IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2110.12568.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analyzing a Complex Game for the South China Sea Fishing Dispute using Response Surface Methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Macgregor Perry

Abstract

The South China Sea (SCS) is one of the most economically valuable resources on the planet, and as such has become a source of territorial disputes between its bordering nations. Among other things, states compete to harvest the multitude of fish species in the SCS. In an effort to gain a competitive advantage states have turned to increased maritime patrols, as well as the use of "maritime militias," which are fishermen armed with martial assets to resist the influence of patrols. This conflict suggests a game of strategic resource allocation where states allocate patrols intelligently to earn the greatest possible utility. The game, however, is quite computationally challenging when considering its size (there are several distinct fisheries in the SCS), the nonlinear nature of biomass growth, and the influence of patrol allocations on costs imposed on fishermen. Further, uncertainty in player behavior attributed to modeling error requires a robust analysis to fully capture the dispute's dynamics. To model such a complex scenario, this paper employs a response surface methodology to assess optimal patrolling strategies and their impact on realized utilities. The methodology developed successfully finds strategies which are more robust to behavioral uncertainty than a more straight-forward method.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Macgregor Perry, 2021. "Analyzing a Complex Game for the South China Sea Fishing Dispute using Response Surface Methodologies," Papers 2110.12568, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2021.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2110.12568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.12568
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Rios Insua & David Banks & Jesus Rios, 2016. "Modeling Opponents in Adversarial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 742-755, April.
    2. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    3. Miller, Steve & Nkuiya, Bruno, 2016. "Coalition formation in fisheries with potential regime shift," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 189-207.
    4. Giovanni Paolo Crespi & Matteo Rocca & Davide Radi, 2019. "Insights on the Theory of Robust Games," Economics and Quantitative Methods qf1901, Department of Economics, University of Insubria.
    5. David Ríos Insua & Fabrizio Ruggeri & Cesar Alfaro & Javier Gomez, 2016. "Robustness for Adversarial Risk Analysis," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Michael Doumpos & Constantin Zopounidis & Evangelos Grigoroudis (ed.), Robustness Analysis in Decision Aiding, Optimization, and Analytics, chapter 0, pages 39-58, Springer.
    6. Fischer, Ronald D. & Mirman, Leonard J., 1996. "The Compleat Fish Wars: Biological and Dynamic Interactions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 34-42, January.
    7. César Gil & David Rios Insua & Jesus Rios, 2016. "Adversarial Risk Analysis for Urban Security Resource Allocation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 727-741, April.
    8. Laura McLay & Casey Rothschild & Seth Guikema, 2012. "Robust Adversarial Risk Analysis: A Level- k Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 41-54, March.
    9. Lone Grønbæk & Marko Lindroos & Gordon Munro & Pedro Pintassilgo, 2020. "Game Theory and Fisheries Management," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-40112-2, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Macgregor Perry & Hadi El-Amine, 2021. "Computational Efficiency in Multivariate Adversarial Risk Analysis Models," Papers 2110.12572, arXiv.org.
    2. William N. Caballero & Ethan Gharst & David Banks & Jeffery D. Weir, 2023. "Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 16-39, March.
    3. Michael Macgregor Perry, 2021. "Fisheries Management in Congested Waters: A Game-Theoretic Assessment of the East China Sea," Papers 2110.13966, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    4. Michael Perry, 2022. "Fisheries Management in Congested Waters: A Game-Theoretic Assessment of the East China Sea," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(3), pages 717-740, July.
    5. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    6. Manuel Pacheco Coelho & José António Filipe, 2021. "Searching for a New Model of Governance in the High Seas: Game Theory Applied to International Commons Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-28, October.
    7. Muhammad Ejaz & Stephen Joe & Chaitanya Joshi, 2021. "Adversarial Risk Analysis for Auctions Using Mirror Equilibrium and Bayes Nash Equilibrium," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 185-202, September.
    8. Caballero, William N. & Lunday, Brian J. & Uber, Richard P., 2021. "Identifying behaviorally robust strategies for normal form games under varying forms of uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 971-982.
    9. González-Ortega, Jorge & Ríos Insua, David & Cano, Javier, 2019. "Adversarial risk analysis for bi-agent influence diagrams: An algorithmic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1085-1096.
    10. Dahmouni, Ilyass & Sumaila, Rashid U., 2023. "A dynamic game model for no-take marine reserves," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 481(C).
    11. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    12. Kraemer, Carlo & Noth, Markus & Weber, Martin, 2006. "Information aggregation with costly information and random ordering: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 423-432, March.
    13. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    14. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    15. Steven N. Durlauf & Yannis M. Ioannides, 2010. "Social Interactions," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 451-478, September.
    16. Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2009. "Herd Behavior in Financial Markets: An Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(1), pages 206-233, March.
    17. Dutta, Rohan & Levine, David Knudsen & Modica, Salvatore, 2018. "Collusion constrained equilibrium," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    18. Ghidoni, Riccardo & Suetens, Sigrid, 2019. "Empirical Evidence on Repeated Sequential Games," Other publications TiSEM ff3a441f-e196-4e45-ba59-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Tien Mai & Arunesh Sinha, 2022. "Safe Delivery of Critical Services in Areas with Volatile Security Situation via a Stackelberg Game Approach," Papers 2204.11451, arXiv.org.
    20. Bhattacharya, Sourav & Duffy, John & Kim, Sun-Tak, 2014. "Compulsory versus voluntary voting: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 111-131.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2110.12568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.