Van, Carlos, and Felix are trappers who live next to a recreational hunting area that is open to trapping; in other words, anyone is free to use the recreational hunting area for trapping. Assume that these men are the only three trappers who trap in this recreational hunting area and that the recreational hunting area is large enough for all three trappers to trap intensively at the same time. Each year, the trappers choose independently how often to trap; specifically, they choose whether to trap intensively (that is, to set several traps and hunt long hours, which hurts the sustainability of the recreational hunting area if enough people do it) or to trap nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the recreational hunting area). None of them has the ability to control how much the others trap, and each trapper cares only about his own profitability and not about the state of the recreational hunting area. Assume that as long as no more than one trapper traps intensively, there are enough animals to restock the recreational hunting area. However, if two or more trap intensively, the recreational hunting area will become useless in the future. Of course, trapping intensively earns a trapper more money

Van, Carlos, and Felix are trappers who live next to a recreational hunting area that is open to trapping; in other words, anyone is free to use the recreational hunting area for trapping. Assume that these men are the only three trappers who trap in this recreational hunting area and that the recreational hunting area is large enough for all three trappers to trap intensively at the same time. Each year, the trappers choose independently how often to trap; specifically, they choose whether to trap intensively (that is, to set several traps and hunt long hours, which hurts the sustainability of the recreational hunting area if enough people do it) or to trap nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the recreational hunting area). None of them has the ability to control how much the others trap, and each trapper cares only about his own profitability and not about the state of the recreational hunting area. Assume that as long as no more than one trapper traps intensively, there are enough animals to restock the recreational hunting area. However, if two or more trap intensively, the recreational hunting area will become useless in the future. Of course, trapping intensively earns a trapper more money

Principles of Economics 2e

2nd Edition

ISBN:9781947172364

Author:Steven A. Greenlaw; David Shapiro

Publisher:Steven A. Greenlaw; David Shapiro

Chapter12: Environmental Protection And Negative Externalities

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 31CTQ: Consider two ways of protecting elephants from poachers in African countries. In one approach, the...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

