Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2025, 71(11):618-627 | DOI: 10.17221/86/2025-AGRICECON

The use of the game theory in the management of agroecosystem servicesOriginal Paper

Ernesto Mesa-Vázquez1,2, José A. Aznar-Sánchez ORCID...2,3, Óscar González-Yebra ORCID...2,4, Miguel A. Gómez-Tenorio5
1 Department of Economic Analysis and Political Economy, Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
2 Mediterranean Research Center on Economics and Sustainable Development (CIMEDES), University of Almería, Almería, Spain
3 Department of Economy and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Almería, Almería, Spain
4 Department of Graphic Expression, Design and Projects, School of Industrial Engineering, University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
5 Department of Agroforestry Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Almería, Almería, Spain

Agroecosystems provide a number of ecosystem services that are essential to human well-being.  The valuation of these services by stakeholders offers important information that can be used to manage them more efficiently. In agroecosystems, individual stakeholder preferences can be heterogeneous and even opposing. This paper puts forward a novel analytical framework based on game theory to integrate the valuation of ecosystem services by different stakeholders into agroecosystem management. To illustrate it, the agricultural region of Los Vélez (south-eastern Spain) is used and three game modalities are applied (prisoner’s dilemma, common-pool resource game and battle of the sexes). Results indicate that the use of game theory contributes to more effective conflict resolution between stakeholders with different interests and priorities, making it easier to reach consensus on optimal management strategies. This approach can guide policymakers in the design and implementation of socially accepted agroecosystem management policies.

Keywords: decision-making; ecosystem services; management strategies; stakeholders; valuation

Received: February 26, 2025; Revised: September 25, 2025; Accepted: October 8, 2025; Published: November 28, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Mesa-Vázquez E, Aznar-Sánchez JA, González-Yebra Ó, Gómez-Tenorio MA. The use of the game theory in the management of agroecosystem services. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2025;71(11):618-627. doi: 10.17221/86/2025-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Axelrod R. (1984): The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, Basic Books: 198-241.
    2. Barati A.A., Azadi H., Scheffran J. (2021): Agricultural land fragmentation in Iran: Application of game theory. Land Use Policy, 100: 105049. Go to original source...
    3. Cabrera García S., Imbert Tamayo J.E., Carbonell-Olivares J., Pacheco Cabrera Y. (2013): Application of the game theory with perfect information to an agricultural company. Agric. Econ. - Czech, 59: 1-7. Go to original source...
    4. de Groot R., Moolenaar S., de Vente J., De Leijster V., Ramos M.E., Robles A.B., Schoonhoven Y., Verweij P. (2022): Framework for integrated ecosystem services assessment of the costs and benefits of large scale landscape restoration illustrated with a case study in Mediterranean Spain. Ecosystem Services, 53: 101383. Go to original source...
    5. Feng C., Yang L., Luo M., Liu Q. (2023): A framework of payments for water-related ecosystem services (PWES) based on green water management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425: 138930. Go to original source...
    6. Fudenberg D., Tirole J. (1991): Game Theory. Cambrdige, MIT Press: 1-64
    7. Gibbons R. (1997): An introduction to applicable game theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11: 127-149. Go to original source...
    8. Hanley N., Shogren J.F., White B. (2019): Introduction to Environmental Economics. 3rd Ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 156-194.
    9. Hardin G. (1968): The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162: 1243-1248. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Hart S. (1992): Games in extensive and strategic forms. In: Aumann R., Hart S. (Eds.): Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications. New York, Elsevier: 19-40. Go to original source...
    11. Kamyab M., Kerachian R., Behboudian M. (2024): Stakeholder-based management of ecosystem services in agricultural areas: Integrating the leader-follower game and a conflict resolution model. Journal of Environmental Management, 370: 123073. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Khiavi A.N., Tavoosi M., Khodamoradi H., Kuriqi A. (2024): Integration of watershed eco-physical health through algorithmic game theory and supervised machine learning. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 26: 101216. Go to original source...
    13. Liu W., Wang J., Li C., Chen B., Sun Y. (2019): Using bibliometric analysis to understand the recent progress in agroecosystem services research. Ecological Economics, 156: 293-305. Go to original source...
    14. Liu Q., Sun X., Wu W., Liu Z., Fang G., Yang P. (2022): Agroecosystem services: A review of concepts, indicators, assessment methods and future research perspectives. Ecological Indicators, 142: 109218. Go to original source...
    15. Martin-Clouaire R. (2018): Ontological foundation of ecosystem services and the human dimension of agroecosystems. Agricultural Science, 9: 525-545. Go to original source...
    16. Myerson R.B. (1991): Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, Harvard University Press: 313-375.
    17. Osborne M.J. (2004): An Introduction to Game Theory. New York, Oxford University Press: 134-268.
    18. Ostrom E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 1-28. Go to original source...
    19. Ostrom E. (1998): A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92: 1-22. Go to original source...
    20. Richardson L., Loomis J., Kroeger T., Casey F. (2015): The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecological Economics, 115: 51-58. Go to original source...
    21. Satama-Bermeo M., Rudolf M., Olschewski R. (2024): Agroecosystem services: From general assessment to policy implications. People and Nature, 6: 1060-1077. Go to original source...
    22. Sprinz D.F., Schaefers T.V., Lenk F., Krott M. (2024): Forecasting forest-related political decisions in a climate-constrained world - The remuneration of forest ecosystem services in Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 169: 103231. Go to original source...
    23. Stokes A., Bocquého G., Carrere P., Salazar R.C., Deconchat M., Garcia L., Gardarin A., Gary C., Gaucherel C., Gueye M., Hedde M., Lescourret F., Mao Z., Quérou N., Rudi G., Salles J.M., Soubeyran R., Subervie J., Vialatte A., Vinatier F., Thomas M. (2023): Services provided by multifunctional agroecosystems: Questions, obstacles and solutions. Ecological Engineering, 191: 106949. Go to original source...
    24. Ulrich W., Batáry P., Baudry J., Beaumelle L., Bucher R., Čerevková A., de la Riva E.G., Felipe-Lucia M.R., Gallé R., Kesse-Guyot E., Rembiałkowska E., Rusch A., Stanley D., Birkhofer K. (2023): From biodiversity to health: Quantifying the impact of diverse ecosystems on human well-being. People and Nature, 5: 69-83. Go to original source...
    25. Velasco-Muñoz J.F., Aznar-Sánchez J.A., López-Felices B., Balacco G. (2022): Adopting sustainable water management practices in agriculture based on stakeholder preferences. Agric. Econ. - Czech, 68: 317-326. Go to original source...
    26. Yan Y., Cao Y. (2024): Three-party behavior strategy selection and simulation of monetary compensation for marine environmental damage based on evolutionary game theory. Ocean & Coastal Management, 250: 107025. Go to original source...
    27. Zabala J.A., Martínez-Paz J.M., Alcón F. (2021): Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices. Ecological Economics, 184: 107008. Go to original source...
    28. Zandebasiri M., Azadi H., Viira A.H., Jahanbazi Goujani H., Iranmanesh Y., Imani Rastabi M., Witlox F. (2022): Valuing the role of key stakeholders in modelling forest cooperative game: A case study of Iranian forests. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 19: 12411-12426. Go to original source...
    29. Zhu L., Yu W., Yang J. (2022): Game analysis on the quality and safety control of pork supply chain - The case study of China. Agric. Econ. - Czech, 68: 434-443. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content