Check "Game theory as a tool for the management of environmental problems and agreements" by Cioni, Lorenzo
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e27c/d43fa92bf0fd11e6c1d3e26a62bfcc6f6a77.pdf
This answer might be too basic for you, Olatunji but for those with no experience of game theory let’s take a really simple example and imagine a world with two countries A and B and they face each face a choice of whether to “Pollute” or “Abate”. There are 4 possible scenarios {Pollute, Pollute}; {Abate, Abate}; {Pollute, Abate} and {Abate, Pollute}. Each scenario results in different individual payoffs for each country. A Nash equilibrium occurs if each country is choosing the best possible action given the other country’s action. In a Nash equilibrium, neither country would benefit by deviating unilaterally.
A Nash equilibrium could occur at {Pollute, Pollute} but a scenario of {Abate, Abate} may yield a higher pay‐off to both players. This is known as a prisoners dilemma and is not efficient. This basic problem is a typical issue that occurs in International Environmental Agreements.
See more including a worked example here https://are.berkeley.edu/~traeger/Lectures/ClimateChangeEconomics/Slides/7%20International%20Cooperation%20-%201%20A%20Game%20Theoretic%20Perspective.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic