Elinor Ostrom’s work challenging prevailing metaphors about how to solve “tragedies of the
commons” had two profound impacts. First, it demonstrated that working inductively from the
nature of the problem in question can generate innovative policy solutions to enduring problems.
Second, the CPR metaphor straightjacketed scholarship and pedagogy by reinforcing the
conversion of environmental problems into economic challenges. To overcome this tragedy, we
identify four ideal-type problem conceptions: win-win; win/lose optimization; win/lose compromise;
and win/lose priority. We show the utility of these lenses for describing the shift away
from Type 4 understandings of environmental problems dominant in the 1970s that justified the
creation of environment schools and strict conservation laws, toward Type 1, 2, and 3 conceptions
that emphasize the “science” of compromise and cost-benefit analysis. We conclude with
suggestions to reverse these trends if environmental schools are to train students to address
“super wicked” Type 4 problems such as climate change.
