Justice as a Framework for the Solution of Environmental Conflicts

Chapter

Abstract

Debates in environmental conflicts are very often considered as driven by self-interests of the stakeholders and activist groups involved. While they do actually play an important role, there is little convergence as to what can be understood as a self-interests. Moreover, their importance for motivating behavior in the course of conflict resolution is largely over-estimated by respondents. It is argued that behavior in ecological conflicts is driven by feelings of justice and injustice. Those feelings can differ largely depending on individual scopes of justice, values, needs, and feelings of attachment to nature and the environment. Research from justice psychology provides important insights in how these differences in justice perceptions occur and how they influence behavioral decisions and commitment. A justice framework is proposed as a tool to analyze and solve ecological conflicts.

Keywords

Procedural Justice Social Conflict Moral Emotion Justice Perception Justice Research 
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.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali, S. H. (2009). Treasures of the earth: Need, greed, and a sustainable future. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ali, S. H., & Müller, M. M. (2010). Simulating environmental diplomacy. Policy Innovations, June 23, 2010. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000168
  4. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Baier, M. (2010). Moralische Inklusion, Tierethik und Verhalten [Moral inclusion, animal ethics, and behavior]. Unpublished thesis, Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. Clayton, S. (1994). Appeals to justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayton, S. (1996). What is fair in the environmental debate? In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 195–211). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clayton, S. (2000). Models of justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–66). Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Carnevale, P. J. (2003). Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 235–291). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Deutsch, M. (1990). Psychological roots of moral exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P. T. (2000). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.Google Scholar
  16. 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, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dutcher, T. S., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haidt, J., & Kezebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Ginzley (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–832). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ittner, H., & Montada, L. (2009). Gerechtigkeit und Umweltpolitik [Justice and environmental politics]. Umweltpsychologie, 13, 35–51.Google Scholar
  21. Kals, E., & Müller, M. M. (in press). Emotions and the environment. In S. Clayton (Ed.), Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kals, E., & Russell, Y. (2001). Individual conceptions of justice and their potential for explaining pro-environmental decision making. Social Justice Research, 14, 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kals, E., Syme, G. J., Kärcher, J. D., Müller, M. M., & Nancarrow, B. E. (2004–2005). Community views of fairness in environmental conflicts: Evidence from Germany and Australia. Journal of Environmental Systems, 31, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Montada, L. (2007). Justice conflicts and the justice of conflict resolution. In K. Törnblom & R. Vermunt (Eds.), Distributive and procedural justice (pp. 255–268). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (1995). Perceived justice of ecological policy and pro-environmental commitments. Social Justice Research, 8, 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (2000). Political implications of psychological research on ecological justice and pro-environmental behaviors. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (2007). Mediation: Ein Lehrbuch auf psychologischer Grundlage [Mediation: A textbook based on psychology]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz PVU.Google Scholar
  29. Müller, M. M. (2003). Bedingungen der Konfliktlösung: Eine gerechtigkeitspsychologische Untersuchung am Beispiel eines lokalen Umweltkonflikts [Conditions of conflict settlement: A justice-psychological study of a local environmental conflict]. Hamburg, Germany: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  30. Müller, M. M., & Hiendl, B. (submitted). Justice perceptions and willingness for commitments to protect the global climate.Google Scholar
  31. Müller, M. M., Maier, K., & Kals, E. (in press). Klimaschützendes Handeln im Haushalt: Die Rolle von emotionaler Bindung an die Natur [Climate-protective behavior in the household: The role of emotional attachment to nature]. Umweltpsychologie.Google Scholar
  32. Müller, M. M., & Kals, E. (2007). Interactions between procedural fairness and outcome favorability in conflict situations. In K. Y. Törnblom & R. Vermunt (Eds.), Distributive and procedural justice (pp. 125–140). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Müller, M. M., Kals, E., & Maes, J. (2008). Fairness, self-interest, and cooperation in a real-life conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Müller, M. M., Kals, E., & Pansa, R. (2009). Adolescents’ emotional affinity toward nature: A cross-societal study. Journal of Developmental Processes, 4, 59–69.Google Scholar
  35. Opotow, S. (1994). Predicting protection: Scope of justice and the natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Opotow, S. (1996). Is justice finite? The case of environmental inclusion. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 213–229). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-making model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale, IN: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 984–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Organizational PsychologyCatholic University Eichstätt-IngolstadtEichstättGermany

Personalised recommendations