytical model that integrates Game Theory to model strategic interactions and the ε-Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (ε-MOEA) to find optimal solutions that balance competing goals such as cost, environmental safety, and economic benefits.
METHODS: This manuscript employs a combined Game Theory and computational algorithm approach to resolve international nuclear waste disputes. Game Theory models the conflict between two player types: disposer countries (waste producers) and affected countries (those impacted by disposal). Each player has specific goals, strategies, and costs, with the model seeking a Nash Equilibrium-a stable agreement where no country can unilaterally improve its outcome. Due to the problem's high complexity with multiple competing objectives, the study utilizes the ε-MOEA optimization algorithm. This algorithm efficiently explores millions of possible strategy combinations to identify optimal compromises, balancing outcomes to ensure fair and practical solutions for all involved countries.
FINDINGS: Computational experiments compared ε-MOEA against other multi-objective algorithms (NSGA-II, NSGA-III, PESA2, VEGA). The key finding was that all algorithms converged to the same optimal fitness value (-5280.33), demonstrating the model's robustness in identifying a stable equilibrium. However, ε-MOEA achieved this result with the shortest and most stable runtime (approximately 5.00 seconds per iteration), significantly outperforming other algorithms in computational efficiency. This indicates that ε-MOEA is particularly well-suited for solving this complex, high-dimensional problem efficiently, providing a diverse set of Pareto-optimal solutions for policymakers to evaluate trade-offs.
CONCLUSION: A hybrid Game theory and ε-MOEA framework effectively resolves international nuclear waste conflicts by modeling strategic interactions and optimizing for multiple objectives. This scalable approach identifies stable, fair agreements that balance the interests of both producing and affected nations, supporting sustainable international governance. Future work should focus on improving computational efficiency for larger numbers of players.

Keywords

Subjects
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY., (2003). The Long-Term Storage of Radioactive Waste: Safety and Sustainability. IAEA., (1): 1-24 (25 pages)
Yue, S.; Liu, Z.-M.; Lin, X.-J.; Wang, R.-Z., (2016). A Review of the Development of Nuclear Waste Treatment for China's Nuclear Power Industry. Advances in Engineering Research., 94 (5 pages)
Li, M.; Wang, X., (2023). Legal Responses to Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Wastewater Discharge into the Sea---from the Perspective of China's right-safeguarding Strategies. Heliyon, 9(6): e15701 (11 pages).
Richter, J.; Bernstein, M.J.; Farooque, M., (2022). The process to find a process for governance: Nuclear waste management and consent-based siting in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 87: 102473.
Köksalan, M.M.; Wallenius, J.; Zionts, S., (2011). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. World Scientific, (156 pages).
Yu, Y.; Zhao, R.; Huang, Y.; Yang, L., (2020). An Evolutionary Game Theoretical Analysis to Conflicts among Stakeholders Involved in the Operation of Municipal Waste Incineration. Complexity, 2020: 8825284 (16 pages).
Ho, E.; Rajagopalan, A.; Skvortsov, A.; Arulampalam, S.; Piraveenan, M., (2022). Game theory in Defence Applications: A Review. Sensors, 22(3): 1032 (40 pages).
Finus, M.; Rundshagen, B., (2015). Game theory and Environmental and Resource Economics--In Honour of Alfred Endres. Environ. Resour. Econ., 62(4): 657-664 (8 pages).
Wong, T.E.; Srikrishnan, V.; Hadka, D.; Keller, K., (2017). A multi-objective decision-making approach to the journal submission problem. PLOS ONE, 12(12): e0178874 (10 pages).
Yang, B.; Xu, H., (2021). Resolving the conflict of nuclear wastewater discharging into the ocean based on the GMCR. Mar. Econ. Manag., 5(1): 45-55 (11 pages)
Zoran, D.; Ojovan, M.I.; Samanta, S.K., (2022). Challenges in Planning of Integrated Nuclear Waste Management. Sustainability, 14(21): 14204-14217 (14 pages).
Grimes-Casey, H.G.; Seager, T.P.; Theis, T.L.; Powers, S.E., (2007). A Game theory framework for cooperative management of refillable and disposable bottle lifecycles. J. Clean. Prod., 15(17): 1618-1627 (10 pages).
Kaushal, R.K.; Nema, A.K., (2013). Game theory-Based Multistakeholder Planning for Electronic Waste Management. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste, 17(1): 21-30 (10 pages).
Phathanapirom, U.B.; Haas, D.A.; Leibowicz, B.D., (2020). A game-theoretic approach to nuclear fuel cycle transition analysis under uncertainty. Ann. Nucl. Energy, 137: 107112.
Xu, L.; Zhao, X.; Chen, J., (2022). Exploring the Governance Dilemma of Nuclear Wastewater in Fukushima: a Tripartite Evolutionary Game Model. Ocean Coast. Manag., 225: 106220 (12 pages).
López-Cabarcos, M.Á.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Quiñoá-Piñeiro, L.; López-Pérez, M.L., (2024). Water and waste management strategies as drivers of the financial performance of food companies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 200: 123138 (13 pages).
Schwenk-Ferrero, A.; Andrianov, A., (2017). Nuclear Waste Management Decision-Making Support with MCDA. Sci. Technol. Nucl. Install., 2017: 9029406 (20 pages).
He, T.; Li, S.; Chen, Y.; Wu, S.; Li, C., (2021). Optimal Array Reconfiguration of a PV Power Plant for Frequency Regulation of Power Systems. Front. Energy Res., 9.
Xixi, Z.; Tongkun, Q.; Yecheng, W., (2022). Optimal strategies for stakeholders of Fukushima nuclear waste water discharge in Japan. Mar. Policy, 135: 104881 (20 pages).
Darda, S.A.; Gabbar, H.A.; Damideh, V.; Aboughaly, M.; Hassen, I., (2021). A comprehensive review on radioactive waste cycle from generation to disposal. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 329(1): 15-31 (17 pages).
Eryganov, I.; Šomplák, R.; Nevrlý, V.; Šmejkalová, V.; Hrabec, D.; Haugen, K.K., (2020). Application of cooperative Game theory in waste management. Chem. Eng. Trans., 81: 871-876 (6 pages).
Qu, B.; Zhu, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Wu, M.; Suganthan, P.N.; Liang, J., (2018). A survey on multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for the solution of the environmental/economic dispatch problems. Swarm Evol. Comput., 38: 1-11 (11 pages).
Ju, H.; Hwang, I.-S.; Choi, S., (2020). Two-person game model of long-term safeguards for a final repository for spent nuclear fuel. Prog. Nucl. Energy, 118: 103058 (8 pages).
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, (2020). Costing Methods and Funding Schemes for Radioactive Waste Disposal Programmes. IAEA (75 pages).
Handl, G., (1981). Managing nuclear wastes: the international connection. Nat. Resour. J., 21(2): 253-276 (24 pages).
 
  • Receive Date 20 July 2025
  • Revise Date 01 October 2025
  • Accept Date 22 November 2025