justice for all? factors affecting perceptions of environmental and ecological injustice
Post on 23-Dec-2016
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Justice for All? Factors Affecting Perceptionsof Environmental and Ecological Injustice
Christie L. Parris • Karen A. Hegtvedt •
Lesley A. Watson • Cathryn Johnson
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Moving beyond the typical focus on individual injustices, we examine
individual-level and contextual factors affecting perceptions of justice with regard
to the environment. Specifically, we examine decision-making procedures pertain-
ing to environmental resource use and harms across groups of people; the distri-
bution of environmental harms; and the direct treatment of the natural environment
(i.e., procedural environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and
ecological injustice, respectively). To test our hypotheses, we use data from a
survey administered to a cohort of first-year college students at a southeastern
university. Results demonstrate that environmental identity and perceptions of the
extent to which the university context encourages sustainability consistently
enhance perceptions of all three types of justice. Other factors differentially affect
each type of justice. We discuss the importance of the patterns that emerge for
environmental and sustainability education and speculate on the implications of
moving from thinking about (in)justice related to the environment as an individual
issue to one of the collectivity.
Keywords Environmental justice � Environmental motivations � Political
liberalism � Environmental identity � Legitimacy � Sustainability efforts
Since the 1980s, a distinct type of environmentalism has arisen within communities
of color and poverty: environmental justice, which focuses on the unequal
distribution of environmental burdens across groups of people (Bullard, 1993, 1994,
2000; Mohai & Saha, 2007; Taylor, 2000). Environmental justice advocates pay
close attention to the placement of specific environmental harms in disadvantaged
C. L. Parris (&) � K. A. Hegtvedt � L. A. Watson � C. Johnson
Department of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA
e-mail: christie.parris@emory.edu
123
Soc Just Res
DOI 10.1007/s11211-013-0200-4
neighborhoods (e.g., Pellow & Brulle, 2005) and the need to include the voices of
community members affected by such burdens. In contrast, mainstream environ-
mentalists focus on sustainability and conservation, which raise issues about the
fairness of humans’ treatment of the environment. We label this ecological justice—
the idea that, within human/non-human relationships, non-humans possess ‘‘the
prima facie right…to continue to exist within the habitats required to sustain their
existence’’ (Baxter, 2005, p. 7).
In considering justice for communities affected by environmental burdens or for
the environment itself, emphasis rests on the collectivity, broadly conceived, not on
the individual. Yet, most justice research focuses on the perceived fairness of one’s
own outcomes, procedures affecting one’s outcome or group standing, or one’s
interaction with others (see, e.g., Hegtvedt & Cook, 2001; Jost & Kay, 2010; Tyler,
Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997). Although recent work has begun to highlight the
role of observers’ perceptions and responses to injustices suffered by others (see
Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005), such third parties are often fellow group members. To
consider justice for communities affected by environmental burdens requires
consideration of procedures, outcomes, and treatment for groups of people often
distant from the self and for non-human flora and fauna.
Ecological justice, in addition, is particularly relevant to the ‘‘greening’’ efforts
that have become increasingly popular on college and university campuses, through
leadership, day-to-day operations, and sustainable building initiatives on campuses
(see National Wildlife Federation, 2008; Wong, 2008). Indeed, hundreds of
American institutions of higher education formally acknowledged their commitment
to sustainable development and environmental management by signing the Talloires
Declaration in 1990 and/or the American College & University Presidents Climate
Commitment in 2007. As such, institutions that build a culture of sustainability
potentially strengthen students’ perception of themselves in relation to their
environment and teach students to be environmentally responsible citizens
responsive to the welfare of communities beyond their immediate social circles.
Our conceptualizations of environmental and ecological justice fit under the
umbrella of research on ‘‘environmental concerns,’’ which typically encompass
attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors regarding environmental issues (e.g., Dietz,
Stern, & Guagnano, 1998; Milfont & Duckitt, 2004; Stets & Biga, 2003; Van Liere
& Dunlap, 1980, 1981; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Such research often connects
beliefs about the effects of environmental degradation, global climate change, and
toxic chemicals on the natural environment to individual-level environmentally
responsible behaviors (such as conservation and recycling) aimed at alleviating such
environmental issues. Although individual recognition of forms of justice relevant
to the environment constitutes a type of belief and thus also may affect personal
behaviors, to the extent that such recognition inherently underscores the welfare of a
community (however defined), justice beliefs may provide a basis for collective
behaviors and larger social change.
Through our consideration of both environmental and ecological justice, our study
extends the empirical literature on justice by examining perceptions of types of justice
relevant to environmental issues. To do so, we adopt a basic model from the justice
literature which recognizes that both individual and contextual factors influence
Soc Just Res
123
perception of justice situations and resulting constructed assessments of injustice (see
Hegtvedt, 2006; Skitka, Aramovich, Lytle, & Sargis, 2010; Tyler et al., 1997).
Here, we examine individual (motivations, political liberalism, and environmen-
tal identity) and actual and perceived contextual factors on perceptions of types of
justice that uniquely extend beyond the usual emphasis on the individual and fellow
group members. Our contextual emphasis broadens research on the greening of
college and university campuses, which typically explores students’ experiences
living in more sustainable or ‘‘green’’ dorms and their perceptions of environmental
issues such as energy consumption, water conservation, and pro-environmental
legislation (Marcell, Agyeman, & Rappaport, 2004; Peterson, Shunturov, & Janda,
2007). In addition to the impact of the actual physical environment (e.g., type of
residence hall), we consider students’ perceptions of university efforts to encourage
environmentally responsible behaviors and the extent to which their peers enact
such behaviors. Plus, rather than focus on broad environmental attitudes, we
uniquely examine students’ perceptions of the fairness inherent in decision-making
processes, distributions, and treatment related to the environment, which has
implications for future individual and collective behaviors.
Below, we first conceptualize the nature of justice with regard to environmental
issues. Then, we extrapolate from a basic justice model and elaborate on individual
and contextual factors influencing environmental and ecological justice. We test our
predictions using survey data from a cohort of first-year college students from a
southeastern American university. We conclude with a discussion of the importance
of our results for integrating justice concerns into the greening of university
campuses and socializing environmentally responsible citizens.
