This question is incomplete, here´s the complete question.
Common resources and the tragedy of the commons
Kenji, Paolo, and Van are hunters who live next to a recreational wildlife game area that is open to hunting; in other words, anyone is free to use the recreational wildlife game area for hunting. Assume that these men are the only three hunters who hunt in this recreational wildlife game area and that the recreational wildlife game area is large enough for all three hunters to hunt intensively at the same time. Each year, the hunters choose independently how often to hunt; specifically, they choose whether to hunt intensively (that is, to set several traps and hunt long hours, which hurts the sustainability of the recreational wildlife game area if enough people do it) or to hunt nonintensively (which does not hurt the sustainability of the recreational wildlife game area). None of them has the ability to control how much the others hunt, and each hunter cares only about his own profitability and not the state of the recreational wildlife game area.
The recreational wildlife game area is an example of (Club good, Private good, common resources, public good) because the animals in the recreational wildlife game area are (Excludable, nonexcludable) and (Rival in consumption, nonrival in consumption).
Answer:
common resources
nonexcludable
Rival in consumption
Step-by-step explanation:
The Tragedy of the Commons refers to a situation in which people consume too much of a common resource.
The recreational wildlife game area is an example of a common resource, which is a nonexcludable good (people can´t be stopped from consuming the good) and rival in consumption (the more someone consumes, it means there´s less of the good available for others).
For recreational wildlife game to be sustainable in the long run, intensive hunting should be outlawed and recreational wildlife game areas should be turned into private property to enable the owner to sell hunting rights.