6. Common resources and the tragedy of the commons Edison, Kevin, and Rajiv are crabbers who live next to a ocean that is open to crabbing; in other words, anyone is free to use the ocean for crabbing. Assume that these men are the only three crabbers who crab fish in this ocean and that the ocean is large enough for all three crabbers to crab fish intensively at the same time. Each year, the crabbers choose independently how many crabs to catch; specifically, they choose whether to crab fish intensively (that is, to place several crab traps in the water for long stretches of time, which hurts the sustainability of the ocean if enough people do it) or to crab fish nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the ocean). None of them has the ability to control how much the others crab fish, and each crabber cares only about his own profitability and not about the state of the ocean. Assume that as long as no more than one crabber crab fishes intensively, there are enough crabs to restock the ocean. However, if two or more crab fish intensively, the ocean will become useless in the future. Of course, crabbing intensively earns a crabber more money and greater profit because he can sell more crabs. The ocean is an example of because the crabs in the ocean are and . Depending on whether Kevin and Rajiv both choose to crab fish either nonintensively or intensively, fill in Edison's profit-maximizing response in the following table, given Kevin and Rajiv's actions. Kevin and Rajiv's Actions Crab fish Nonintensively Crab fish Intensively Edison's Profit-Maximizing Response Which of the following solutions could ensure that the ocean is sustainable in the long run, assuming that the regulation is enforceable? Check all that apply. Outlaw intensive crabbing. Convert the ocean to private property, and allow the owner to sell crabbing rights. Develop a program that entices more crabbers to move to the area