Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Justice for All? Factors Affecting Perceptions of Environmental and Ecological Injustice

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Moving beyond the typical focus on individual injustices, we examine individual-level and contextual factors affecting perceptions of justice with regard to the environment. Specifically, we examine decision-making procedures pertaining to environmental resource use and harms across groups of people; the distribution of environmental harms; and the direct treatment of the natural environment (i.e., procedural environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice, respectively). To test our hypotheses, we use data from a survey administered to a cohort of first-year college students at a southeastern university. Results demonstrate that environmental identity and perceptions of the extent to which the university context encourages sustainability consistently enhance perceptions of all three types of justice. Other factors differentially affect each type of justice. We discuss the importance of the patterns that emerge for environmental and sustainability education and speculate on the implications of moving from thinking about (in)justice related to the environment as an individual issue to one of the collectivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A possible exception is the unlikely case that a student comes from a community that is directly affected by environmental burdens. As evidenced in the “Methods” section, this is unlikely given the racial and socio-economic characteristics of participants in this sample.

  2. Our analysis includes demographic characteristics (gender, race, income level, and parents’ education level) as controls. We also control on past ERBs because they may be both antecedents and consequences of justice evaluations.

  3. Although empirical findings are consistent with regard to the relationship between political liberalism and environmental concerns, studies on the impact of political party affiliation provide mixed results (e.g., Buttel & Flinn, 1978; Dillman & Christensen, 1972; Uyeki & Holland, 2000; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Given the unclear effects of political party on environmental concerns and the youth of the college students in our study, we focus on their nascent political beliefs rather than any potential or future affiliation with political parties.

  4. This paper uses data from a trend study examining the effects of living in green dorms on environmental behaviors.

  5. We ran all analyses also using a ten-item environmental identity scale. No discernible differences emerged in the pattern of findings for each model.

  6. We ran two additional models with an interaction terms. First, we included an interaction for perceived university context and political liberalism. Second, we included an interaction for environmental identity and political liberalism. Neither of these interactions was significant, nor did they change the general pattern of findings from Model 3.

References

  • Barkan, S. E. (2004). Explaining public support for the environmental movement: A civic voluntarism model. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 913–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, L. K. (2008). Implementing behavioral change in residence halls at the University of Colorado at Boulder: Energy conservation and reusable bags. Retrieved from http://envs.colorado.edu/uploads/undergrad/Energy_Conservation_Reusable_Bags_report.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2011.

  • Bartels, L. M. (2010). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, B. (2005). A theory of ecological justice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (1967). Self perceptions: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., & Marlin, M. M. (1980). Parental and peer influence on adolescents. Social Forces, 58(4), 1057–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biga, C. F. (2006). Explaining environmentally significant individual behaviors: Identity theory, multiple identities, and shared meanings. Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations (AAT 3221798).

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobocel, D. R., & Zdanuik, A. (2010). Injustice and identity: How we respond to unjust treatment depends on how we perceive ourselves. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (11th volume). New York: Psychology Press.

  • Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. D. (1994). Unequal protection: Environmental justice and communities of color. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. D. (1996). Environmental justice: More than waste facility siting. Social Science Quarterly, 77(3), 493–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in dixie. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 836–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F. H., & Flinn, W. L. (1978). Social class and mass environmental beliefs a reconsideration. Environment and Behavior, 10(3), 433–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Čapek, S. (1993). The environmental justice frame. Social Problems, 40(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. (1998). Preference for macrojustice versus microjustice in environmental decisions. Environment and Behavior, 30(2), 162–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. (2012). Environment and identity. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 164–180). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 450–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., & Christensen, J. A. (1972). The public value for pollution control. In W. R. Burch Jr., et al. (Eds.), Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment (pp. 237–256). New York: Harper Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. Society and Natural Resources, 4(3), 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). Social movement identity: Validating a measure of identification with the environmental movement. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1045–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144–160). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1013–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, J. Z., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Are the goals of organizational justice self-interested? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 179–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505–2528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A. (2006). Justice frameworks. In P. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 46–69). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., & Cook, K. S. (2001). Distributive justice: Recent theoretical developments and applications. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 93–132). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2000). Justice beyond the individual: A future with legitimation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 298–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., & Markovsky, B. (1995). Justice and injustice. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 257–280). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, D., Weiher, A. W., Espiritu, R. C., & Esbensen, F. A. (2003). Delinquency and crime: Some highlights from the Denver youth survey. In T. P. Thornberry & M. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1122–1165). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahler, S. (2003). The ripple effect: How one dorm room can affect a university’s energy use. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(3), 230–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, A., Nelson, R. E., Gaeddert, W. P., & Hearn, J. L. (1982). The justice process: Deciding upon equity or equality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(1), 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kals, E., & Russell, Y. (2001). Individual conceptions of justice and their potential for explaining proenvironmental decision making. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzev, R. D., & Mishima, H. (1992). The use of posted feedback to promote recycling. Psychological Reports, 71, 259–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, N., & Johnson, C. (2010). Passing as black: Racial identity work among biracial Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 380–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killian, C., & Johnson, C. (2006). “I’m not an immigrant!”: Resistance, redefinition, and the role of resources in identity work. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 60–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, N., & Gleeson, B. (1998). Justice, society, and nature: An exploration of political ecology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcell, K., Agyeman, J., & Rappaport, A. (2004). Cooling the campus: Experiences from a pilot study to reduce electricity use at Tufts University using social marketing methods. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 5(2), 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47(4), 499–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(4), 418–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnotte, K. L., Mannon, S. E., Pedersen Stevens, D., & Kilger, G. (2008). Does it take a village to make a marriage? Exploring the relationship between community and marital satisfaction. Sociological Focus, 41(1), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobley, C., Vagias, W. M., & DeWard, S. L. (2010). Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 420–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohai, P., Pellow, D. N., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental justice. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 34, 405–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2007). Race inequality in the distribution of hazardous waste: A national-level reassessment. Social Problems, 54(3), 343–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, C. W., & Landsman, M. J. (2004). Legitimacy and justice perceptions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(2), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Wildlife Federation. (2008). Campus environment 2008: A national report card on sustainability in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Campus-Ecology/Reports/CampusReport82008Finallowres.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130110T1632116718. Accessed 14 Jul 2009.

  • Neumayer, E. (2004). The environment, left-wing political orientation and ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 51(3–4), 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behavior: Bringing back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S., & Clayton, S. (1994). Green justice: Conceptions of fairness and the natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 437–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellow, D. N., & Brehm, H. N. (2013). An environmental sociology for the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 229–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellow, D. N., & Brulle, R. J. (2005). Power, justice, and the environment: A critical appraisal of the environmental justice movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendarvis, S. S. (2002). SUI student survey preliminary results. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/sustainableu/studentsurvey.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2008.

  • Peterson, J. E., Shunturov, V., & Janda, K. (2007). Dormitory residents reduce electricity consumption when exposed to real-time visual feedback and incentives. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(1), 16–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picou, J. S. (2008). In search of a public environmental sociology: Ecological risks in the twenty-first century. Contemporary Sociology, 37(6), 520–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–311). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, G. (2002). Examining the effects of recycling outreach on recycling behavior in residence halls at the University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2002final/Schultz.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2011.

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2005). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A justice perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 183–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (2010). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1–26). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1336–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stets, J. E. (2003). Justice, emotion, and identity theory. In P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. Serpe, & P. A. Thoits (Eds.), Advances in identity theory and research (pp. 105–122). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21(4), 398–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. M. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychology perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. E. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 508–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thapa, B. (2001). Environmental concern: A comparative analysis between students in recreation and park management and other departments. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timm, N. H. (2002). Applied multivariate analysis. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Green Business Council. (2008). What LEED is. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988. Accessed 14 Jul 2009.

  • Uyeki, E. S., & Holland, L. J. (2000). Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 646–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273–300). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace (pp. 49–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2), 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how it’s measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villacorta, M., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2003). Further validation of the motivation toward the environment scale. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 486–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, H. A., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1993). Power, legitimation, and the stability of authority: A theoretical research program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), Theoretical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory (pp. 364–381). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, W. (2008). Sustainable education: Community colleges as environmental champions. Community College Journal, 78(5), 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Scrull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322–359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2007). Environmental concern and sociodemographic variables: A study of statistical models. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(2), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30306, USA

    Christie L. Parris, Karen A. Hegtvedt, Lesley A. Watson & Cathryn Johnson

Authors
  1. Christie L. Parris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen A. Hegtvedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lesley A. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cathryn Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christie L. Parris.

Appendix

Appendix

Dependent Variables

How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)

Procedural Environmental Justice (α = .771)

  1. 1.

    Decisions about where to situate polluting industries should take into account the opinions of the people who would live near those sites.

  2. 2.

    Equal treatment of all people should be considered when decision makers are solving environmental problems.

  3. 3.

    People have a general responsibility to conserve environmental resources for future generations.

Distributive Environmental Injustice (r = .536, p ≤ .001)

  1. 1.

    Environmental damage generated here in the US harms people all over the world.

  2. 2.

    Poor neighborhoods are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of exposure to environmental hazards.

