IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v35y2025i3d10.1007_s00191-025-00904-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appropriation behaviour predicted by environmental uncertainty, but not social uncertainty, in a common-pool resource game

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Spencer

    (Middlesex University)

  • Mario Bonfrisco

    (University of Genoa)

  • Yvan I. Russell

    (Middlesex University)

Abstract

The tragedy of the commons is a difficult problem. Overfishing, for example, is detrimental to all, but is a social dilemma for the fishers: do they overfish (maximising one’s benefit) – or do they inhibit their consumption (accepting a reduced benefit)? Our study investigated factors that contribute to inhibition. Using a common-pool resource game, we recorded the consumption choices of 83 dyads (166 participants) in a multi-round game where each player decided on how many units of currency to consume from the common pool. The game had four rules: (1) the game ends if the dyad jointly consumes $$\ge $$ ≥ 100% of the pool, (2) the game continues if the dyad jointly consumes $$\le $$ ≤ 50% of the pool (pool is then replenished), (3) the game continues if the dyad jointly consumes 51-99% (“depletion”: pool is not replenished) and (4) no communication between players. Our study had a 2x2x3 factorial design: first factor (within-dyad) had two levels – pre or post-depletion – comparing consumption before/after a depletion event. The next two factors (between dyads) were “environmental uncertainty” (where players had complete or incomplete knowledge of the pool size) and “social uncertainty” (based on whether players knew each other in real life). In our results, we found no significant effects of social uncertainty, but significant effects for depletion and environmental uncertainty. While consumption decreased across all participants after resource depletion, the magnitude of this reduction differed depending on the certainty condition: the decrease was especially pronounced when the resource availability was initially uncertain. Furthermore, games lasted longer when there was certainty. In our results, we found no significant effects of social uncertainty, but significant effects for depletion and environmental uncertainty. While consumption decreased across all participants after resource depletion, the magnitude of this reduction differed depending on the certainty condition: the decrease was especially pronounced when the resource availability was initially uncertain. Furthermore, games lasted longer when there was certainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Spencer & Mario Bonfrisco & Yvan I. Russell, 2025. "Appropriation behaviour predicted by environmental uncertainty, but not social uncertainty, in a common-pool resource game," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 587-607, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:35:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-025-00904-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-025-00904-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-025-00904-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-025-00904-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aflaki, Sam, 2013. "The effect of environmental uncertainty on the tragedy of the commons," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 240-253.
    2. David Dequech, 2011. "Uncertainty: A Typology and Refinements of Existing Concepts," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 621-640.
    3. Roy Gardner & Elinor Ostrom & James M. Walker, 1990. "The Nature of Common-Pool Resource Problems," Rationality and Society, , vol. 2(3), pages 335-358, July.
    4. Zeileis, Achim & Kleiber, Christian & Jackman, Simon, 2008. "Regression Models for Count Data in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 27(i08).
    5. Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Jun Feng & Yutaka Kobayashi, 2017. "Common-Pool Resources are Intrinsically Unstable," Working Papers SDES-2017-5, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised May 2017.
    6. Mario Bonfrisco & Yvan I. Russell & Mark Broom & Robert Spencer, 2025. "Averting Depletion in a Two-Player Common Pool Resource Game: Being Seen, the Expectation of Future Encounters, and Biophilia Play a Role in Cooperation," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, March.
    7. Aumann, Robert J., 1995. "Backward induction and common knowledge of rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 6-19.
    8. Blanco, Esther & Haller, Tobias & Lopez, Maria Claudia & Walker, James M., 2016. "The tension between private benefits and degradation externalities from appropriation in the commons," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 136-147.
    9. Yvan I. Russell & Yana Stoilova & Aura-Adriana Dosoftei, 2020. "Cooperation through Image Scoring: A Replication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, November.
    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. Mario Bonfrisco & Yvan I. Russell & Mark Broom & Robert Spencer, 2025. "Averting Depletion in a Two-Player Common Pool Resource Game: Being Seen, the Expectation of Future Encounters, and Biophilia Play a Role in Cooperation," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, March.
    2. Botelho, Anabela & Dinar, Ariel & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa & Rapoport, Amnon, 2015. "Promoting cooperation in resource dilemmas: Theoretical predictions and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 40-49.
    3. Totterman, Stephen, 2021. "Vehicle-based recreation and compliance for three beaches in northern New South Wales," OSF Preprints ja8h6, Center for Open Science.
    4. Yaroslav Rosokha & Chen Wei, 2024. "Cooperation in Queueing Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7597-7616, November.
    5. Christian Kleiber & Achim Zeileis, 2016. "Visualizing Count Data Regressions Using Rootograms," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(3), pages 296-303, July.
    6. Himounet, Nicolas, 2022. "Searching the nature of uncertainty: Macroeconomic and financial risks VS geopolitical and pandemic risks," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1-31.
    7. Asheim, G.B. & Dufwenberg, M., 1996. "Admissibility and Common Knowledge," Discussion Paper 1996-16, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Yunus Karaömer & Arif Eser Guzel, 2024. "Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Stock Returns: Analysing the Moderating Role of Government Size," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2024(1), pages 50-72.
    9. Sewando, Ponsian T. & Mdoe, N. Y. S. & Mutabazi, K. D. S, 2011. "Farmers’ preferential choice decisions to alternative cassava value chain strands in Morogoro rural district, Tanzania," MPRA Paper 29797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Lawrence N Kazembe, 2013. "A Bayesian Two Part Model Applied to Analyze Risk Factors of Adult Mortality with Application to Data from Namibia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-10, September.
    11. Steven Brams & D. Kilgour, 1998. "Backward Induction Is Not Robust: The Parity Problem and the Uncertainty Problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 263-289, December.
    12. Zibo Xu, 2013. "The instability of backward induction in evolutionary dynamics," Discussion Paper Series dp633, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    13. Koffi Serge William Yao & Emmanuelle Lavaine & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Effectiveness of the approval mechanism for CPR dilemmas: unanimity versus majority rule," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03234786, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    14. Geir B. Asheim & Martin Dufwenberg, 2003. "Deductive Reasoning in Extensive Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(487), pages 305-325, April.
    15. Grimley, Matthew & Chan, Gabriel, 2023. "“Cooperative is an oxymoron!”: A polycentric energy transition perspective on distributed energy deployment in the Upper Midwestern United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    16. Kreitmair, Ursula & Bower-Bir, Jacob, 2021. "Too different to solve climate change? Experimental evidence on the effects of production and benefit heterogeneity on collective action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. Joseph Y. Halpern & Rafael Pass, 2018. "Game theory with translucent players," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 949-976, September.
    18. Schauf, Andrew & Oh, Poong, 2021. "Myopic reallocation of extraction improves collective outcomes in networked common-pool resource games," SocArXiv w2cxp, Center for Open Science.
    19. Ina Falfán & Luis Zambrano, 2023. "Lacustrine Urban Blue Spaces: Low Availability and Inequitable Distribution in the Most Populated Cities in Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
    20. Christos Pelekis & Panagiotis Promponas & Juan Alvarado & Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulou & Symeon Papavassiliou, 2021. "A fragile multi-CPR game," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 94(3), pages 461-492, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Q32 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Exhaustible Resources and Economic Development

    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:spr:joevec:v:35:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-025-00904-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.