Description of the exercise

Each student plays the role of the decision maker for a commercial fishing enterprise whose livelihood depends on the value of a fish harvest. There are four species of fish and they have differing market prices, with the base scenario having two high-value fish and two low-value fish.Footnote ³ The student fishes round by round; you can explain these rounds as hourly or daily effort tasks. We explain this as one throw of a net, and each fishing trip can consist of multiple net throws but each net throw (and bringing in the harvest) takes time. In each round, the student collects new fish. We explain that the finite capacity of the boat places a limit on the number of harvested fish the boat’s captain can bring back to port for money. The primary choice the participating student makes is whether to continue to fish when her boat is full. If she chooses to continue fishing, she must discard some of her already-collected fish to have room to store the new catch. Simply, when the day’s catch consists of a blend of high-value game fish and low-value bycatch, students must decide whether they want to discard fish of lower value in order to make room for more fish, thereby likely increasing the value of the ship’s payload. As continuing to fish uses more resources (time, fuel, etc.), the student’s face the trade-off of potentially higher revenues against the constant marginal cost of resources spent continuing to fish and perhaps an ethical cost of discarding edible fish.

We have parameterized the game such that each fishing round brings in three fish, and each participant’s boat can hold three rounds of fish (nine fish, in total). Thus, after the third round, decisions involve creating waste via discarding bycatch of economically less-valuable fish and attempting to increase the boat’s profit. Every round that a student continues to fish will create three more discarded fish in addition to requiring her to pay the associated marginal monetary cost for her ongoing fishing. Net profit for the student when she finishes is the value of the nine kept fish less fixed and variable costs seen in Equation 1 below:

(1) $$\matrix{{{\rm{Earnings = Value}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Final}}\;{\rm{Catch}} - {\rm{Fixed}}\;{\rm{Expedition}}\;{\rm{Cost}}} \cr { -({\rm{Variable}}\;{\rm{Cost}}*{\rm{Number}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Draws}})}\cr}$$

The following section discusses how we implemented the game in a classroom and offers advice for those who wish to do so.Footnote ⁴ This supplements the Instructor’s Guide, provided in Appendix I, which contains a detailed explanation of running the game for a group, including a presentation for after the game that can be used as it is or modified according to your needs. Appendix II provides instructions and game sheets for players.

Implementation of the game in the classroom

This section provides a detailed explanation of how to prepare for and conduct the game, but Appendix I provides the Instructor’s Guide to run the game in bullet point format for quick reference. We suggest you plan the game to take a single 50-minute class period or about 50 minutes out of a longer class period. In a class period longer than 50 minutes, the postgame discussion is easily extendable to be more inclusive and address all relevant course learning objectives.Footnote ⁵

You might consider directing students to relevant readings before the class session in which you perform this interactive demonstration. Studies on fishery bycatch are numerous, as are studies emphasizing the catastrophic results of fishery exploitation and chronic overfishing. Students not only see the tragedy of the commons on full display but also gain an appreciation for the delicate nature of ecosystems and the startling degree to which the world’s food supply is in jeopardy. For a discussion that focuses on bycatch, Lewison et al. (Reference Lewison, Crowder, Wallace, Moore, Cox, Zydelis and Bjorkland2014), Wallace et al. (Reference Wallace, Lewison, McDonald, McDonald, Kot, Kelez and Crowder2010) and (Reference Wallace, Kot, DiMatteo, Lee, Crowder and Lewison2013), Shester and Micheli (Reference Shester and Micheli2011), Finkbeiner et al. (Reference Finkbeiner, Wallace, Moore, Lewison, Crowder and Read2011), and Read, Drinker, and Northridge (Reference Read, Drinker and Northridge2006) provide a broad overview as well as specific case studies. For a discussion on solutions and economic drivers, Miller and Deacon (Reference Miller and Deacon2017), Chan and Pan (Reference Chan and Pan2016), Holland (Reference Holland2010), Segerson (Reference Segerson2010), Len and Squires (Reference Lent and Squires2017), Kirby and Ward (Reference Kirby and Ward2014), Pascoe et al. (Reference Pascoe, Innes, Holland, Fina, Thébaud, Townsend and Hutton2010), and Larson, House, and Terry (Reference Larson, House and Terry1996) present a broad range of economically based solutions. Recent journal articles or blog posts connected to the subject can help engage students in deeper understanding and prime them for the in-class simulation provided by the game. We also recommend showing one or both of the short videos listed on the Instructor’s Guide that illustrate how consumer demand for high-value species and differential price lead to price-based bycatch discarding.

Before running this simulation in class, it is imperative to choose which mechanism to use for the students’ catches (their “draws”) and to identify the fish species they caught. The Appendix depicts the four-sided dice method we used in our trials, which were available cheaply online, but free online random number generators are also very easy to access on a computer or on the students’ phones.

Distribute the instructions and recording sheet (found in Appendix II) to students in advance and ask them to read both before class begins.Footnote ⁶ Though we developed the game to have a maximum of eight draws, you can limit the number of draws to six or seven to ensure timely completion of the game without compromising the overall results (there is no value in increasing the upper limit, however). Many students will choose to stop fishing after five rounds, and few, if any, will persist beyond six, but the high upper limit of eight practically ensures that students conclude fishing by choice rather than by the exercise’s terminal round forcing them to do so. In the base version of the game, the other parameters of the game should remain fixed unless the instructor wishes to run the suggested alternative forms of the activity outlined in Section “Feedback and data from authors’ classroom sessions.” The detailed game play discussion and the results we present are for the base version of the game. As noted previously, it is possible to directly start with the varying price treatment; in our more recent use of the game, we now start with this treatment.

Begin by handing out recording sheets at the beginning of the session. Explain that during the game, as the activity progresses, students individually record their results on their recording sheets to document the simulation. This setup ensures that the instructor has time to run the full exercise and gives the students more ownership of the outcomes. It is helpful to build curiosity about the outcome and for students to understand that the game is not a competition between students so that they do not feel incentivized to cheat on that basis. Terms such as simulation or exercise may be less likely to incite overzealous competitiveness than repeated use of the word game in describing the activity.

Randomly select one student to play the game in front of the classroom, if desired. In each of our classroom sessions, we did so. For each draw, that student drew three physical, colored nylon fish from an opaque container (which held 20 of each of 4 colors of nylon fish) to make their selections, while students at their desks simultaneously rolled their set of three dice to generate their “draw.” Having the one student up front served two purposes. First, it helped other students to see how the game was working with actual draws of physical, tactile items (multicolored nylon fish). Secondly, this setup allows the instructor to ensure that the pace of the game moves smoothly, as all the students with dice are watching and participating with the one student up front, ensuring everyone is going at the same pace. The students at their desks can see how to fill out their decision sheets correctly by watching someone else do it in real time.

Introduce the game and clearly post how payoffs are calculated (Equation (1)) and the labeled Price List that specifies the value paid to the participating students at the end of their fishing expedition based on their kept fish.Footnote ⁷ Also, display (project or write on the board) a table that shows the correlations between the dice numbers rolled and the color of fish being drawn as a result.Footnote ⁸ Distribute the dice or otherwise ensure students have access to the randomization method you have chosen.

Explain that the entire class will roll their dice simultaneously and that the game proceeds in a synchronized fashion. Encourage students to ask questions during the game to ensure that there is no confusion and that the students record all their choices correctly. Emphasize that players will record their rolls and their subsequent decisions on the game result sheets. They will record their draw and discard outcomes as the instructor shows those of the chosen student up in the front of the room. In this way, all students will understand via watching and explanation how to complete their sheets and will stay synchronized with the instructor.

From the discussion of payments, costs, and revenues, students should understand the objective of the game is profit maximization and that maximizing profit is the criteria they should use in making their decisions during the game. Emphasize to the students that the commercial fisher’s livelihood depends on fishingFootnote ⁹ . As one of our colleagues graphically framed this point with regard to another classroom pedagogical exercise, “If they don’t bring in a sufficient income, there will be starving children who will cry all night long.”

Once an overall understanding has been achieved, and students are clear about (1) the payoffs listed on the Price List, (2) that their fixed cost for the day’s fishing expedition is $10 and their per-draw variable cost is $3 for every draw from the first draw, and (3) that they should proceed synchronously with your directions, you are ready to orchestrate the first draw.

Commence with the first draw. The student up front will blindly draw three fish from the container, while students at their desks will roll their three dice. Have students record the three fish that their draw yielded by writing in the white boxes beside DRAW 1 the first letter of each color of fish drawn.Footnote ¹⁰

Proceed with the second draw and repeat the recordkeeping; then the third.

After the third draw, and after every subsequent draw, they will make a decision. Their choice will be whether to quit fishing (for the day) or to continue to draw again, at the cost of $3 per draw. After the third draw, many students will elect a fourth draw. Those who do will face a decision of which three fish to discard after they catch the three new fish. They will record their discard decision on the game sheet. Then, those who are still fishing will again decide whether to quit fishing or draw again. For each round, it is important to ensure that all students are moving simultaneously to avoid confusion, only when the whole class has made decisions about the current round should the students who are still fishing then roll their dice for their next draw. Every draw after the third draw repeats these two decicions; after the draw they decide which fish to discard and then they decide to quit fishing or continue fishing. This process repeats until all students finish fishing or the game reaches the terminal round.

The iterative process of the game, along with the steps for each round in order, is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Round-by-round actions of students

Finally, ask students to prepare their recording sheets to be collected. Direct students to fill in their final haul in the nine boxes provided and to sum the value of the resultant catch. Collect game materials and lead the debrief and discussion or instruct the students how to prepare to have a discussion in the next class session.

A quick and easy alternate framing of the game to highlight the importance of price differences on bycatch outcomes can be achieved by distributing varying sets of prices for the potential fish species. With a large enough class, this will highlight the differences in bycatch rates as a function of the price variation. Instructors can include a discussion about methods to reduce bycatch by diversifying fisheries. Section “Economics and policy variations” discusses this treatment in detail. Next, we present the data and student feedback from the base version of the game.

An analysis of the students decisions

In this section, we present data on our most recent and refined version of the game, described above. We report observations from playing the game in a game theory class at a regional state university in spring 2019. We have 26 observations from 26 respondents. The data are both qualitative and quantitative. It is important to include each so that we can see what students chose to do (quantitative) but also understand why they did it and what they learned/took away from being engaged in this activity (qualitative).

We start by introducing the quantitative data. Many of the students engaged in what seems like profit-maximizing behavior. This outcome is not surprising given that many fishing companies behave in this manner and that it is the outcome standard economic theory suggests. In the tables and figures below, we display this data in an easy-to-process format.

First, we present the Total Revenue and Total Cost (Figure 1), the Marginal Revenue and Marginal Cost (Figure 2) and the Count of Marginal Revenue by Round (Figure 3). The first two figures should be familiar to anyone who has taught the classic fisheries economics section in an environmental or resource economics course. Even with just 26 observations from this session, we find that in general total revenue increases with fishing effort (number of rounds) and the marginal revenue decreases, supporting that the use of the game complements teaching the basic fisheries model. Furthermore, Figure 1 and Figure 2 indicate that based on the specified parameters, the maximum economic yield would be at four draws, and Figure 2 indicates that the net marginal revenue becomes negative from the fifth round for the fishery in aggregate.

Figure 1. Total cost and total revenue.

Figure 2. Marginal cost and marginal revenue.

Figure 3. Marginal revenue count by round.