Conceptualizing Environmental and Ecological Justice
Jost and Kay (2010, p. 1) contend that social justice involves a dispersal of benefits
and burdens in accord with accepted distribution principles, decision-making
procedures consistent with preservation of ‘‘basic rights, liberties, and entitlements
of individuals and groups,’’ and treating ‘‘human beings (and perhaps other species)’’
with dignity and respect. These definitional elements correspond to what social
psychologists have labeled distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. To the
extent that environmental and sustainability issues heighten attention to social justice
(Taylor, 2000), we identify three abstract types of justice. Generally, perceptions of
environmental injustice emerge when the actual distribution of harmful environ-
mental consequences and the decisions leading to those distributions fail to
correspond to the expectations stemming from abstract rules of procedural and
distributive justice, whereas those of ecological injustice refer to disrespectful or
harmful treatment of the natural environment. We elaborate on each of these below.
Procedural Environmental (In)justice
Procedural environmental justice pertains to the processes of decision making
regarding how to distribute environmental burdens and benefits across communities.
Soc Just Res
123
Previous studies of environmental injustice (e.g., Bullard, 1993, 1994, 2000; Capek,
1993; Picou, 2008) highlight the importance of providing members of communities
affected by environmental harms with the opportunity to provide input to the decision-
making process. Capek (1993, p. 8) notes that ‘‘the rights of toxic contamination
victims have been systematically usurped by more powerful social actors, and that
‘justice’ resides in the return of these rights.’’ The deliberate suppression of the voices
of those affected by the distribution decision violates a central principle of procedural
justice—representation (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980)—and indicates procedural
environmental injustice. Moreover, resting decision making in the hands of a few
powerful actors potentially threatens other procedural justice principles such as bias
suppression, consistency across actors over time, and information accuracy (Leven-
thal et al., 1980). Thus, procedural environmental justice captures the process through
which perceivers evaluate how decision makers collect and assess information
relevant to their decisions about distributing environmental burdens and benefits.
Procedural environmental justice may involve an assessment of previously used
processes as well as anticipation of ways to insure a fair process in the future.
Distributive Environmental (In)justice
Distributive environmental justice regards fairness in the actual distribution of
environmental burdens and benefits across communities (e.g., Bullard, 1993, 1994,
2000; Capek, 1993; Picou, 2008). Bullard (1996, p. 493) emphasizes that
environmental justice ‘‘embraces the principle that all people and communities
are entitled to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and
regulations.’’ Environmental justice advocates compare distributions of environ-
mental burdens across communities. Unequal distribution of such environmental
burdens, with attention to placing environmental harms in a particular neighbor-
hood, signals instances of distributive environmental injustice (e.g., Pellow &
Brulle, 2005). In looking back at actual distributions of environmental harms,
countless distributive environmental injustices exist throughout the world (Pellow &
Brehm, 2013). The placement of toxin-emitting facilities in minority and low-
income neighborhoods results in structurally disadvantaged communities carrying a
heavier burden of environmental harms compared to more privileged white and
wealthier communities. Studies document the ill effects of living in close proximity
to hazardous waste facilities (see Mohai, Pellow, & Roberts, 2009). Because these
ill effects often befall communities of color, Benjamin Chavis, former executive
director of the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ, argues
that these higher rates of exposure to environmental degradation constitute
‘‘environmental racism’’ (Mohai et al., 2009).
Residents of minority and low-income communities are aware of decisions and
distributions regarding environmental harms and constitute the core of the
environmental justice movement (Taylor, 2000). The damage wrought by such
distributions and procedures, however, ultimately strains the fabric of society,
regardless of wealth or race, by threatening the well-being of segments of the
population and undermining faith in democratic processes. Furthermore, the
environmental harms themselves jeopardize the natural world.
Soc Just Res
123
Ecological (In)justice
The interaction between humans and the natural environment constitutes the core of
our notion of ecological justice. Extrapolating from principles of interactional
justice (Bies, 2001), we define ecological justice as the extent to which human
activity treats the natural world with respect and dignity to insure the well-being of
non-human species, flora, and the physical landscape. Two core ideas underlie this
conceptualization. First, as noted in the introduction, non-humans have rights to
continue to exist in their own habitats (Baxter, 2005). And, second, it recognizes
that human activities alter ecosystems, potentially in positive ways, but certainly in
damaging ways as well (Dunlap, Riley, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). In effect,
ecological justice extends beyond people and imbues the natural environment with
moral standing.
Our conceptualization is akin to Opotow and Clayton’s (1994) reference to
‘‘green justice’’ and Stern and Dietz’s (1994) consideration of the valuing of non-
human environmental objects within an environmental justice framework. Schol-
arship in political philosophy offers principles and addresses questions concerning
ecological justice, including whether to account for both sentient and non-sentient
organisms within the realm of moral consideration (Baxter, 2005) and the allocation
of property rights to non-human species (Low & Gleeson, 1998). Empirical research
regarding ecological justice, however, is sparse (but see Kals & Russell, 2001;
Opotow & Clayton, 1994). Our key emphasis regarding ecological justice is the
nature of the interaction between living organisms in the natural and developed
landscape. Initiatives focusing on the fair treatment of the natural environment (e.g.,
preservation of wilderness and wildlife as well as sustainable resource consumption)
epitomize ecological justice. In contrast, ecological injustice arises when humans’
alterations to the natural world disregard all concern with the well-being of other
biospheric elements, thereby jeopardizing the survival of non-human species. The
focus, then, of ecological injustice is on how human practices degrade or destroy the
natural world by failing to treat it with respect and dignity.
Together, environmental and ecological (in)justices cover the range of compo-
nents inherent in a conceptualization of social justice with regard to environmental
issues. Here, we examine factors that may shape individuals’ recognition of each
type of justice. In so doing, we expand the justice literature by analyzing forms of
justice beyond individual-level concerns.
Predicting Perceptions of Environmental and Ecological Justice and Injustice
Most researchers agree that perceptions of injustice emerge when actual distribu-
tions, procedures, or interactions fail to match expectations based on justice
principles (Hegtvedt & Markovsky, 1995; Jost & Kay, 2010; Tyler et al., 1997). The
‘‘expectations’’ stem from beliefs about what constitutes just principles or practices
in a given situation. The comparison of expectations and reality allows for the
assessment of whether justice or injustice characterizes a particular procedure,
Soc Just Res
123
distribution, or treatment. Individual-level and situational factors influence both
beliefs about what is fair and perceptions of what is unjust.
