Game Theory and Conservation
-
Upload
sylvester-giancarlo -
Category
Documents
-
view
73 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Game Theory and Conservation
Game Theory and Conservation
Class 11
Presentation 1
Outline Introduction to game theory Prisoners’ dilemma activity Examples of successful
conservation/poverty alleviation work Use of game theory to evaluate
conservation work
History of Game theory Fairly long history
von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern (1944), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Qualitative opinion based analyses to quantification
Provides quantification of decisions and outcomes
Evaluation of simple rules that govern choice and complexity of outcomes
A beautiful mind: John Nash
What is “Game” Game = scientific metaphor for wide range
of human (today any interaction) interactions in which the outcome depends on interactive strategies (interactions) of 2 or more people (or items such as atoms, organisms, populations) who have different (properties or adaptations) motives.
Why game theory? Useful way to model interactions between
organisms and people Also used in many other disciplines and
endeavours: economy, computer science, sociology, international trade, negotiations, evolutionary biology, physics, etc.
Game theory Applies when:
2 or more players One player: decision
More than one outcome (e.g. someone wins while another loses)
Outcomes depend on the choices of all players
Players have choice, strategy matters
Where you cannot use game theory Games of chance (e.g. lotteries: no strategy
required) Games without interaction between players
(e.g. solitaire)
Elements of game theory Must know the number of players List and description of all possible actions
by individual player Information players have before decision Description of payoff consequences to each
player for every action Description of players preferences
Elements of game theory Players can have perfect information on
other players decisions (e.g. chess) Players can have imperfect information
(e.g. sealed bids, prisoners’ dilemma) Rules are known to all players Players seek to maximize their payoff Payoffs are known and fixed
Prisoners’ Dilemma Two prisoners, each in a different cell Must decide:
Confess Do not confess
Both confess: 6 months jail each Both do not confess: 1 month jail each 1st confess, 2nd not: 2nd gets 9 months 1st does not, 2nd does: 1st gets 9 months jail
Prisoners’ Dilemma Assume that you are one of the prisoners On a piece of paper write down if you
would confess or not confess
Prisoners’ dilemma matrixPrisoner 2
Confess
Prisoner 2
Do not confess
Prisoner 1
Confess
6,6 months 0,9 months
Prisoner 1
Do not confess
9,0 months 1,1
Note Note that you thought about the decision
the other person would make Game theory allows us to analyze not only
individual decisions within market conditions (for resource use) but also based on the strategies chosen by others
Prisoners’ dilemma Is very simplistic (unrealistic) but it can provide
insights into interactions Other games that can be modelled Applicable in: Tragedy of the commons Environmental pollution Population growth, consumerism Nuclear arms race Others?
"The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin, Science, 162(1968):1243-1248
To read Hardin’s classic paper click on: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tragcomm.htm
Commons: property such as land owned collectively
History of International Aid Post WWII
Keynesian Developmentalism (1940-1960) Macro economics at global level Sought to reduce gap between developing and
developed nations Aim: increase economic development through
modernization, agro-exports, and primary exports of raw resources
Solutions: Donor countries Focus: industrial, large landowner, export E.g: agriculture and timber plantations,
Neoliberalism (1950–1970) Similar to earlier programs Focus: development, western technology,
exports No recognition of local knowledge Replacement of indigenous flora and fauna
with exotics Some recognition of communal property
Popular Development (1970–present) Recognized complexity of development Started to involve local people Solutions: local area Use of local technology Short term targets
Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources Project (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe: in southern Africa Used to be a British colony Wildlife owned by state Wildlife important for tourism Direct worth: $250 million US/yr Most habitat and wildlife outside parks
Project (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe Agriculture most important economic
sector Cattle ranching subsidized Degraded arid lands Game killed to control tse-tse fly Law changed in 1961 Conservation Act
allowed ranchers to ranch, kill and sell game
Project (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe Game ranching not profitable (cost of transport) Safari-hunting profitable 1975 Parks and Wildlife Act delegated control of
safari hunting to large landowners This program proved successful CAMPFIRE sought to implement similar benefits
on communal lands
Project (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe Dept of National Parks and Wildlife Management
recognized that wildlife could be conserved only if communal and private landowners derived benefit
Project aim: transfer benefits to local communities
Caution: Recent decisions by Zim. Govt. not to protect property rights may undermine this programme
Project (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe Community membership defined with local
groups Defined household Revenue sharing procedures National office then devolved management
and revenue to local groups for safari hunting in community
Project (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe National govt benefited through higher tax
revenue Locals benefited: Z$ 200/household/yr New school, grinding mill
Project (CAMPFIRE), Zimbabwe Has not worked where benefits minimal to
locals E.g.:Nyaminyami District in the Zambezi
Valley Revenue sharing not satisfactory to all
Work of the Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR) in Ahmendnagar
Rural Development: WOTR
Jan 10-14’01
Housing before
Living quarters for 7 peopleFloor and walls: mud
Before
Landscape denuded
Local cattle
Before: Water & fuelCow dung for fuel
Wells run dry after January
Before Several attempts on improving the
conditions of these people E.g. introduced high production cattle New water pumps Free education for girls to university Free education for all in primary grades
What is done todayVillagers agree to work together
Experts provide advice and support
Water conservationTrees planted on ridges (survival up: from 5% to 95%) Grazing stopped
Tree spp selected by villagers
Water conservationDams
Bunds
Terraces
5 Cents/day
New house
Old House
Fuel
Biogas generation
Milk production
Example: Kalamkarwadi:
Before: 705 litres
Today: 1969 litres
AgricultureE.g. Kalamkarwadi
Summer: 19%
Winter: 10%
Vegs: 0 ha to 23 ha
Sorghum
Wheat
Agriculture
Drip irrigationSweet lime
Castor
Income
One shed to brick house with biogas & store
EducationEqual number of boys and girls in school (Grade 1-4)
Social change
Micro loans
Self-help groups
Water
Drinking water all year round
Dry season crops
Discussion Use the elements of game theory to:
Identify the players in the central India case Describe the dominant strategy that led to the
problem Can you think of other solutions to the
problem(s)?