It is important to note that Figures 1 and 2 show aggregate outcomes for the class (fishery) as a whole. We use Figure 3 to present the individual decisions focused on the marginal revenue for each player for every round in which they decide to engage in a draw. Figure 3 indicates three outcomes; first, the marginal revenue of an added round of fishing is high for the initial rounds. Second, for rounds after round three, when each player’s boat becomes filled to capacity, the marginal revenue starts decreasing. This is because for the marginal revenue to increase, the player must draw at least one fish that has a higher price than the nine fish in the boat, and the probability of this decreases as the number of rounds increases. Third, it is also important to note to the students that since the marginal cost per draw is $3, any marginal revenue not exceeding $3 results in zero or negative marginal profit. In this instance of play, we see that in a total of nine draws (three in round five, one in round six, one in round seven, and four in round eight), players lost money.

Now that we have shown that the game complements the classic fishery models, we turn to study the outcomes of these fishery decisions on bycatch. Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the stock of accumulated harvest (the fish kept in the players’ boats) by round, the discarded fish each round, and the accumulated discarded fish by round, respectively. The values for each of the four fish species are shown separately in each graph.

Figure 4. Stock of accumulated harvest by round.

Figure 5. Discarded fish in each round.

Figure 6. Cumulative total of discarded fish by round.

Figure 4 shows that as the rounds progress, the accumulated harvest of the high-value fish, blue and purple fish, increases, while the accumulated total of the low-value fish, orange and green, decreases. In particular, the harvested stock of the orange fish, which has the lowest value, drops towards zero rapidly, as this is the fish that players are most likely to discard. We see this illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, where the orange fish that were caught in the early rounds are rapidly discarded from round four onward. We also see that the blue and purple fish are rarely discarded, and that discards of the blue fish only happen in the very late rounds.

Our purpose including these results in the paper is to highlight (1) that the structure of the game and the resulting decision-making simulated the classic fisheries models taught in undergraduate and graduate classes and (2) that the game clearly illustrates the occurrences of bycatch and how the relative market prices of fish drive bycatch outcomes, especially discarding. Next, we discuss the student feedback on the game and how the game helped achieve specific learning outcomes.

A discussion of learning outcomes and student feedback

Now we turn to the qualitative discussion – that is, what did students say they were doing and why did they behave the way that they did in this game. We report observations from playing the game in a game theory class at a regional state university in spring 2019. We conducted an informal postgame feedback where the students were given a short one-page survey on the game and the learning outcomes. All of the 26 students in class on the day we conducted the game participated and filled out their feedback forms.

We first summarize how playing the game contributed to participants’ learning about eight important concepts relevant to the game. Specifically, we asked “Did you understand how each of these concepts was incorporated into the game and discussion? Please choose the appropriate option (strongly agree to strongly disagree) for each concept. The results are summarized in Table 3. A majority of participants agreed that these concepts were reflected in their experience with the game, and some of the topics (such as economic incentives, undervalued fish, and market prices and catch decisions) had even stronger recognition with more than 90% of participants choosing Strongly Agree or Agree for these concepts.

Table 3. Participant recognition of topics in the game

Note: Cells contain percentages of responses to the question, “Did you understand how each of these concepts was incorporated into the game?” that were “Strongly agree” or “Agree” for the named topic.

Some concepts, specifically common pool resources and fisheries diversification, had a lower number of participants selecting Strongly Agree and Agree. This finding is not surprising as these concepts are key discussion items that follow the activity, but we conducted the survey prior to the discussion to elicit feedback on the game itself. Further, we played the game in a game theory class, and as such, we did not hold a detailed discussion of these concepts.

The feedback form also elicited answers to open-ended questions about the game. When asked “What were the main takeaways and lessons from the game and the discussion/presentation?” 61% (16) of respondents discussed how economic incentives contribute to discarding bycatch in fisheries, 42% (11) discussed environmental and ethical aspects of fisheries bycatch, and 19% (5) identified or discussed the optimal stopping point to maximize returns.