Cast generally as a ‘‘sense-making process’’ (Van den Bos, Lind, & Wilke,
2001), cognitions about oneself and the situation as well as affective concerns
provide a means to link perceiver characteristics and situational factors to justice
perceptions. In effect, what people define as ‘‘fair or unfair, and the factors that will
weigh most heavily in their fairness judgments, will vary as a function of which
perceptual frame of reference they currently see as the most relevant to the situation
at hand’’ (Skitka et al., 2010, p. 2). Essentially, people actively construct their
beliefs about justice (see Blumer, 1969). Thus, what people perceive as fair for
themselves, for others, and the collectivity more generally, as in the case of
environmental and ecological justice, depends upon their interpretations, not an
objective reality of what is just or unjust.
Many studies examine the effects of individual-level factors, such as character-
istics, beliefs, and motivations, on justice perceptions (see Hegtvedt, 2006; Hegtvedt
& Cook, 2001). Characteristics may be demographic (e.g., gender, age, race) or
refer to positions vis-a-vis others. Perceivers’ belief systems encompass cultural and
political ideologies (see Jost & Kay, 2010) or specific values pertaining to how
individuals should relate to one another (e.g., Lerner, 1980). Individuals’
motivations may range from self-interested materialism to other-oriented social
concerns as well as moral mandates (Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005; Skitka et al.,
2010). An array of situational factors may affect justice perceptions (see Cohen-
Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005), including
the availability of information, the amount of rewards to be distributed, the
accountability of decision makers, and the views of others in a situation.
At the core of sense-making processes or social construction of justice
evaluations, individuals consciously or automatically process information in the
situation. To conserve cognitive resources, people may desire and pursue
consistency among their motivations, beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors (Bem,
1967, 1972; Wyer & Scrull, 1986; see Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Identities
encapsulating how people see themselves, moreover, are likely to drive identity-
consistent beliefs and behaviors (Burke & Stets, 2009; Swann, 1983). Expectancies
based on what individuals believe in general or believe specifically about
themselves and what they have done in the past are thus likely to shape how they
perceive a situation. The desire—conscious or not—for consistency, then, affects
evaluations of the distribution, procedures, or treatment.
Implicit in the foregoing discussion is a basic heuristic model of justice processes
that identifies the potential impact of individual and contextual factors on justice
principles and injustice assessments, as colored by cognitions and a desire for
consistency (see Hegtvedt, 2006). We draw on these guiding ideas, previous
environmental concerns research, and other social psychological processes (when
necessary) to provide the basis for predicting the effects of individual and situational
factors on environmental and ecological justice perceptions. With regard to
situational factors, we specify both actual and perceived information about campus
context relevant to study participants. Importantly, our perceivers are not direct
Soc Just Res
123
recipients of the resources or treatment at issue.1 Although they benefit indirectly
from the environment, they act as ‘‘third parties’’ in assessing the principles and
states of affairs relevant to environmental and ecological justice. Observers tend to
make sense of justice situations in a manner similar to those directly affected by an
injustice (Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005). Their assessments, however, may potentially
reflect greater concern with others’ welfare (Clayton, 1998). As such, they reinforce
the idea that environmental and ecological justice issues extend beyond individual
outcomes and treatment to insure the welfare of a broadly defined community.
Impact of Individual-Level Factors
We focus on three individual-level factors that potentially shape perceptions about
(in)justice with regard to environment: motivations regarding environmental
actions, political beliefs, and environmental identity. Each of these contributes to
defining the perspective of the perceiver with regard to assessments of environ-
mental and ecological justice.2
Environmental Motivations
Generally, motivations spur individuals toward behaviors to achieve desired goals
or maintain particular actions. Justice researchers propose that individuals seek
economic, social, or moral goals (see Skitka et al., 2010) or, more generally, that
they pursue self- or other-interested ends (Gillespie & Greenberg, 2005; see
Hegtvedt, 2006). Importantly, motivations are likely to color how individuals
interpret information available in a situation. Messick and Sentis (1979), for
example, show that even when people are trying to be fair, they tend to allocate
more to themselves, indicating an egocentric bias. Similarly, if motivated by
material self-interest, people are likely to promote compensable factors favorable to
themselves in order to secure a larger share of outcomes from an equitable
distribution. Even third parties who do not directly benefit from a distribution may
consider the social implications of their assessments of injustice befalling others
(Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005). For example, assessing a supervisor’s actions toward
another as unfair may jeopardize one’s own standing or job security.
Thus, what individuals seek in a situation or with regard to a domain of behavior
may affect their interpretations and understandings. With regard to environmental
issues, we recognize that some motivations facilitate the enactment of ERBs and
concomitant evaluations, whereas others may inhibit it. Facilitating motivations
tend to be self-determined, reflecting intrinsic beliefs that one may have a positive
impact on the environment, whereas inhibiting motivations encompass beliefs about
external constraints or a lack of potential effects. Pelletier et al. (1998) contrast self-
1 A possible exception is the unlikely case that a student comes from a community that is directly
affected by environmental burdens. As evidenced in the ‘‘Methods’’ section, this is unlikely given the
racial and socio-economic characteristics of participants in this sample.2 Our analysis includes demographic characteristics (gender, race, income level, and parents’ education
level) as controls. We also control on past ERBs because they may be both antecedents and consequences
of justice evaluations.
Soc Just Res
123
determined motivations toward the environment with external regulation and
amotivation (i.e., a lack of contingency between one’s actions and the results that
are produced). They show that self-determined motivations enhance the perceived
importance of the environment and positively affect ERBs (see also Villacorta,
Koestner, & Lekes, 2003). To the extent that individuals are motivated to act on
behalf of the natural world, they may be more sensitive to potential harms caused by
environmental degradation within specific neighborhoods or more abstractly. We
expect
Hypothesis 1a Expression of facilitating motivations is positively related to
perceptions of environmental and ecological justice principles and assessments of
injustice.
Hypothesis 1b Expression of inhibiting motivations is negatively related to
perceptions of environmental and ecological justice principles and assessments of
injustice.
