Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making

Abstract

Perceptions of justice in decision outcomes and processes increases trust, support for authorities, and satisfaction with unfavorable outcomes (Lind and Tyler 1988). However, very little research has been done to apply justice concepts to natural resource decision making contexts (an exception is Lauber and Knuth 1997;1998). In the study presented here, two rounds of focus groups with public participants in the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project were conducted. Participants were asked to describe their experiences with and attitudes toward different types of public participation. They were also asked what criteria they use when judging the fairness of a natural resource agency decision. Themes emerging in the answers included the importance of representation, voice, consideration, logic, and desired outcomes. These are very similar to justice principles documented in other elds. This suggests managers would be wise to focus less on public participation techniques and more on achieving fair decision-making processes.

Building Trust in Natural Resource Management Within Local Communities: A Case Study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie

“…The theory of procedural fairness posits that the perception of equity or fairness in the decision-making process increases the acceptability of decision outcomes, even in cases where values or interests conflict (Lind and Tyler 1988). Research in this area has identified strategies for promoting relationship building (Frenz et al 2000;McCool et al Guthrie 2001) and ensuring fairness (Tyler and Degoey 1995;Lawrence and others 1997;Hunt and Haider 2001;Smith and McDonough 2001;McCool and Gothrie 2001) in public involvement processes. For instance, Smith and McDonough (2001) conducted focus groups with participants in a collaborative decision-making process.…”

“…Research in this area has identified strategies for promoting relationship building (Frenz et al 2000;McCool et al Guthrie 2001) and ensuring fairness (Tyler and Degoey 1995;Lawrence and others 1997;Hunt and Haider 2001;Smith and McDonough 2001;McCool and Gothrie 2001) in public involvement processes. For instance, Smith and McDonough (2001) conducted focus groups with participants in a collaborative decision-making process. Their analysis revealed five themes essential to perceptions of fairness, including representation, voice, consideration, logic, and desired outcomes.…”

Local perceptions of opportunities for engagement and procedural justice in electricity transmission grid projects in Norway and the UK

“…This approach to justice and trust describes well the identified public participation challenges and local perspectives on energy development projects (King et al 1998, Gross, 2007Cain & Nelson 2013). 'Distributive justice' concerns fairness in the outcome, that is the distribution of costs and benefits (for more details about distributive justice see for instance Skitka et al 2003, Gross 2007, whereas 'procedural justice' refers to general principles of citizen control, democracy and fairness in the process within which decisions are reached (Smith and McDonough 2001). In a just process, participants should be informed while participation should be broad, and decision-making power shared (Laird 1993;Leventhal et al 1980, cited in Smith andMcDonough 2001).…”

Hearing but Not Listening? A Participatory Assessment of Public Participation in Planning

“…However, an alternative perspective contests the value of deductive theory-based evaluations, arguing that universal goals and criteria are less important than the specific goals of those involved in participatory efforts (Chess and Purcell, 1999), which may vary in different situations. In this perspective, participants themselves describe what effectiveness or success means to them within a given context (McCool and Guthrie, 2001;Smith and McDonough, 2001). Blackstock et al (2007) argue, along similar lines, that the evaluation of participatory processes should itself be participatory with stakeholders selecting and applying the evaluation criteria.…”