The participants also clearly identified the motivations that lead to discarding of low-value fish. When asked “Which fish, if any, did you know that you would not keep as soon as you caught them?” 91% of the respondents stated that they would discard the orange fish (which are the fish with the lowest value). Further, among participants who discarded fish, 83% mentioned maximizing profit or increasing their profit in response to the question “Did you discard fish in any round? If so, what motivated you to discard the fish?”

The qualitative feedback we received demonstrates that the students responded to the game and that the game was effective in highlighting how economic incentives and decision-making drive issues related to bycatch, including discarding edible fish. The feedback shows that students understood their mission to maximize profit and had carried it out in a rational manner. The resulting marginal revenue and marginal profit curves closely resembled those appearing in a microeconomics textbook. The students had actually made decisions that mirrored this familiar pattern. In the postgame presentation, they were able to see these graphs (compiled from an earlier class trial) and relate their actual decision-making practices to this fundamental microeconomic theory, bringing the theory to life. The feedback also indicates that the game was illustrative in showing the extent and magnitude of bycatch-related issues. Next, we introduce a series of discussion prompts that can be used to explore solutions and to enhance the learning outcomes of playing the game. We follow this with a discussion of possible treatments and extensions.

Economics and policy variations

Historically, environmental policy employs three approaches: quantity control (direct regulation), taxes/fees to influence the costs/benefits from actions, and behavioral approaches meant to “nudge” decision makers toward targeted outcomes, with the latter being a much newer policy approach. For theoretical approaches of quantity and price regulation in fisheries, we suggest you view Weitzman (Reference Weitzman2002), Jensen and Vestergaard (Reference Jensen and Vestergaard2003), and Hansen (Reference Hansen2008). Below, we introduce possible modifications to our learning activity that addresses each of these approaches that policy makers employ.

Varying price difference treatment and increasing the consumer willingess to pay (WTP) for low-value fish

Consider using a version of the game with a narrower price spread (where the prices of the four fish species are closer together). This outcome would happen if policy makers tried to increase the economic value of the “trash fish,” raising their demand and potentially lowering that of the substitute fish a bit (see Kittinger et al. Reference Kittinger, Teh, Allison, Bennett, Crowder, Finkbeiner and Young2017, McClenachan Dissanayake, and Chen Reference McClenachan, Dissanayake and Chen2016 and Witkin, Dissanayake, and McClenachan Reference Witkin, Dissanayake and McClenachan2015, Jaffry et al. Reference Jaffry, Glenn, Ghulam, Willis and Delanbanque2016 for a discussion on consumer responses to sustainability in fisheries). When this occurs, their prices are driven toward one another. Playing a treatment with a tighter price distribution will result in a lesser number of rounds of fishing and a smaller amount of discarded bycatch.

Attempts to achieve this outcome are seen in costal restaurants where chefs prepare meals using these lesser known (and less appreciated), but otherwise nutritional fish (Chefs Collaborative 2017). This approach is an example of a “nudging” style of policy (Witkin, Dissanayake, and McClenachan Reference Witkin, Dissanayake and McClenachan2015; Jaffry et al. Reference Jaffry, Glenn, Ghulam, Willis and Delanbanque2016). Once such fish become more well known both by chefs and consumers, demand for them rises, as does their economic value to fishing companies, thereby decreasing the amount of bycatch discarded.

We explored this treatment in two classes during winter 2020, an Economics of Sustainability class in the university’s economics department and a Conservation Biology class in the biology department. The pooled results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of draws and discards from price treatments

It is important to note that this is not a statistical analysis, but it highlights that gathering the total responses quickly in class allows illustrating how price differences impact bycatch. This can then lead to a discussion about mechanisms to improve prices of low-value fish. We supplemented this discussion by having the students read/present a subset of the papers mentioned above.

Ecological variations