Political Beliefs
Early environmental concerns research (see reviews, Dunlap, 1991; Van Liere &
Dunlap, 1980) shows that politically liberal individuals are more consistently
concerned about the environment than are their conservative counterparts. More
recent evidence demonstrates continuation of this trend among both environmental
activists (Dunlap & McCright, 2008) and the general citizenry (Dunlap & McCright,
2011; Mobley, Vagias, & DeWard, 2010; Neumayer, 2004; Olli, Grendstad, &
Wollebaek, 2001; Xiao & McCright, 2007). In contrast, support for tenets of
conservative ideology, such as belief in laissez-faire government, private property
rights, and economic growth, and faith in material abundance and future prosperity,
is negatively related to environmental concern (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984).
According to McCright and Dunlap (2000), such a negative correlation emerges
because the ‘‘pursuit of environmental protection often involves government action
that is seen as threatening core elements of conservatism, such as the primacy of
individual freedom, private property rights, laissez-faire government, and promotion
of free enterprise’’ (p. 504). In other words, beliefs in conservative political
practices are inconsistent with support for environmental protection.3
Liberal political beliefs traditionally support government regulation, which is a
necessary step in addressing environmental concerns regarding the distribution of
environmental hazards as well as preventing human activity that degrades the
environment. Moreover, political liberals may be more attuned to the voices of
disadvantaged groups in society (Bartels, 2010; Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009).
3 Although empirical findings are consistent with regard to the relationship between political liberalism
and environmental concerns, studies on the impact of political party affiliation provide mixed results (e.g.,
Buttel & Flinn, 1978; Dillman & Christensen, 1972; Uyeki & Holland, 2000; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980).
Given the unclear effects of political party on environmental concerns and the youth of the college
students in our study, we focus on their nascent political beliefs rather than any potential or future
affiliation with political parties.
Soc Just Res
123
Assuming that individuals strive for consistency between their political beliefs and
their assessments of justice with regard to the environment, we predict
Hypothesis 2 An individual’s degree of political liberalism is positively related to
the perception of environmental and ecological justice principles and assessments of
injustice.
Environmental Identity
While motivations and political beliefs constitute aspects of the self relevant to
particular actions or within particular domains, individuals’ identities are more
general and often transcend situations. An identity encompasses who one is, with
emphasis on the meanings created in how people perceive themselves, how they
think others perceive them, and how they reconcile the two (Burke, 1991). Burke
and Stets (2009) argue that identities provide a fundamental frame around which
individuals organize their thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Moreover, individuals
attempt to verify their identities in interactions with others, seeking consistency
between individuals’ perceptions of feedback from others and the identities they
hold. One means to achieve such verification is to behave in a manner consistent
with the identity. Studies show that individuals may enact their identities by
manipulating their physical appearance (Khanna & Johnson, 2010; Killian &
Johnson, 2006) or by verbally asserting the identity that they wish for others to
verify (Snow & Anderson, 1987). Similarly, research indicates that environmental
identity propels behaviors and justice reasoning.
Clayton (2003) defines environmental identity as the ‘‘extent to which the natural
environment plays an important part in a person’s self-definition’’ (p. 52). Such a
definition is consistent with Stets and Biga’s (2003) notion of environmental
identity as involving ‘‘one’s self-meanings in relation to the environment’’ (p. 401).
Studies reveal the impact of environmental identity (see Clayton, 2012). Research
demonstrates strong links between environmental identity and behaviors such as
recycling and conservation, even when controlling for environmental attitudes and
norms (Stets & Biga, 2003; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Moreover, Clayton (2003)
shows how environmental identities affect justice reasoning. Individuals with
stronger environmental identities rate responsibility to other species and the moral
standing of the environment itself as a recipient of justice outcomes (i.e., ecological
justice) as more important than people with weak environmental identities. These
patterns of findings highlight how individuals make choices and maintain beliefs
aligned with their identity. Thus, we expect
Hypothesis 3 The strength of an individual’s environmental identity is positively
related to perceptions of environmental and ecological justice principles and
assessments of injustice.
The Impact of Contextual Factors
When individuals make justice evaluations, they draw information from the context
in which they are embedded. Situational factors highlight or constrain knowledge
Soc Just Res
123
about elements relevant to the justice assessment, which in turn may color their
perceptions. Here, we examine three contextual factors relevant to our study
population: the actual environment, the perceived environment regarding peers’
enactment of ERBs, and university sustainability efforts.
The Actual Environment
The actual environment shapes to some extent what people can and cannot do as
well as what they are likely to observe others doing. Empirical literature focusing on
‘‘living green’’ on university campuses considers the impact of the actual
environment on ERBs. For example, recycling programs that make bins readily
available create positive attitudes toward the behavior (Schultz, 2002). Feedback
about how much recyclable material has been collected (Katzev & Mishima, 1992)
and about levels of energy use in a dorm (Peterson et al., 2007) affects related
behaviors. Beyond behaviors, Kahler (2003) speculates that living or working in
‘‘green structures’’ exerts positive and enduring effects on environmental attitudes
and identities. Here, we extend Kahler’s speculation to perceptions of justice and
assessments of injustice.
Green structures typically receive Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certification, which indicates design and building strategies to
enhance ‘‘energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved
indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their
impacts’’ (United States Green Building Council, 2008). The amenities of the green
residence halls in our study include dual-flush toilets, motion-sensitive lights, gray
water reclamation, prominent recycling bins, use of recycled building materials, and
screens displaying monitored energy use. Additionally, dorm programing revolves
around environmental issues. Presumably, such a built (and constructed) environ-
ment should remind students on a daily basis of how their behavior impacts the
environment and their responsibility to steward environmental resources necessary
to living. We propose that the potential for such awareness should color perceptions
of justice related to the environment. Thus
Hypothesis 4 Residing in a ‘‘green’’ compared to a conventional structure is
positively related to perceptions of environmental and ecological justice and
assessments of injustice.
