Justice and Environmental Decision Making

  • Geoffrey J. Syme


As the rate of species extinction increases, the threats from climate change become more evident and our population grows there is an increasing knowledge of our dependence on the ecosystem services that underpin human social welfare and the world economy. It is also clear that demand for natural resources such as water and fossil fuels is problematic as access to water becomes highly competitive and carbon emissions becomes intense. It is evident that such challenges require a much better understanding of how the application of environmental ethics and considerations of the social justice can assist in resolving potential conflict. This chapter describes how social psychological theory and the understanding of lay ethics can provide a basis for sharing. The concepts of equity, distributive justice, procedural and interactive justice and fairness are introduced. The significance of these for resource allocation decisions is explained. Water resources management and climate change are used to provide examples. The chapter discusses why justice issues are important in mitigating self interest in decision making and the limitations of policy makers relying entirely on market mechanisms to allocate natural resources.


Procedural Justice Distributive Justice Water Allocation Environmental Ethic Environmental Justice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzo (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bryson, K. A. (2008). Negotiating environmental rights. Ethics, Place and Environment, 11(3), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clayton, S. (1994). Appeals to justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 50(30), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cortner, H. J., & Shannon, M. A. (1993). Embedding public participation in its political context. Journal of Forestry, 91(7), 14–16.Google Scholar
  6. D’Ambrosio, C., & Frick, J. R. (2007). Income satisfaction and relative deprivation: An empirical link. Social Indicators Research, 81, 497–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E.-H. (2007). Trust in complex decision-making systems: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Administration and Society, 39, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eek, D., & Bies, A. (2003). The interplay between greed efficiency, and fairness in public-goods dilemmas. Social Justice Research, 16(3), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guidotti, T. L., & Abercrombie, S. (2008). Aurum: A case study in the politics of NIMBY. Waste Management and Research, 26, 582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harstone, M., Failing, L., & Gregory, R. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management. Ecological Economics, 64, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johansson-Stedman, O., & Konow, J. (2010). Fair air: Distributive justice and environmental economics. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lange, A., Loschel, A., Vogt, C., & Zeigler, A. (2010). On the self serving use of equity in international climate negotiations. European Economic Review, 54, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lauber, T. B., & Knuth, B. A. (1999). Measuring fairness in citizen participation: A case study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 19–37.Google Scholar
  14. Lawrence, R. L., Daniels, S. E., & Stankey, G. H. (1997). Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resources decision making. Society and Natural Resources, 10, 577–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  16. Major, B. (1994). From social inequity to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimcay appraisals, and group membership. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Messick, D. M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice theory and applications (pp. 11–31). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Montada, L. (1998). Justice: Just a rational choice? Social Justice Research, 12, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nancarrow, B. E., & Syme, G. J. (2001). Challenges in implementing justice research in the allocation of natural resources. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oberholzer-Gee, F., Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. (1997). Fairness and competence in democratic decisions. Public Choice, 91(1), 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oda, H., & Toyama, M. (2002). The third world water forum: To translate vision into actions and commitments. Hydrological Processes, 16, 2067–2077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paavola, J. (2008). Science and social justice in the governance of adaptation to climate change. Environmental Politics, 17(4), 644–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson, R. S. (1994). The role of values in predicting fairness judgments and the support of affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rasinski, K. A. (1987). What’s fair or is it? Values differences underlying public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schroeder, R., Martin, K. S., Bradley, W., & Sen, D. (2008). Third world environmental justice. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  29. Syme, G. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (1997). The determinants of the perception of fairness in the allocation of water to multiple uses. Water Resources Research, 32, 2143–2152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Syme, G. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (2002). Evaluation of public involvement programs: Measuring justice and process criteria. Water, 29(40), 18–24.Google Scholar
  31. Syme, G. J., Nancarrow, B. E., & McCreddin, J. A. (1998, May). If water means wealth – how should we share it? In Water is gold (pp. 23–32). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Irrigation Association of Australia 1998 National Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  32. Syme, G. J., Nancarrow, B. E., & McCreddin, J. A. (1999). Defining components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses. Journal of Environmental Management, 57, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tyler, T., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1060.Google Scholar
  35. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenz, P. S. (1988). Environmental justice. Albany NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  38. Wilke, H. A. M. (1991). Greed, efficiency and fairness in resource management situations. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zajac, E. E. (1996). Political economy of fairness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of PlanningEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia

Personalised recommendations