The intergenerational sustainability dilemma (ISD) is a serious problem in that the current generation tends to choose actions with regard to their own benefit without considering future generations. However, little is known about how people deliberate and what types of “concepts” people consider with regard to ISD in societies. We institute field experiments of an ISD game (ISDG) and conduct qualitative deliberative analysis in rural and urban societies of Nepal. A sequence of six generations, each composed of three people, is organized, and each generation is asked to choose whether to maintain intergenerational sustainability (sustainable option) or maximize their payoff by irreversibly imposing costs on future generations (unsustainable option) in the ISDG. Each generation conducts a discussion lasting up to 10 min before making their decision, thereby enabling the deliberative analysis of the ISD. The qualitative deliberative analysis shows that the attitudes and concepts, such as ideas, motivations and reasons, that people discuss during the deliberation vary between urban and rural people. A considerable portion of urban people are identified as “stable” “influencers” who consistently argue for supporting unsustainable options, while another considerable portion of urban people are identified as “dependent” “conditional followers” who follow the influencers, and rural people do not show such tendencies. Moreover, urban subjects discuss more arguments regarding not considering future generations during their deliberations than do rural people, thereby leading urban generations to more frequently choose unsustainable options. Overall, our deliberative analysis finds that urban subjects may be becoming less concerned about future generations, and a close-knit rural society, such as rural areas in Nepal, can be a hope for solving the ISD.

代际可持续性困境（ISD）是一个严重的问题，因为当前这一代倾向于根据自己的利益选择行动，而不考虑后代。但是，人们对于社会上关于ISD的思考方式和思考方式知之甚少。我们开展了一项ISD游戏（ISDG）的现场实验，并在尼泊尔的农村和城市社会进行了定性的分析研究。安排了一个由六人组成的序列，每个人由三人组成，并要求每一代选择是通过ISDG不可逆地向后代施加成本（不可持续的选择）来维持代际可持续性（可持续的选择）还是最大化其收益。在决定之前，每一代人都会进行长达10分钟的讨论，从而可以对ISD进行审议分析。定性的商议分析表明，在审议过程中人们讨论的态度和概念（例如观念，动机和原因）在城乡之间是不同的。相当多的城市人被确定为“稳定”的“影响者”，他们一贯主张支持不可持续的选择，而另一相当大的城市人被确定为“依赖”的“有条件的追随者”，他们跟随影响者，而农村人民则不这样做。显示出这种倾向。此外，城市居民讨论的问题比农村人民讨论的更多关于不考虑后代的争论，从而导致城市世代更加频繁地选择不可持续的选择。总体，