The Perceived Environment
Perceived Peer Behaviors Individuals’ perceptions about their social environ-
ments may also affect their justice assessments. Kahn, Nelson, Gaeddert, and Hearn
(1982) argue that individuals compare their own perceptions of what is just with the
opinions of discussion group members. Their study revealed that, in group
situations, people tend to opt for what is most fair for the collective. Comparisons of
one’s justice perceptions likewise emphasize ‘‘the collective element missing from
much justice research’’ (Hegtvedt & Johnson, 2000, p. 300). Within organizations,
multiple third parties may discuss injustices that befall others, which may solidify a
Soc Just Res
123
particular evaluation of the situation (see Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005). Essentially,
what is at issue here is the impact of modeling or influence—active, through
discussion, or passive, based solely on observation—of others on individuals’
justice assessments. Modeling is a process through which people observe how
others act in a given situation, interpret that behavior as appropriate, and in turn use
that information to guide their own positive or negative behaviors (Biddle, Bank, &
Marlin, 1980).
Within the actual structures of the residence halls in which study participants are
embedded, they have countless opportunities to witness the extent to which their
peers engage in behaviors that affect the environment, such as recycling,
conservation of energy and water, and advocacy. Individuals imbue the actions of
those around them with meaning, and may interpret their perceptions of peers’
behaviors as the fair or just way to interact with the natural environment. Moreover,
previous research has found that the perceived behaviors of friends explain five to
seven times more of the variation in an individual’s behaviors than friends’ actual
behaviors (Huizinga, Weiher, Espiritu, & Esbensen, 2003). Assuming that most
students want to fit in with their peers—to act and believe in consistent manners—
perceptions of their peers’ behaviors and the meanings that they connote may shape
individuals’ own assessments of the environment. Thus
Hypothesis 5 An individual’s perception of peers’ enactment of environmentally
responsible behavior is positively related to environmental and ecological justice
and assessments of injustice.
Perceived University Context Beyond the immediate context of residence hall
peers, the university itself may convey messages regarding fairness, both generally
and specifically with regard to the environment. To the extent that an organization
legitimizes particular social actions, they take on a normative character (see
Ridgeway & Walker, 1995). When individuals observe that others act in accordance
with and come to support a legitimated norm or set of behaviors, they are likely to
do the same to avoid negative sanctions for noncompliance. Legitimacy also has
consequences for justice perceptions in groups. Studies show that people will not
challenge a legitimated structure, even if it produces unfair reward distributions (see
Walker & Zelditch, 1993). Additionally, the collective legitimacy of reward
procedures enhances procedural justice perceptions, which in turn positively affects
evaluations of pay fairness (Mueller & Landsman, 2004). In other words, people
tend to act consistently with legitimated norms and behaviors, plus their perceptions
of what is legitimated have consequences for their assessments of justice.
As indicated in our introduction, across the nation, university administrations
have legitimated the ‘‘greening’’ of their campuses. Through their Campus Report
Cards, the National Wildlife Federation (2008) documents changes since 2001,
indicating higher levels of sustainability-oriented goal setting, greater staffing for
sustainability programs, more programs designed to introduce students, faculty, and
staff to sustainability efforts, stronger commitment to energy efficiency, increases in
use of alternative energy sources and sustainable landscaping, and greater efforts in
recycling and green purchasing. And, conservation programs (e.g., Barlow, 2008;
Soc Just Res
123
Marcell et al., 2004) have favorably affected students’ behaviors. To the extent that
university officials signal their commitment to sustainability, legitimate sustain-
ability efforts, and encourage environmentally responsible behavior, they create a
particular type of context for students. Individuals who perceive these legitimating
actions of the university are more likely to behave in environmentally responsible
ways and to incorporate the meaning of the university message into their
perceptions of environmental and ecological (in)justice. Thus
Hypothesis 6 An individual’s perception that the university legitimizes sustain-
ability efforts and ERBs is positively related to perceptions of environmental and
ecological justice and assessments of injustice.
Methods
Our data consist of survey responses generated by first-year students at a
southeastern university in the late spring of their first year.4 The University
requires that all freshmen live on campus, and allows students to express interest in
living in certain dorms. Participants for this study were assigned to live in either two
new ‘‘green,’’ LEED-certified freshman dorms or in two other conventional
freshman dorms. Students living in these four dorms represent about 50 % of the
first-year cohort. More students expressed interest in the green dorms than were able
to live there due to the availability of rooms; therefore, a number of students who
were interested in these dorms were assigned to conventional dorms. The green
amenities and programing in the green dorms, however, were not the only attractive
features of these dorms. Other relevant factors include their new construction and
proximity to fraternities, sororities, and the student union. Residence Life officials
not only consider students’ expressed interest when assigning students to dorms but
also balance the gender and racial composition across dorms. Importantly, there was
no variation in baseline data collected prior to the students’ arrival on campus in
environmental identity between a sample of residents of the green and conventional
dorms (means of 4.74 and 4.47, respectively, p = .188), or in overall self-reported
ERBs between dorm residents (means of 4.40 and 4.16, p = .179) (measures
described below). These baseline responses suggest that any differences between
residents of these dorms observed here are likely the result of living in their
respective dorms, rather than preexisting differences in residents.
We solicited participation in our study via email in spring of 2009. The initial
email included information regarding the environmental concerns study and a
hyperlink to the online survey. We sent two follow-up emails to prospective
respondents in the weeks following the initial contact. The survey took approx-
imately 15–20 min to complete. Survey items pertain to perceptions of environ-
mental and ecological justice, motivations for environmentally responsible
behavior, political beliefs, environmental identity, perceptions of peer behavior,
and perceptions of university context, as well as residence hall and demographic
4 This paper uses data from a trend study examining the effects of living in green dorms on
environmental behaviors.
Soc Just Res
123
characteristics. To compensate respondents for their time, we credited their student
purchasing cards $10.
A total of 628 students were emailed and 301 completed the survey, for a 48 %
response rate (higher than the rate for most residence life surveys). The
demographics of our respondents correspond with those for the freshmen cohort.
In our sample, 55 % of the respondents are female and 45 % are male. With regard
to racial and ethnic background, 60 % of the sample is Caucasian, 27 % Asian/
Asian American/Pacific Islander, 3 % Hispanic/Latino/Chicano, 4 % African
American/Black, and 6 % multiracial. The cohort to which the respondents belong
is 52 % female, 48 % male, 45 % Caucasian, 31 % Asian, 9 % African American,
4 % Hispanic, and 1 % Native American. Finally, 46 % of the respondents were
assigned by the university to live in one of the two green dorms on campus and
54 % were assigned to live in one of two conventional dorms.
