IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pubfin/v48y2020i6p751-777.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Threshold and Group Size Uncertainty in Common-pool Resources: An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Abdul H. Kidwai
  • Angela C. M. de Oliveira

Abstract

Threshold common-pool resources (TCPRs), such as fisheries or groundwater reserves, face irreversible damage if harvesting exceeds a sustainability threshold. Uncertainty about the threshold for sustainable use or the number of resource users can exacerbate the overharvesting problem. Policy makers may therefore seek to reduce threshold or group size uncertainty in TCPRs. Overall, we find that reducing threshold and group size uncertainty (moving from high to low uncertainty) increases expected earnings from the resource. However, complete elimination of group size uncertainty reduces expected earnings. Furthermore, the impact of group size uncertainty on earnings varies by the level of threshold uncertainty. Moving from high to low group size uncertainty increases earnings at low levels of threshold uncertainty but not at high levels of threshold uncertainty. Taken together, we find that reducing threshold uncertainty is beneficial while tackling group size uncertainty requires a more nuanced approach, highlighting the importance of a joint analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdul H. Kidwai & Angela C. M. de Oliveira, 2020. "Threshold and Group Size Uncertainty in Common-pool Resources: An Experimental Study," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(6), pages 751-777, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:pubfin:v:48:y:2020:i:6:p:751-777
    DOI: 10.1177/1091142120945211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1091142120945211
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1091142120945211?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Mariana Blanco & Dirk Engelmann & Alexander Koch & Hans-Theo Normann, 2010. "Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 412-438, December.
    3. Rondeau, Daniel & Poe, Gregory L. & Schulze, William D., 2005. "VCM or PPM? A comparison of the performance of two voluntary public goods mechanisms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1581-1592, August.
    4. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    5. Papke, Leslie E. & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2008. "Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1-2), pages 121-133, July.
    6. Anabela Botelho & Ariel Dinar & Lígia Costa Pinto & Amnon Rapoport, 2014. "Time and uncertainty in resource dilemmas: equilibrium solutions and experimental results," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 649-672, December.
    7. Astrid Dannenberg & Andreas Löschel & Gabriele Paolacci & Christiane Reif & Alessandro Tavoni, 2015. "On the Provision of Public Goods with Probabilistic and Ambiguous Thresholds," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 365-383, July.
    8. Maas, Alexander & Goemans, Christopher & Manning, Dale & Kroll, Stephan & Brown, Thomas, 2017. "Dilemmas, coordination and defection: How uncertain tipping points induce common pool resource destruction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 760-774.
    9. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    10. James Andreoni & Laura Gee, 2015. "Gunning for efficiency with third party enforcement in threshold public goods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 154-171, March.
    11. Thomas C. Brown & Stephan Kroll, 2017. "Avoiding an uncertain catastrophe: climate change mitigation under risk and wealth heterogeneity," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 155-166, March.
    12. Charles N. Noussair & Daan P. van Soest, 2014. "Economic Experiments and Environmental Policy," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 319-337, October.
    13. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    14. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    15. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Paul J. Ferraro & Nicholas Janusch & Christian A. Vossler & Kent D. Messer, 2019. "Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research: Methodological Challenges, Literature Gaps, and Recommendations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 719-742, July.
    16. Astrid Hopfensitz & César Mantilla & Josepa Miquel-Florensa, 2019. "Catch Uncertainty and Reward Schemes in a Commons Dilemma: An Experimental Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1121-1153, April.
    17. John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12964.
    18. Ostrom, Elinor, 2006. "The value-added of laboratory experiments for the study of institutions and common-pool resources," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 149-163, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ahsanuzzaman, & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Suter, Jordan F., 2022. "Experimental evidence of common pool resource use in the presence of uncertainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 139-160.

    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. Daniela Di Cagno & Daniela Grieco, 2019. "Measuring and Disentangling Ambiguity and Confidence in the Lab," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Coutts, Alexander, 2019. "Testing models of belief bias: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 549-565.
    3. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Post-Print halshs-02900497, HAL.
    5. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2017. "Newsvendor problem under complete uncertainty: a case of innovative products," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(3), pages 561-585, September.
    6. Takao Asano & Hiroko Okudaira & Masaru Sasaki, 2015. "An experimental test of a search model under ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 627-637, December.
    7. L. A. Franzoni, 2016. "Optimal liability design under risk and ambiguity," Working Papers wp1048, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    8. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    10. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    11. Ha-Huy, Thai, 2019. "Savage's theorem with atoms," MPRA Paper 94516, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Fabio Sabatini & Marco Ventura & Eiji Yamamura & Luca Zamparelli, 2020. "Fairness and the Unselfish Demand for Redistribution by Taxpayers and Welfare Recipients," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(3), pages 971-988, January.
    13. Gonçalo Faria & João Correia-da-Silva, 2012. "The price of risk and ambiguity in an intertemporal general equilibrium model of asset prices," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 507-531, November.
    14. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    15. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02900497, HAL.
    16. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Nathalie Chappe & Raphaël Giraud, 2013. "Confidence, Optimism and Litigation: A Litigation Model under Ambiguity," Working Papers 2013-05, CRESE.
    18. Irenaeus Wolff & Dominik Bauer, 2018. "Elusive Beliefs: Why Uncertainty Leads to Stochastic Choice and Errors," TWI Research Paper Series 111, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    19. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02563318, HAL.
    20. La Torre, Davide & Marsiglio, Simone & Mendivil, Franklin & Privileggi, Fabio, 2020. "Public Debt Dynamics under Ambiguity by Means of Iterated Function Systems on Density Functions," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 202009, University of Turin.

    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:sae:pubfin:v:48:y:2020:i:6:p:751-777. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.