Choices We Make in Times of Crisis

Patrick O. Waeber, Natasha Stoudmann, James D. Langston, Jaboury Ghazoul, Lucienne Wilmé, Jeffrey Sayer, Carlos Nobre, John L. Innes, Philip Fernbach, Steven A. Sloman and Claude A. Garcia
Additional contact information
Patrick O. Waeber: Department of Environmental Systems Science, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, ETH-Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Natasha Stoudmann: School of Technology, Environments and Design, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7001, Australia
James D. Langston: Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Jaboury Ghazoul: Department of Environmental Systems Science, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, ETH-Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Lucienne Wilmé: World Resources Institute Africa, Madagascar Program, BP 3884, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar
Jeffrey Sayer: Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Carlos Nobre: Institute of Advanced Studies, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-060, Brazil
John L. Innes: Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Philip Fernbach: Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder CO 80309, USA
Steven A. Sloman: Cognitive, Linguistic & Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
Claude A. Garcia: Department of Environmental Systems Science, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, ETH-Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 6, 1-18

Abstract: We present a new framework that allows understanding those we deem irrational in the climate debate. Realizing if the issue is one of information, beliefs, values or means opens the door for more constructive dialogue. Decision-makers diverge in their responses to the urgent need for action on climate and biodiversity. Action gaps are fueled by the apparent inability of decision-makers to respond efficiently to the mounting threats described by scientists—and increasingly recognized by society. Surprisingly, with the growing evidence and the accumulation of firsthand experiences of the impacts of environment crises, the gap is not only a problem of conflicting values or beliefs but also a problem of inefficient strategies. Bridging the gap and tackling the growing polarization within society calls for decision-makers to engage with the full complexity of the issues the world is facing. We propose a framework characterizing five archetypes of decision-makers to help us out of the current impasse by better understanding the behavior of others. Dealing with the complexity of environmental threats requires decision-makers to question their understanding of who wins and who loses, and how others make decisions. This requires that decision-makers acknowledge complexity, embrace uncertainty, and avoid falling back on simplistic cognitive models. Understanding the complexity of the issue and how people make decisions is key to having a fighting chance of solving the climate crisis.

Keywords: environmental change; decision-making; environmental awareness; environmental concern; action gap; mental model; theory of mind (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3578/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3578/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3578-:d:522723

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().