To create the scales described below, we employ principle component analysis.
The Appendix shows all indicators for additive scales, standardized by the number
of constituent elements.
Measures of Perception of Environmental and Ecological Justice
To measure perception of environmental and ecological justice, we use three scales
capturing distinct types of justice. For each of these scales, respondents indicated
how much they disagreed or agreed with a number of statements on a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Although these scales
do not capture perceptions of specific situations (e.g., fairness of exposure to more
toxins in Neighborhood A compared to Neighborhood B), they measure the extent
of agreement with principles related to environmental or ecological justice or with
general violations of those principles.
For our perception of the procedural environmental justice scale, we use three
items designed to ascertain respondents’ perceptions of whether toxic waste harms
and environmental damage disproportionately affect certain groups of people. The
items in this scale are as follows: (1) decisions about where to situate polluting
industries should take into account the opinions of the people who would live near
those cites; (2) equal treatment of all people should be considered when decision
makers are solving environmental problems; and (3) people have a general
responsibility to conserve environmental resources for future generations. Higher
scores on this scale indicate agreement with general principles regarding procedural
justice regarding the environment, drawn from application of general procedural
justice principles (Leventhal et al., 1980). Factor analysis indicates that each of
these indicators loads on a single component, and the Cronbach’s a for this scale is
.771.
The perception of the distributive environmental injustice scale ascertains
respondents’ perceptions of whether toxic waste harms and environmental damage
disproportionately affect certain groups of people. The focus is on the nature of the
distribution of harms and damage. This scale is composed of two items adapted
from Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1995): (1) environmental damage generated here
in the U.S. harms people all over the world and (2) poor neighborhoods are unfairly
Soc Just Res
123
disadvantaged in terms of exposure to environmental hazards. These items are
correlated at b = .536, p B .001. Higher scores on this scale indicate stronger
perception of distributive injustice regarding environmental hazards.
The perception of the ecological injustice scale consists of three items designed
to measure assessment of the harmful treatment of the natural world. The items in
this scale are as follows: (1) humans are severely abusing the environment; (2) the
greenhouse effect is dangerous to the environment; and (3) pesticides and chemicals
are dangerous to the environment. These items stem from two previous studies
regarding environmental concerns (e.g., Barkan, 2004; Thapa, 2001). Cronbach’s afor this scale is .825.
Measures of Individual-Level and Contextual Factors
The survey includes five items measuring motivations related to environmental
concerns. Respondents indicate on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal) scale responses
to ‘‘In thinking about what you can do for the environment, do you…?’’ The
facilitating motivations scale (Cronbach’s a of .747) involves (1) genuinely
believing that such action will make the world a better place; (2) anticipate personal
or spiritual rewards; and (3) feel a sense of responsibility. Two correlated items
(b = .507, p B .001) compose the inhibiting motivations scale: (1) think the
problem is not as serious as some make it out to be (e.g., media, environmentalists)
and (2) think it takes too much time (i.e., is inconvenient). These scales include a
mix of items modified from other studies (Pendarvis, 2002) and self-created items.
To measure political liberalism, we follow Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) and ask
‘‘Where would you place yourself on a liberal/conservative scale of political
attitudes?’’ Responses range from extremely conservative (1) to extremely liberal
(7).
We use a subset of items from Clayton’s (2003) 26-statement environmental
identity scale. Based on pre-test responses from a subsample of approximately 100
college students from the same university, we include six items that represent
individuals’ perceptions of their relationship with the natural environment and of the
importance of environmentally responsible behavior.5 Respondents indicated ‘‘how
true of me’’ each item was on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘not at all true of
me’’ (1) to ‘‘completely true of me’’ (7). The scale includes items such as (1)
engaging in environmental behaviors is important to me; (2) I think of myself as
part of nature, not separate from it; and (3) my own interests usually seem to align
with those of environmentalists. The environmental identity scale reliability is high
(Cronbach’s a .882).
To assess the actual environment, we asked respondents in which type of dorm
they lived, coded as (0) for conventional dorm and (1) for green dorm. To gage
respondents’ perceptions of peer behaviors, they indicated ‘‘How often do the
people who live on your floor…’’ engage in eight behaviors, derived from
behavioral measures used in previous studies in reference to own behaviors (see
5 We ran all analyses also using a ten-item environmental identity scale. No discernible differences
emerged in the pattern of findings for each model.
Soc Just Res
123
Biga, 2006; Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 1999; Milfont & Duckitt, 2004; Pendarvis,
2002). Responses ranged from ‘‘not at all’’ (1) to ‘‘a great deal’’ (7). This scale
includes eight items: (1) conserve water; (2) conserve energy (e.g., electrical); (3)
turn off lights when exiting a room; (4) turn off the faucet while brushing their teeth;
(5) recycle paper; (6) recycle containers (e.g., plastic, glass, and aluminum); (7)
advocate for environmental solutions (e.g., writing letters, protesting, and signing
petitions); and (8) belong to environmental groups. Cronbach’s a for the scale is
.905.
Measures for perceptions of university context parallel the behaviors of peers,
using the same scale ranging from (1) not at all to (7) a great deal. We asked ‘‘How
much does [university] encourage students to…’’ engage in the following eight
items: (1) conserve water; (2) conserve energy (e.g., electrical); (3) turn off lights
when exiting a room; (4) use alternative forms of transportation (bicycling,
[university] shuttles); (5) recycle paper; (6) recycle containers (e.g., plastic, glass,
and aluminum); (7) advocate for environmental solutions (e.g., writing letters,
protesting, and signing petitions); and (8) belong to environmental groups.
Cronbach’s a is .943.
Control Variables
Other factors may affect the relationships between individual-level and contextual
factors on environmental and ecological justice perceptions. Thus, we control for
demographic factors: gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and racial and ethnic
background (0 = nonwhite, 1 = white). And, we include the respondent’s parental
income level (ranging from 1 = less than $25,000 a year to 8 = greater than
$250,000 a year) and both mother’s and father’s education levels (ranging from
1 = less than high school/GED/high school graduate to 7 = doctorate degree).
