## 4 Results
### Sensitivity Analysis
#### 4.1.4 Statistical Analysis of the Simulation Results  
To further clarify the differences in promoting PB development through different policy tools, this study calculated and analyzed the confidence intervals of SD simulation results. By introducing a 95% confidence interval, the stability and significance of PBIP implementation can be more scientifically assessed, providing a reliable basis for improving PBIPs. The calculation results are shown in Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Policies** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Rate of** \\ **Increase** \\ \end{tabular} & **Mean Value** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Confidence** \\ **Interval (95\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Initial value} & 1749.58 & 130.65 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{[1493.51, 2005.65]} \\ \hline LP & & 1765.53 & 131.38 & [1508.02, 2023.03] \\ PRRP & & 1752.41 & 130.69 & [1496.25, 2008.56] \\ FP & & 1765.10 & 131.91 & [1506.55, 2023.64] \\ FSP & +10\% & 1762.06 & 132.28 & [1502.80, 2021.32] \\ PTP & & 1771.04 & 135.03 & [1506.38, 2035.69] \\ R\&DSP & & 1768.08 & 131.90 & [1509.54, 2026.61] \\ CPMP & & 1759.37 & 131.48 & [1501.66, 2017.07] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{The newly added area of PB (\(10^{4}\) m\({}^{2}\))} & LP & 1784.04 & 131.52 & [1526.25, 2041.82] \\ PRRP & & 1758.99 & 131.96 & [1500.35, 2017.63] \\ FP & & 1792.03 & 136.75 & [1523.99, 2060.07] \\ FSP & +20\% & 1776.88 & 133.57 & [1515.09, 2038.67] \\ PTP & & 1785.05 & 136.56 & [1517.39, 2052.71] \\ R\&DSP & & 1788.05 & 133.52 & [1526.35, 2049.76] \\ CPMP & & 1772.28 & 132.84 & [1511.92, 2032.63] \\ \hline LP & & 1812.28 & 131.00 & [1555.51, 2069.05] \\ PRRP & & 1767.12 & 134.37 & [1503.76, 2030.48] \\ FP & & 1813.26 & 138.76 & [1541.29, 2085.22] \\ FSP & +30\% & 1792.98 & 137.10 & [1524.26, 2061.69] \\ PTP & & 1801.76 & 138.36 & [1530.57, 2072.94] \\ R\&DSP & & 1797.33 & 133.64 & [1535.41, 2059.26] \\ CPMP & & 1783.12 & 134.81 & [1518.90, 2047.34] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Initial value} & 9803.54 & 1356.91 & [7143.98, 12,463.09] \\ \hline LP & & 9861.29 & 1373.35 & [7169.53, 12,553.05] \\ PRRP & & 9812.71 & 1359.38 & [7148.33, 12,477.09] \\ FP & & 9864.44 & 1376.10 & [7167.28, 12,561.59] \\ FSP & +10\% & 9836.69 & 1365.82 & [7159.68, 12,513.70] \\ PTP & & 9885.67 & 1388.56 & [7164.10, 12,607.24] \\ R\&DSP & & 9866.01 & 1374.86 & [7171.30, 12,560.73] \\ CPMP & & 9845.10 & 1371.44 & [7157.07, 12,533.12] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} LP \\ (\(10^{4}\) m\({}^{2}\)) \\ \end{tabular} } & 9919.24 & 1388.23 & [7198.31, 12,640.16] \\ PRRP & & 9827.34 & 1364.49 & [7152.94, 12,501.74] \\ FP & & 9992.90 & 1420.41 & [7208.90, 12,776.90] \\ FSP & +20\% & 9884.81 & 1380.19 & [7179.64, 12,589.99] \\ PTP & & 9931.02 & 1402.43 & [7182.26, 12,679.78] \\ R\&DSP & & 9932.31 & 1393.57 & [7200.90, 16,637.1] \\ CPMP & & 9873.77 & 1377.12 & [7174.61, 12,572.93] \\ \hline LP & & 10,031.20 & 1416.00 & [7258.83, 12,806.57] \\ PRRP & & 9868.70 & 1381.34 & [7161.28, 12,576.11] \\ FP & & 10,112.83 & 1454.86 & [7261.30, 12,964.35] \\ FSP & +30\% & 9955.75 & 1403.34 & [7205.21, 12,706.30] \\ PTP & & 9980.49 & 1417.48 & [7202.24, 12,758.75] \\ R\&DSP & & 9985.59 & 1413.82 & [7214.50, 12,756.68] \\ CPMP & & 9894.03 & 1382.30 & [7184.73, 12,603.32] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Confidence interval of PBIP implementation effect simulation values. In terms of the newly added area of PBs, all policies have shown significant promoting effects at three levels of intensity. However, there are considerable differences in the degree of incentives. FP maintains its optimal performance under three levels of policy intensity. When FP increases from 10% to 30%, its mean increases from 1765.10 to 1813.26, and the confidence interval also expands from [1506.55, 2023.64] to [1541.29, 2085.22]. The incentive effect is the most significant, and it remains in a leading position among all policies.