"Individuals attribute less value to benefits that they expect to receive in the distant future, and more value to those expected in the immediate future. In other words, individuals discount future benefits..." (Ostrom)

Perhaps the biggest struggle with trying to get people to cooperate is getting them to act against their own (immediate) self-interest even for the sake of future rewards. I've offered this sort of thing to my kids—would you rather eat this one tiny candy now or have a full dessert later—and, unsurprisingly, they often choose the immediate reward.

Marketers know this. If you can get people's reward-gratification signals to fire in making a spontaneous purchase, it usually works. It's very hard to sell people on future gratification. Doing this usually requires playing to anxiety rather than reward (insurance, wills, device protection). But getting people to take less benefit now or share that benefit with others in exchange for a better future is no easy sell.

The main exception to this, according to Ostrom, is when people are more deeply connected to a location. They are likely to care about future benefits when they are hoping to see their kids share in those benefits as well. Conversely, the more transient people are, the less concerned they are about the shared resources within a given location.

I think the takeaway here for anyone working in the realm of the public good is that if you want people to care it needs to begin with forming connection to a community or place. People need to see their future as intrinsically bound to the sustained future of the place. Something, perhaps to consider in a later post.