In addition, we also control for the respondent’s self-reported ERBs over the past
6 months. The respondents indicated on a seven-point scale ranging from never (1)
to always (7) whether they have engaged in a range of behaviors. The eleven items
in this scale are similar to the items described above regarding perceived peer
behaviors. Cronbach’s a is .874.
Results
Table 1 presents a correlation matrix with means and standard deviations on the diagonal
for each variable. The means and standard deviations for procedural environmental
justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice vary little
(�x = 5.44 [s.d. = 1.05], �x = 5.24 [s.d. = 1.15], and �x = 5.47 [s.d. = 1.10], respec-
tively), suggesting that the sample assesses similarly, on average, the three types of
(in)justice.
We use seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to examine how individual-level
and contextual factors affect perceptions of environmental and ecological injustice
because it takes into consideration the non-independence of the dependent variables
(Minnotte, Mannon, Pedersen Stevens, & Kilger, 2008; Timm, 2002). While the
Soc Just Res
123
Ta
ble
1C
orr
elat
ion
mat
rix
wit
hm
eans
(an
dst
andar
dd
evia
tio
ns)
on
dia
go
nal
Fac
ilit
atin
g
mo
tiv
atio
ns
Inh
ibit
ing
mo
tiv
atio
ns
Po
liti
cal
lib
eral
ism
En
vir
on
men
tal
iden
tity
Gre
en
do
rm
Pee
r
beh
avio
r
Univ
ersi
ty
beh
avio
r
Gen
der
Fac
ilit
atin
gm
oti
vat
ion
s4
.22
(1.3
0)
Inh
ibit
ing
mo
tiv
atio
ns
.06
23
.19
(1.5
0)
Po
liti
cal
lib
eral
ism
.20
9*
**
-.2
78
**
*1
.00
En
vir
on
men
tal
iden
tity
.70
5*
**
-.0
72
.24
5*
**
4.4
0(1
.31
)
Gre
end
orm
.09
0-
.05
2.0
84
.19
6*
**
.47
(.5
0)
Pee
rb
ehav
ior
.29
4*
**
.29
3*
**
-.0
19
.37
2*
**
.20
5*
3.9
4(1
.25
)
Un
iver
sity
beh
avio
r.2
15*
**
.01
4.1
00
.21
7*
**
.04
0.5
67*
**
5.1
7(1
.36
)
Gen
der
.16
5*
*-
.09
8.1
87*
**
.12
8*
-.0
58
.09
1.2
38*
**
.53
(.5
0)
Rac
e.0
53
-.0
20
.02
9.0
67
.10
2?
.01
1-
.03
6.0
25
Inco
me
-.0
22
.05
2.0
36
-.0
05
.01
4.1
32
.07
4-
.05
0
Moth
er’s
educa
tion
.002
.013
.027
.038
.032
.051
-.1
12
?.0
14
Fat
her
’sed
uca
tion
.103
?-
.02
3.1
09
?.1
22
*.0
36
.00
2-
.03
9.0
02
Pre
vio
us
beh
avio
r.6
05*
**
-.1
14
*.2
47*
**
.67
6*
**
.28
1*
**
.24
3*
*.1
98*
*.2
73
**
*
En
vir
on
just
ice
PJ
.44
5*
**
-.0
81
.25
7*
**
.50
6*
**
.08
0.3
06*
**
.40
5*
**
.24
1*
**
En
vir
on
inju
stic
eD
J.3
86*
**
-.1
16
*.2
73*
**
.48
5*
**
.08
9.2
84*
**
.28
1*
**
.21
4*
**
Eco
log
ical
inju
stic
e
TX
.49
5*
**
-.2
01
**
*.3
26*
**
.57
0*
**
.13
3*
.28
3*
**
.35
2*
**
.25
4*
**
Soc Just Res
123
Ta
ble
1co
nti
nu
ed
Rac
eIn
com
eM
oth
er’s
edu
cati
on
Fat
her
’s
educa
tion
Pre
vio
us
beh
avio
r
En
vir
on
just
ice
PJ
En
vir
on
inju
stic
eD
J
Eco
log
ical
inju
stic
eT
X
Fac
ilit
atin
gm
oti
vat
ion
s
Inh
ibit
ing
mo
tiv
atio
ns
Po
liti
cal
lib
eral
ism
En
vir
on
men
tal
iden
tity
Gre
end
orm
Pee
rb
ehav
ior
Un
iver
sity
beh
avio
r
Gen
der
Rac
e.6
1(.
49
)
Inco
me
.32
9*
**
5.3
3(2
.15
)
Moth
er’s
educa
tion
.148*
.382***
4.2
9(1
.62)
Fat
her
’sed
uca
tion
.073
.409***
.580***
4.7
9(1
.77)
Pre
vio
us
beh
avio
r.1
50*
-.0
11
.09
7.1
39*
4.4
0(1
.16
)
En
vir
on
just
ice
PJ
.01
8-
.03
7-
.03
2.0
34
.40
4*
**
5.4
4(1
.05
)
En
vir
on
inju
stic
eD
J.0
28
.00
6.0
09
-.0
04
.36
6*
**
.67
9*
**
5.2
4(1
.15
)
Eco
log
ical
inju
stic
eT
X.1
03
?.0
53
-.1
05
?.0
27
.44
9*
**
.70
8*
**
.73
3*
**
5.4
7(1
.10
)
?p
\.1
0,
*p
B.0
5,
**
pB
.01
,*
**
pB
.00
1
Soc Just Res
123
three dependent variables are conceptually distinct, they fall under the larger
umbrella of environmental concerns. By allowing for correlation among the errors
of the models for the three types of (in)justice, SUR uses those errors to improve the
estimates. Using the full models, the correlations between the error terms for
procedural environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecolog-
ical injustice models are all greater than .880, p \ .001. Results for SUR are
interpreted in the same way as those from ordinary least squares.
Using SUR, we first examine partial models of the effects of each set of
independent variables independently on environmental and ecological injustice.