Ecological Injustice (α = .825)

  1. 1.

    Humans are severely abusing the environment.

  2. 2.

    The greenhouse effect is dangerous to the environment.

  3. 3.

    Pesticides and chemicals are dangerous to the environment.

Independent Variables

Motivations

In thinking about what you can do for the environment, do you…? (1 = not at all, 7 = a great deal)

Facilitating (α = .747)

  1. 1.

    Genuinely believe that such action will make the world a better place.

  2. 2.

    Anticipate personal or spiritual rewards.

  3. 3.

    Feel a sense of responsibility.

Inhibiting (r = .507, p ≤ .001)

  1. 1.

    Think the problem is not as serious as some make it out to be (e.g., media, environmentalists).

  2. 2.

    Think it takes too much time (i.e., is inconvenient).

Political Liberalism

Where would you place yourself on a liberal/conservative scale of political attitudes? (1 = Extremely Conservative, 7 = Extremely Liberal)

Environmental Identity (α = .882)

How “true” of you are each of the following statements? (1 = not at all true, 7 = completely true)

  1. 1.

    Engaging in environmental behaviors is important to me.

  2. 2.

    I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it.

  3. 3.

    Being a part of the ecosystem is an important part of who I am.

  4. 4.

    I feel that I have roots to a particular geographic location that had a significant impact on my development.

  5. 5.

    In general, being part of the natural world is an important part of my self-image.

  6. 6.

    My own interests usually seem to coincide with the position advocated by environmentalists.

Residence Hall Assignment

“What dorm do you live in?” (Conventional Dorm = 0, Green Dorm = 1)

Perceptions of Peer Behavior (α = .905)

How much do the people who live on your hall…? (1 = not at all 7 = a great deal)

  1. 1.

    Conserve water.

  2. 2.

    Conserve energy (e.g., electrical).

  3. 3.

    Turn off lights when exiting a room.

  4. 4.

    Turn off the faucet when brushing teeth.

  5. 5.

    Recycle paper.

  6. 6.

    Recycle containers.

  7. 7.

    Advocate for environmental solutions.

  8. 8.

    Belong to environmental groups.

Perceptions of University Context (α = .943)

How much does [university] encourage students to…? (1 = not at all, 7 = a great deal)

  1. 1.

    Conserve water.

  2. 2.

    Conserve energy (e.g., electrical).

  3. 3.

    Turn off lights when exiting a room.

  4. 4.

    Use alternative forms of transportation (e.g., bicycling and campus shuttles).

  5. 5.

    Recycle paper.

  6. 6.

    Recycle containers (e.g., plastic, glass, and aluminum).

  7. 7.

    Belong to environmental groups.

  8. 8.

    Advocate for environmental solutions.

Controls

Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female

Race: 0 = nonwhite, 1 = white

Income: What is your parents’ estimated annual combined income?

1. Less than 25,000

5. $100,001–$150,000

2. $25,001–$50,000

6. $150,001–$200,000

3. $50,001–$75,000

7. $200,001–$250,000

4. $75,001–$100,000

8. More than $250,000

Mother’s/Father’s Education: What is the highest level of school that your mother (father) or female (male) guardian has completed?

  1. 0.

    N/A.

  2. 1.

    High school graduate/GED/less than high school.

  3. 2.

    Technical/vocational.

  4. 3.

    Some college or associates degree.

  5. 4.

    Bachelor’s degree.

  6. 5.

    Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MBA, MPH, MSW).

  7. 6.

    Professional school degree (e.g., MD, JD, DVM, DDS).

  8. 7.

    Doctorate degree (e.g., PhD, EdD).

Environmentally Responsible Behaviors (α = .874)

“During the last 6 months, how often did you…?” (1 = never, 7 = always)

  1. 1.

    Turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth.

  2. 2.

    Turn off lights when exiting a room.

  3. 3.

    Walk, ride a bike, or take public transportation instead of driving or riding in a car.

  4. 4.

    Unplug chargers for phones, iPods, etc., when not in use.

  5. 5.

    Carpool to a destination.

  6. 6.

    Recycle paper.

  7. 7.

    Recycle containers (e.g., plastic, glass, and aluminum).

  8. 8.

    Advocate for solutions to environmental problems.

  9. 9.

    Attend a meeting or event sponsored by an environmental group.

  10. 10.

    Encourage family members to recycle.

  11. 11.

    Encourage friends to recycle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parris, C.L., Hegtvedt, K.A., Watson, L.A. et al. Justice for All? Factors Affecting Perceptions of Environmental and Ecological Injustice. Soc Just Res 27, 67–98 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-013-0200-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-013-0200-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation