Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceived Justice and the Economic Valuation of the Environment: A Role for Fair Decision-Making Procedures

  • Chapter
Towards an Environment Research Agenda

Abstract

Competing claims of fairness are often apparent in environmental planning decisions. With increasing awareness of pollution among various stakeholders, issues arise over appropriate and acceptable levels of service given finite public resources. The contingent valuation method has enabled economists to place environmental planning within a benefit– cost framework. However, justice issues have not been widely discussed in the CV literature despite evidence to suggest that survey participants scrutinize the fairness of the method, and its requirement that value be expressed in terms of WTP in particular. This chapter reviews some of the literature on fairness and suggests that a more deliberative decisionmaking framework might be required to account for the ethical beliefs about the environment, public institutions and the public interest. In providing citizens a greater opportunity to voice their views on environmental policies than the standard CV methodology allows, deliberative procedures and their outcomes are likely to be perceived to be more fair.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bies, R.J. & Moag, J.S. (1986) ‘Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness’. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (eds), Research in Organisational Behaviour. CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, R., Powe, N., Kerry Turner, R., Bateman, I.J. & Langford, I.H. (1999) ‘Public attitudes to contingent valuation and public consultation’. Environmental Values, 8, 325–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T.C., Peterson, G.L. & Tonn, B.E. (1995) ‘The values jury to aid natural resource decisions’. Land Economics, 71, 250–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J., Burgess, J. & Harrison, C.M. (2000) ‘ “I struggled with this money business”: Respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation’. Ecological Economics, 33, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowfoot, J.E. & Wondolleck, J.M. (1990) Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich, G. & Earle, T.C. (1994) ‘The construction of justice: A case study of public participation in land management’. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 161–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1975) ‘Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?’ Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebreo, A., Linn, N. & Vining, J. (1996) ‘The impact of procedural justice on opinions of public policy: Solid waste management as an example’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1259–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S.F. (1986) ‘Ethical preferences and the assessment of existence values: Does the neoclassical model fit?’. Northeastern Journal of Agriculture & Resource Economics, 15, 145–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A.P. & Tetlock, P.E. (1997) ‘Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice’. Political Psychology, 18, 255–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R. (1996) ‘Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations’. Social Justice Research, 9, 395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, C.H. & Tunstall, S.M. (1991) ‘Is the economic evaluation of environmental resources possible?’ Journal of Environmental Management, 33, 123–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoinville, G. & Berthoud, R. (1970) Identifying preference values. Report on development work, social and community planning research, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A.P. (1994) ‘Involving the public in water management’. Water Environment and Technology, July, 34–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B.S. (1999) ‘Focus groups in the contingent valuation process: A real contribution or a missed opportunity?’ Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 485–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B.S. (2000) Perceptions of fairness and the explanation of perfect embedding in the contingent valuation method. Fairness & Cooperation: The International Association of Research in Economic Psychology (IAAREP) Society for the Advancement of Behavioural Economics (SABE) Conference Proceedings (pp. 211–15). Baden, Austria, 12–16 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B.S. & Syme, G.J. (1995) ‘Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation’. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 121, 400–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B.S. & Syme, G.J. (2000) ‘Protest responses and willingness to pay: Attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement’. Ecological Economics, 33, 251–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B.S., Syme, G.J., Bishop, B.J. & Nancarrow, B.E. (1999) ‘Protest responses in contingent valuation’. Environmental & Resource Economics, 14, 131–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B.S., Wilson, M.A. & Heberlein, T.A. (2001) ‘Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope’. Ecological Economics, 36, 133–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Knetsch, J.L. (1992) ‘Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Jacowitz, K.E. & Grant, P. (1993) ‘Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective’. Psychological Science, 4, 310–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A., Kulik, C.T., Ambrose, M. & De Vera Park, M.V. (1993) ‘Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E.A. & Tyler, T.R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. NY: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, G. (1994) ‘Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation’. Journal of Water Resources, Planning and Management, 120, 121–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, P. (1999) ‘Beyond measurement issues in the focus group method’. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 491–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T. (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L. & Kals, E. (1995) ‘Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments’. Social Justice Research, 8, 305–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nancarrow, B.E., Jorgensen, B.S. & Syme, G.J. (1995) Stormwater Management in Australia: Community Perceptions, Attitudes and Knowledge. Urban Water

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Association of Australia, No. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberholzer-Gee, F., Bohnet, I. & Frey, B.S. (1997) ‘Fairness and competence in democratic decisions’. Public Choice, 91, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models of Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, I. & Kahneman, D. (1997) ‘How people value the environment: Attitudes versus economic values’. In M.H. Bazerman, D.M. Messick, A.E. Tenbrunsel & K.A. Wade-Benzoni (eds), Environment, Ethics, and Behaviour: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Twenty-first report: Setting environmental standards. Chairman, Sir John Houghton, Great Britain Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (1998) ‘Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing’. Ecological Economics, 24, 213–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, E.E. (1975) ‘On justice as equality’. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H. (1975) ‘The justice of need and the activation of humanitarian norms’. Journal of Social Issues, 13, 111–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C.L. (1997) ‘Ethics and environmental attitudes with implications for economic valuation’. Journal of Environmental Management, 50, 403–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C.L. & Hanley, N. (1995) ‘Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation’. Ecological Economics, 12, 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J. (1992) ‘When and where does participation count?’ In M. Munro- Clark (ed.), Citizen Participation in Government. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J. & Eaton, E. (1989) ‘Public involvement as a negotiation process’. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J. & Fenton, D.M. (1993) ‘Perceptions of equity and procedural preferences for water allocation decisions’. Society and Natural Resources, 6, 347–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J. & Jorgensen, B.S. (1994) Assessing community values of capital works in the water industry: Contingent valuation and other techniques. Division of Water Resources Consultancy Report No. 94/24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J., Roberts, E. & McLeod, P.B. (1990) ‘Combining willingness to pay and social indicator methodology in valuing public services: An example from agricultural protection’. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 365–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J. & Nancarrow, B.E. (1996) ‘Planning attitudes, lay philosophies, and water allocation: A preliminary analysis and research agenda’. Water Resources Research, 32, 1843–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J. & Nancarrow, B.E. (1997) ‘The determinants of perceptions of fairness in the allocation of water to multiple uses’. Water Resources Research, 33, 2143–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syme, G.J. & Nancarrow, B.E. (2000) Fairness and its implementation in the allocation of water. Xth World Water Congress, 12–17 March 2000, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L.L. & Gonzalez, R. (1997) ‘Environmental disputes: Competition for scarce resources and clashing of values’. In M.H. Bazerman, D.M. Messick

    Google Scholar 

  • A.E. Tenbrunsel & K.A. Wade-Benzoni (eds), Environment, Ethics, and Behaviour: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bos, K., Lind, E.A., Vermunt, R. & Wilke, H. (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, 1034–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A. & Bromley, D.W. (1994) ‘Choices without prices without apologies’. Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, 26, 129–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, E. & Walster, G.W. (1973) ‘New directions in equity research’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, H. (1999) ‘Citizen juries and valuing the environment: A proposal’. Environmental Politics, 8, 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Bradley S. Jorgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Centre for the Environment, University of Bath, UK

    Adrian Winnett

  2. Corporate Citizenship Unit, University of Warwick, UK

    Alyson Warhurst

Copyright information

© 2003 Bradley S. Jorgensen

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jorgensen, B.S. (2003). Perceived Justice and the Economic Valuation of the Environment: A Role for Fair Decision-Making Procedures. In: Winnett, A., Warhurst, A. (eds) Towards an Environment Research Agenda. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230536814_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation