Game theory has been useful as an analytical framework for assessing environmental and resource regulations and policies. The papers in this volume provide the latest methodological and applied works in game theory to a wide range of natural and environmental resource problems such as fishing, grazing, pollution, climate change, water allocation, and stochastic production processes. The findings in the papers suggest that game theory is an effective tool for the analysis of the efficient use of shared natural resources; it can be used to identify stable agreements between parties to a resource conflict, and show how non-cooperation over global public goods/bads has a high social cost tag.

This paper is not concerned with advances in game theory. Rather, the paper is concerned with the relevance, if any, of game theory to a major resource management issue, namely the management of internationally shared fishery resources. It is argued that the economics of the management of such resources cannot, in fact, be understood, other than through the lens of game theory. The paper discusses several elementary game theory concepts that are of utmost policy relevance, but which are, as of yet, poorly understood by most policy makers. The paper does, in addition, discuss a key policy problem in the management of shared fishery resources that demands a game-theoretic analysis. The required analysis, however, has yet to be developed.

Traditional pastoralist land management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa have been stressed by an increasing human population and related forces, including private enclosure of grazing land; government-sponsored privatization; and the increasing prevalence of violent conflicts and livestock theft. We model the incompleteness and flexibility of traditional grazing rights using fuzzy set theory. We compare individual and social welfare under the traditional system to individual and social welfare under a private property system and a common property system. Whether the traditional system is preferred to private property depends on whether the value of mobility, as defined by the traditional system, is more valuable than the right of exclusion inherent in private property. We find that under some conditions the imprecision which characterizes traditional rights can result in higher social returns than a common property regime characterized by complete symmetric rights across all members of the user group and complete exclusion of non-members.

This paper explores a few cooperative aspects of investments in uncertain, real options. By hypothesis some production commitments, factors, or quotas are transferable. Cases in point include energy supply, emission of pollutants, and harvest of renewable resources. Of particular interest are technologies or projects that provide anti-correlated returns. Any such project stabilizes the aggregate proceeds. Therefore, given widespread risk aversion, a project of this sort merits a bonus. The setting is formalized as a two-stage, stochastic, production game. Absent economies of scale, such games are quite tractable in analysis, computation, and realization. A core imputation comes in terms of shadow prices that equilibrate competitive, endogenous markets. Such prices emerge as optimal dual solutions to coordinated production programs, featuring pooled commitments, or resources. Alternatively, the prices could result from repeated exchange.

A differential game model is developed to compare incentives for wastewater pollution abatement of upstream and downstream countries under cooperative and noncooperative strategies. The Tijuana River is the empirical setting of water flow from south (Mexico) to north (US) where pollution stock accumulates. Asymmetry between the upstream and downstream countries for costs, damages, and emissions influences incentives to abate pollution. Cost minimization is achieved as the US can finance pollution abatement in Mexico. Game sharing rules (Shapley value, Chander–Tulkens rule, Helsinki rule, egalitarian rule) are analyzed. Financial transfers from two North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) institutions are examined. In most cases of cooperation, transfer payments are positive from downstream to upstream for reductions in flow and stock of pollution. Transfer size varies according to the rule and sensitivity analysis of changes in abatement costs and damages. The two institutions follow a variation of the Helsinki rule.

This paper builds on the earlier development of WAS – a method of dealing with water issues that focuses on water values rather than water quantities and takes into account public values that are not simply private ones (see Fisher et al., 2005). WAS can be used for infrastructure or policy planning, but it can also assist in the resolution of water disputes. Indeed, WAS-guided cooperation in water can turn what appears to be a zero-sum gain into a win-win situation. It is shown that if WAS sets the rules for cooperation, then, when all claimants use those rules, the coalition of all of them together is stable. Results for possible coalitions of Israel, Jordan, and Palestine are given for varying assumptions as to water ownership. The gains from cooperation are compared and analyzed. WAS-guided cooperation is seen to make the value of ownership shifts relatively trivial.

We consider new developments in coalition theory for the design of international environmental agreements (IEAs). Applying an empirical model on climate change that comprises benefit and cost estimates from abatement for 12 world regions, we analyze how the design of an agreement affects the success of self-enforcing IEAs. We analyze single versus multiple coalitions, open versus exclusive membership with majority and unanimity voting, and no transfers versus transfers with four different transfer schemes.