I can translate this paradox into fish for you, if you want :). Suppose you have two ponds, one with a large population of low value fish, and one with a limit

I can translate this paradox into fish for you, if you want :). Suppose you have two ponds, one with a large population of low value fish, and one with a limited number of high value fish. The value of fish caught from the big pond is 1/2, and the value of the small pond is 40/n, where n is the number of fisherman using the pond. Consider 50 fisherman living by both ponds, with a bridge connecting the two. The only equilibrium is 80 fisherman fishing the small pond and 20 fishing the big pond (otherwise at least 1 fisherman's catch rises by moving). Suppose the government burns down the bridge. Now 50 fisherman fish at each pond, and total catch rises from 50 to 65. In general, when you have 2 choices, one with higher quality and more sensitivity to increased use, then you get dynamics similar to this paradox. Whether government has the ability and incentive to intervene effectively is a separate question.