Why has the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling on public beach access not led to a 'Tragedy of the Commons'?

The reasoning behind selecting the view that beaches are considered non-rivalrous resources aligns with the nature of public beach access in Hawaii. Non-rivalrous resources are characterized by the fact that one person's use of the resource does not diminish the ability of another person to use it. In the case of Hawaii's beaches, even with increased usage by visitors or locals, the physical space of the beach allows for many people to enjoy it simultaneously without depleting or harming the resource in a way that would lead to a 'Tragedy of the Commons.' This means that the enjoyment of the beach by one user does not necessarily take away from another's experience, mitigating the overuse issues typically associated with common resources.

When considering the other options, the idea that beaches are private property misunderstands the public access laws upheld by the Hawaiian Supreme Court. Similarly, while an economy that is strictly regulated could theoretically limit overuse, the ruling in question directly grants access rather than imposes restrictions. Lastly, the assertion that tourists maintain the beaches suggests a responsibility or ownership that does not apply to public resources in the same way residents may care for a communal area. Therefore, the essence of the non-rivalrous nature of beaches supports the outcome of the ruling without triggering