6. Common resources and the tragedy of the commons Brian, Edison, and Kevin are trappers who live next to a recreational hunting area that is open to trapping; in other words, anyone is free to use the recreational hunting area for trapping. Assume that these men are the only three trappers who trap in this recreational hunting area and that the recreational hunting area is large enough for all three trappers to trap intensively at the same time. Each year, the trappers choose independently how often to trap; specifically, they choose whether to trap intensively (that is, to set several traps and hunt long hours, which hurts the sustainability of the recreational hunting area if enough people do it) or to trap nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the recreational hunting area). None of them has the ability to control how much the others trap, and each trapper cares only about his own profitability and not about the state of the recreational hunting area. Assume…
5. Common resources and the tragedy of the commons Felix, Larry, and Raphael are trappers who live next to a recreational hunting area that is open to trapping; in other words, anyone is free to use the recreational hunting area for trapping. Assume that these men are the only three trappers who trap in this recreational hunting area and that the recreational hunting area is large enough for all three trappers to trap intensively at the same time. Each year, the trappers choose independently how often to trap; specifically, they choose whether to trap intensively (that is, to set several traps and hunt long hours, which hurts the sustainability of the recreational hunting area if enough people do it) or to trap nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the recreational hunting area). None of them has the ability to control how much the others trap, and each trapper cares only about his own profitability and not about the state of the recreational hunting area.…
5. Common resources versus private goods Spring is here, and Gilberto and his uncle would like to go fishing for the weekend in New Hampshire. Gilberto could either go to the river in town where anyone can fish without a permit, or he could drive up to a pond located on his PRIVATE PROPERTY family's property in the countryside to fish. Assume that, no matter where people fish, all of the fish that are caught would be kept (that is, there is no "catch and release" policy). The fish in the river are considered and whereas the fish in the private pond are v and . In other words, the fish in the river are an example of and the fish in the private pond are an example of Fishing in the river will likely lead to because of which of the following reasons? O Nobody will enjoy fishing because of the lack of private contributions to the maintenance of the river. O Anyone can fish in the river, and one person's fishing activity decreases the ability of someone else to fish with success. O All…
6. Common resources and the tragedy of the commons Brian, Edison, and Kevin are loggers who live next to a forest that is open to logging; in other words, anyone is free to use the forest for logging. Assume that these men are the only three loggers who log in this forest and that the forest is large enough for all three loggers to log intensively at the same time. Each year, the loggers choose independently how many acres of trees to cut down; specifically, they choose whether to log intensively (that is, to clear-cut a section of the forest, which hurts the sustainability of the forest if enough people do it) or to log nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the forest). None of them has the ability to control how much the others log, and each logger cares only about his own profitability and not about the state of the forest. Assume that as long as no more than one logger logs intensively, there are enough trees to regrow the forest. However, if two or more log…
6. Common resources and the tragedy of the commons Tim, Brian, and Edison are fishermen who live next to a lake that is open to fishing; in other words, anyone is free to use the lake for fishing. Assume that these men are the only three fishermen who fish in this lake and that the lake is large enough for all three fishermen to fish intensively at the same time. Each year, the fishermen choose independently how many fish to catch; specifically, they choose whether to fish intensively (that is, to place several fishing lines in the water for long periods of time, which hurts the sustainability of the lake if enough people do it) or to fish nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the lake). None of them has the ability to control how much the others fish, and each fisherman cares only about his own profitability and not about the state of the lake. Assume that as long as no more than one fisherman fishes intensively, there are enough fish to restock the lake. However,…
5. Common resources versus private goods Spring is here, and Brian and his grandfather would like to go fishing for the weekend in Vermont. Brian could either go to the river in town where anyone can fish without a permit, or he could drive up to a pond located on his family's property PRIVATE PROPERTY in the countryside to fish. Assume that, no matter where people fish, all of the fish that are caught would be kept (that is, there is no "catch and release" policy).
3. Voluntary contributions toward a public good Kyoko and Rina are considering contributing toward the creation of a public park. Each can choose whether to contribute $300 to the public park or to keep that $300 for a weekend getaway. Since a public park is a public good, both Kyoko and Rina will benefit from any contributions made by the other person. Specifically, every dollar that either one of them contributes will bring each of them $0.90 of benefit. For example, if both Kyoko and Rina choose to contribute, then a total of $600 would be contributed to the public park. So, Kyoko and Rina would each receive $540 of benefit from the public park, and their combined benefit would be $1,080. This is shown in the upper left cell of the first table. Since a weekend getaway is a private good, if Kyoko chooses to spend $300 on a weekend getaway, Kyoko would get $300 of benefit from the weekend getaway and Rina wouldn't receive any benefit from Kyoko's choice. If Kyoko still spends $300 on…
3. Voluntary contributions toward a public good Eleanor and Kyoko are considering contributing toward the creation of a public park. Each can choose whether to contribute $400 to the public park or to keep that $400 for a cell phone. Since a public park is a public good, both Eleanor and Kyoko will benefit from any contributions made by the other person. Specifically, every dollar that either one of them contributes will bring each of them $0.80 of benefit. For example, if both Eleanor and Kyoko choose to contribute, then a total of $800 would be contributed to the public park. So, Eleanor and Kyoko would each receive $640 of benefit from the public park, and their combined benefit would be $1,280. This is shown in the upper left cell of the first table. Since a cell phone is a private good, if Eleanor chooses to spend $400 on a cell phone, Eleanor would get $400 of benefit from the cell phone and Kyoko wouldn't receive any benefit from Eleanor's choice. If Eleanor still spends $400 on…
3. Voluntary contributions toward a public good Clancy and Hubert are considering contributing toward the creation of a water fountain. Each can choose whether to contribute $400 to the water fountain or to keep that $400 for a cell phone. Since a water fountain is a public good, both Clancy and Hubert will benefit from any contributions made by the other person. Specifically, every dollar that either one of them contributes will bring each of them $0.80 of benefit. For example, if both Clancy and Hubert choose to contribute, then a total of $800 would be contributed to the water fountain. So, Clancy and Hubert would each receive $640 of benefit from the water fountain, and their combined benefit would be $1,280. This is shown in the upper left cell of the first table. Since a cell phone is a private good, if Clancy chooses to spend $400 on a cell phone, Clancy would get $400 of benefit from the cell phone and Hubert wouldn't receive any benefit from Clancy's choice. If Clancy still…
3. Voluntary contributions toward a public goodLarry and Raphael are considering contributing toward the creation of a public park. Each can choose whether to contribute $400 to the public park or to keep that $400 for a new suit.Since a public park is a public good, both Larry and Raphael will benefit from any contributions made by the other person. Specifically, every dollar that either one of them contributes will bring each of them $0.80 of benefit. For example, if both Larry and Raphael choose to contribute, then a total of $800 would be contributed to the public park. So, Larry and Raphael would each receive $640 of benefit from the public park, and their combined benefit would be $1,280. This is shown in the upper left cell of the first table.Since a new suit is a private good, if Larry chooses to spend $400 on a new suit, Larry would get $400 of benefit from the new suit and Raphael wouldn't receive any benefit from Larry's choice. If Larry still spends $400 on a new suit and…
3. Voluntary contributions toward a public good Nick and Tim are considering contributing toward the creation of a building mural. Each can choose whether to contribute $300 to the building mural or to keep that $300 for a weekend getaway. Since a building mural is a public good, both Nick and Tim will benefit from any contributions made by the other person. Specifically, every dollar that either one of them contributes will bring each of them $0.90 of benefit. For example, if both Nick and Tim choose to contribute, then a total of $600 would be contributed to the building mural. So, Nick and Tim would each receive $540 of benefit from the building mural, and their combined benefit would be $1,080. This is shown in the upper left cell of the first table. Since a weekend getaway is a private good, if Nick chooses to spend $300 on a weekend getaway, Nick would get $300 of benefit from the weekend getaway and Tim wouldn't receive any benefit from Nick's choice. If Nick still spends $300…
3. Voluntary contributions toward a public good Sean and Bob are considering contributing toward the creation of a water fountain. Each can choose whether to contribute $300 to the water fountain or to keep that $300 for a weekend getaway. Since a water fountain is a public good, both Sean and Bob will benefit from any contributions made by the other person. Specifically, every dollar that either one of them contributes will bring each of them $0.90 of benefit. For example, if both Sean and Bob choose to contribute, then a total of $600 would be contributed to the water fountain. So, Sean and Bob would each receive $540 of benefit from the water fountain, and their combined benefit would be $1,080. This is shown in the upper left cell of the first table. Since a weekend getaway is a private good, if Sean chooses to spend $300 on a weekend getaway, Sean would get $300 of benefit from the weekend getaway and Bob wouldn't receive any benefit from Sean's choice. If Sean still spends…