Justice and Sustainability


This chapter explores the relationships between justice and sustainability theory and argues that despite being entwined, practical and theoretical challenges prevent an easy or complete integration of these two concepts. Specifically, we examine how the multiscalar, multigenerational, and multidimensional characteristics of sustainability interact with ideas of just processes or just outcomes. Using insights from justice theory, sustainability science, and the social psychology of justice, we suggest we ask questions like: what would a just multiscalar and multigenerational sustainability process look like? If social context changes how people use or understand ideas of justice, what should justice look like in complex sustainability challenges that extend across traditional boundaries? We suggest that although these issues present persistent theoretical challenges, past and ongoing efforts – such as environmental justice work or international climate negotiations – provide some lessons and guidance about strategies for assisting this integration in practice. Overall this chapter suggests that although fully integrating justice and sustainability may not be entirely possible, sustainability without a consideration of justice would be nonsensical from a normative perspective and difficult to achieve strategically. This leaves us with a strong rationale to insist on the centrality of justice in any sustainability effort, but with an awareness of the complexities of doing so.


Justice Sustainability Procedural justice Just outcomes Social psychology of justice 

Further Reading

  1. Agyeman J, Bullard R, Evans B (2003) Just sustainabilities: development in an unequal world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Dobson A (1999) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fraser N (2009) Scales of justice: reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Mutz KM, Bryner GC, Kenney DS (eds) (2002) Justice and natural resources: concepts, strategies, and applications. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar


  1. Asheim GB, Mitra T (2010) Sustainability and utilitarianism in discounted models of economic growth. Math Soc Sci 59(2):148–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer P, Athanasiou T, Kartha S, Kemp-Benedict E (2009) Greenhouse development rights: a proposal for a fair Global Climate Treaty. Ethics Place Environ 12(3):267–281. doi:10.1080/13668790903195495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bebbington J (2000) Sustainable development: a review of the international development, business and accounting literature. Aberdeen papers in accountancy, finance & management working paper 00–17Google Scholar
  4. Beckerman W (1999) Sustainable development and our obligations to future generations. In: Dobson A (ed) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryner G (2002) Assessing claims of environmental justice. In: Mutz KM, Bryner GC, Kenney DS (eds) Justice and natural resources: concepts, strategies, and applications. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullard RD (1983) Solid waste sites and the black Houston community. Sociol Inq 53:273–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinton WJ (1994) Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations, Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994. Fed Regist 59:7629–7633Google Scholar
  9. Cole DH (2008) The Stern review and its critics: implications for the theory and practice of benefit-cost analysis. Nat Resour J 48:53Google Scholar
  10. Deutsch M (1975) Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? J Soc Issues 31(3):137–149. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endress L, Pongkijvorasin S, Roumasset J, Pitafi B (2009) Impatience and intergenerational equity in a model of sustainable growth. Working paper no. 09–6Google Scholar
  12. Fainstein S (2010) The just city. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischhoff B (1991) Value elicitation: is there anything in there? Am Psychol 46(8):835–847. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiske AP, Tetlock PE (1997) Taboo trade-offs: reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Pol Psychol 18(2):255–297. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardiner S, Caney S, Jamieson D, Shue H (eds) (2010) Climate ethics: essential readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Geels FW (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39(4):495–510. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson RB (2006) Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 08(03):259–280. doi:10.1142/S1464333206002517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Golub A, Mahoney M, Harlow J (2013) Sustainability and intergenerational equity: do past injustices matter? Sustain Sci 8(2):269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J Risk Uncertain 7(2):177–197. doi:10.1007/BF01065813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harlow J, Golub A, Allenby B (2011) An exploration of Utopian themes in sustainable development discourse. Sustain Dev 21(4):270–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howarth RB (2003) Discounting and uncertainty in climate change policy analysis. Land Econ 79(3):369–381. doi:10.3368/le.79.3.369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lovbrand E, Persson J (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) Sustainability science. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47(3):8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klinsky S, Dowlatabadi H, McDaniels T (2012) Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas. Glob Environ Chang 22(4):862–876. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee BL (1997) Civil rights and legal remedies: a plan of action. In: Bullard R, Johnson G (eds) Just transportation: dismantling race and class barrier to mobility. New Society Publishers, Connecticut, pp 156–172Google Scholar
  27. Lindseth G (2006) Scalar strategies in climate-change politics: debating the environmental consequences of a natural gas project. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 24(5):739–754. doi:10.1068/c0513j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mikula G, Wenzel M (2000) Justice and social conflict. Int J Psychol 35(2):126–135. doi:10.1080/002075900399420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller D (2002) Debate – Caney’s ‘International distributive justice’: a response. Polit Stud 50(5):974–977Google Scholar
  30. Miller D (2005) Against global egalitarianism. In: Brock G, Moellendorf D (eds) Current debates in global justice. Springer, Netherlands, pp 55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9(2):239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Ott HE, Winkler H, Brouns B, Kartha S, Mace M, Huq S, Rahman A (2004) South-North dialogue on equity in the greenhouse: a proposal for an adequate and equitable global climate agreement. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Retrieved from http://www.erc.uct.ac.za/Research/publications/04Ott-etal-SouthNorthDiaLogue.pdf
  34. Sassen S, Dotan N (2011) Delegating, not returning, to the biosphere: how to use the multi-scalar and ecological properties of cities. Glob Environ Chang 21(3):823–834. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith A, Voß J-P, Grin J (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res Policy 39(4):435–448. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trappenburg M (2000) In defense of pure pluralism: two readings of Walzer’s spheres of justice. J Polit Philos 8:343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) (1983) Siting of hazardous waste landfills and their correlation with the racial and socio-economic status of surrounding communities. General Accounting Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. United Church of Christ (1987) Toxic wastes and race in the United States. United Church of Christ, New York. http://www.ucc.org/about-us/archives/pdfs/toxwrace87.pdf
  39. Walzer M (1983) Spheres of justice: a defense of pluralism and equality. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Wenzel M (2004) Social identification as a determinant of concerns about individual-, group-, and inclusive-level justice. Soc Psychol Q 67(1):70–87. doi:10.1177/019027250406700107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilbanks TJ (2002) Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessments of climate change. Integr Assess 3(2–3):100–114. doi:10.1076/iaij. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Winkler H, Jayaraman T, Pan J, Santihago de Oliveira A, Zhang Y, Sant G, … Raubenheimer S (2011) Equitable access to sustainable development: a paper by experts from BASIC countries. BASIC Expert Group, Beijing/Brasilia/Cape Town/MumbaiGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolsink M (2007) Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives”. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 11(6):1188–1207. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yabareen J (2008) A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environ Dev Sustain 10:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Toulan School of Urban Studies and PlanningPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations