111
communities to address potential threats like climate change or water quality may
have significant costs in the short term, but the benefits are not likely to occur until
well into the future. Research has shown that people are often less willing to incur
immediate costs for benefits that will occur in the medium or long term, especially
when there is some uncertainty about the benefits (Frederick et al. 2002). This mismatch in temporal scales can often lead to negative impacts in FEW systems and
policies that fail to address them.
Wilson et al. (2016) present a decision framework for conservation and environmental management for decisions made by individuals within an institution, such as
a governmental agency. This framework includes five elements: objectives of stakeholders and the decision-maker; actions of the decision-maker (e.g., policy);
responses of the social and ecological systems; and learning by the decision-maker
(see Fig. 4.3). The elements of the framework have their own timescales, which may
differ from one element to another.
Mismatches in these time scales can occur both within and between individual
decision-makers within an organization, actors in the social (human) system, or the
ecological (natural) system. Not accounting for these temporal mismatches may
lead to incorrect predictions of potential interventions aimed at conservation and
management. These mismatches may require behavioral interventions to adjust the
timescales of human systems. Given it is not often possible to adjust the timescales
of the natural system, this may be the only clear way to obtain the desired outcomes.
For example, placing a tax on gasoline will increase its short-term cost, potentially
causing people to drive less often and decreasing carbon emissions from personal
transportation. Alternatively, desirable behaviors like the use of solar energy can be
subsidized to encourage uptake when market forces are ineffective in the immediate
term. The benefits of these behaviors (driving less and using solar energy) are likely
to occur in the long term, and interventions can be used to impose short-term costs
and benefits to more closely align with the short-sighted nature of human decision making.
Problem Framing
& Governance
Structure
Decision maker
objectives
Decision maker
actions
(Policy)
Social system (S)
Ecological system (E)
Decision
maker
monitoring/
learning
Stakeholder
objectives
Objectives (O)
Actions (A)
System Response
Learning (L)
Fig. 4.3 A decision framework for conservation and environmental management for decisions
made by individuals within an institution. (Source: Wilson et al. 2016)
4 Human Behavior and Adaptation
communities to address potential threats like climate change or water quality may
have significant costs in the short term, but the benefits are not likely to occur until
well into the future. Research has shown that people are often less willing to incur
immediate costs for benefits that will occur in the medium or long term, especially
when there is some uncertainty about the benefits (Frederick et al. 2002). This mismatch in temporal scales can often lead to negative impacts in FEW systems and
policies that fail to address them.
Wilson et al. (2016) present a decision framework for conservation and environmental management for decisions made by individuals within an institution, such as
a governmental agency. This framework includes five elements: objectives of stakeholders and the decision-maker; actions of the decision-maker (e.g., policy);
responses of the social and ecological systems; and learning by the decision-maker
(see Fig. 4.3). The elements of the framework have their own timescales, which may
differ from one element to another.
Mismatches in these time scales can occur both within and between individual
decision-makers within an organization, actors in the social (human) system, or the
ecological (natural) system. Not accounting for these temporal mismatches may
lead to incorrect predictions of potential interventions aimed at conservation and
management. These mismatches may require behavioral interventions to adjust the
timescales of human systems. Given it is not often possible to adjust the timescales
of the natural system, this may be the only clear way to obtain the desired outcomes.
For example, placing a tax on gasoline will increase its short-term cost, potentially
causing people to drive less often and decreasing carbon emissions from personal
transportation. Alternatively, desirable behaviors like the use of solar energy can be
subsidized to encourage uptake when market forces are ineffective in the immediate
term. The benefits of these behaviors (driving less and using solar energy) are likely
to occur in the long term, and interventions can be used to impose short-term costs
and benefits to more closely align with the short-sighted nature of human decision making.
Problem Framing
& Governance
Structure
Decision maker
objectives
Decision maker
actions
(Policy)
Social system (S)
Ecological system (E)
Decision
maker
monitoring/
learning
Stakeholder
objectives
Objectives (O)
Actions (A)
System Response
Learning (L)
Fig. 4.3 A decision framework for conservation and environmental management for decisions
made by individuals within an institution. (Source: Wilson et al. 2016)
4 Human Behavior and Adaptation