Notations	Descriptions	Remarks
$R_1$	Fines for companies that do not protect information security when strictly regulated by the government	–
$R_2$	Benefits of resource recycling for the government from residents' participation in recycling	$0<\alpha <1$
$R_3$	Internet recycling companies' net benefits when information security is not protected	–
${\beta R}_3$	Net benefit to Internet recycling companies when protecting information security	$0<\beta <1$
$R_4$	Benefits for residents when they participate in recycling	–
$C_1$	Cost of regulation with strict government regulation	–
${\alpha C}_1$	Cost of regulation with no strict government regulation	$0<\alpha <1$
$C_2$	Losses caused to residents when Internet recycling businesses do not keep information secure	–
$I_1$	Credibility improvement when government conducts strict regulation	–
$I_2$	Company credibility enhanced by strict government regulation of Internet recycling companies to protect information security	–
$I_3$	Internet recycling companies protect information security under strict government regulation, leading to increased resident satisfaction	–
$D_1$	Decreased government credibility due to companies' failures to protect information security when not strictly regulated by the government	–
$D_2$	Internet recycling companies not protecting information security under strict government regulation leads to loss of corporate reputation	–
$D_3$	Internet recycling companies not protecting information security under strict government regulation reduces resident satisfaction	–
$x$	Probability of the government choosing “strict regulation”	$0\le x\le 1$
$y$	Probability of Internet recycling companies choosing to “protect information security”	$0\le y\le 1$
$z$	Probability of residents choosing to “participate in recycling”	$0\le z\le 1$