Utilitarian and nonutilitarian valuation of natural resources: a game‐theoretical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological services such as food, fresh water, fuel, minerals, and flood control—to name only a few—are essential conditions for human well‐being. Many of the areas that provide such services—wetlands, coastal areas, and deserts—are common pool resources, which are characterized by nonexcludability and subtractability that makes them vulnerable to collective action problems such as the prisoner's dilemma, where individual and collective interests collide and ultimately result in overexploitation and degradation. Damaged areas that provide ecological services are increasingly recognized as targets for ecological restoration. However, restored areas run the risk of backsliding to the previous state if their common pool characteristics are ignored. Collective action problems are often analyzed from a game‐theoretical perspective that usually assumes rational, self‐interested individuals, who do not take collective and nonutilitarian perspectives into account. However, people do not value natural resources just for utilitarian reasons but also because of ethical nonutilitarian ones. This paper develops a multiple‐actor game‐theoretical approach to one's “value achievement” by taking into account both utilitarian and nonutilitarian perspectives. It demonstrates that someone's value achievement is contingent on choices made by others and that considering nonutilitarian perspectives may avoid the prisoner's dilemma. Accordingly, this model was empirically tested and confirmed by a survey among life sciences and biology students by presenting them a hypothetical case of a restored natural area. Based on these results, it is argued that emphasizing nonutilitarian considerations may be an important additional strategy in conservation and restoration projects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".