Model 1 includes controls and the individual-level factors (motivations, political
beliefs, and environmental identity). Model 2 focuses on contextual factors (actual
environment, perceptions of peer behaviors, and perceptions of the university
context) along with the controls. Model 3 represents the full model including all
independent and control variables. We also ran a fourth model, which introduces an
interaction term for environmental identity and university context. Model 4 allows
exploration of the relationships between independent variables that emerge as
significant and allows us to examine their conditional impact. Table 2 shows the
results for all models.
Effects of Individual-Level Factors
Hypotheses 1a and 1b predict the positive and negative effects of facilitating and
inhibiting motivations, respectively, on perceptions of procedural environmental
justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice. Results do not
confirm these hypotheses. In the partial model, findings indicate that facilitating
motivations increase perceptions of ecological injustice (b = .136, p B .05) as
expected, but these results do not maintain significance in the full model.
Additionally, inhibiting motivations decrease perceptions of distributive environ-
mental injustice and ecological injustice (b = -.094, p = .057 and b = -.144,
p B .001, respectively), but these results disappear in the full model. Contrary to
expectation, then, facilitating and inhibiting motivations fail to affect perceptions of
justice regarding environmental issues.
Hypothesis 2 asserts a positive relationship between an individual’s degree of
political liberalism and his or her perception of procedural environmental justice,
distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice. Results provide
support for the predicted relationship for perception of distributive environmental
injustice in both the partial (b = .101, p B .05) and full (b = .170, p B .01)
models. Support for the hypothesis is weaker with regard to perception of ecological
injustice. Results indicate significance in the partial model (b = .088, p B .05), but
only approach significance in the full model (b = .098, p = .063). We do not find
support for hypothesis 2 regarding procedural environmental justice.
Environmental identity strongly affects all three of types of justice, providing
consistent support for Hypothesis 3. Results from Model 1 show that a stronger
environmental identity is correlated with perceptions of procedural environmental
justice (b = .273, p B .001), distributive environmental injustice (b = .320,
p B .001), and ecological injustice (b = .321, p B .001). Moreover, Model 3
Soc Just Res
123
Ta
ble
2S
eem
ingly
unre
late
dre
gre
ssio
nco
effi
cien
tsfo
rth
eef
fect
so
fin
div
idual
and
situ
atio
nal
fact
ors
on
per
cepti
ons
of
pro
cedura
len
vir
onm
enta
lju
stic
e,d
istr
ibu
tiv
e
env
iro
nm
enta
lin
just
ice,
and
eco
log
ical
inju
stic
e
Mo
del
1M
odel
2M
odel
3M
odel
4
Pro
ced
env
iro
n
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iron
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
eco
log
ical
inju
stic
e
Pro
ced
env
iro
n
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iron
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
eco
log
ical
inju
stic
e
Pro
ced
env
iro
n
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iro
n
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
ecolo
gic
al
inju
stic
e
Pro
ced
env
iron
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iro
n
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
ecolo
gic
al
inju
stic
e
Ind
ivid
ual
fact
ors
Mo
tivat
ion
s
Fac
ilit
atin
g
moti
vat
ions
.08
0
(.0
63
)
.06
2
(.0
74
)
.13
6*
(.0
61
)
.11
7
(.1
10
)
.14
1
(.1
30
)
.12
3(.
10
2)
.13
3
(.1
02
)
.14
3
(.1
30
)
.13
1(.
09
9)
Inh
ibit
ing
moti
vat
ions
-.0
39
(.0
42
)
-.0
94
?
(.0
49
)
-.1
44
**
*
(.0
40
)
.03
0
(.0
62
)
.03
1
(.0
73
)
-.0
67
(.0
57
)
.00
6
(.0
58
)
.02
7
(.0
74
)
-.0
79
(.0
56
)
Po
liti
cal
lib
eral
ism
.05
7
(.0
40
)
.10
1*
(.0
47
)
.08
8*
(.0
39
)
.06
1
(.0
57
)
.17
0*
*
(.0
67
)
.09
8?
(.0
52
)
.05
6
(.0
53
)
.16
9*
*
(.0
67
)
.09
5?
(.0
51
)
En
vir
on
men
tal
iden
tity
.27
3*
**
(.0
67
)
.32
0*
**
(.0
79
)
.32
1*
**
(.0
65
)
.41
0*
*
(.1
34
)
.33
6*
(.1
58
)
.52
0*
**
(.1
23
)
1.1
77
**
*
(.2
37
)
.45
1
(.3
01
)
.91
7*
**
(.2
31
)
Con
textu
alfa
cto
rs
Act
ual
con
tex
t
(do
rm)
.14
2
(.1
88
)
.25
7
(.2
18
)
.21
9(.
19
5)
.04
5
(.1
76
)
.20
7
(.2
07
)
.09
1(.
16
2)
.08
9
(.1
63
)
.21
4
(.2
07
)
.11
4(.
15
9)
Per
cep
tio
ns
of
pee
rb
eh
-.0
19
(.1
01
)
-.0
56
(.1
18
)
-.0
08
(.1
05
)
-.0
42
(.0
90
)
-.0
66
(.1
06
)
-.0
37
(.0
83
)
-.0
29
(.0
84
)
-.0
64
(.1
06
)
-.0
30
(.0
81
)
Per
cep
tio
ns
of
un
vco
n
.29
9*
**
(.0
77
)
.16
6?
(.0
89
)
.22
0*
*
(.0
79
)
.29
6*
**
(.0
68
)
.15
2?
(.0
80
)
.21
6*
**
(.0
63
)
1.0
53
**
*
(.2
10
)
.26
5?
(.2
66
)
.60
8*
**
(.2
04
)
Inte
ract
ion
En
vir
on
ID9
un
vco
n
-.1
63
**
*
(.0
43
)
-.0
24
(.0
55
)
-.0
85*
(.0
42
)
Con
tro
ls
Mal
e(v
s.
fem
ale)
.18
5
(.1
15
)
.11
6
(.1
35
)
.20
2?
(.1
10
)
.04
6
(.1
89
)
.12
0
(.2
20
)
.32
0?
(.1
96
)
-.0
85
(.1
74
)
-.0
88
(.2
05
)
.09
8(.
16
0)
-.1
70
(.1
62
)
-.1
00
(.2
06
)
.05
5(.
15
8)
Soc Just Res
123
Ta
ble
2co
nti
nu
ed
Mo
del
1M
odel
2M
odel
3M
odel
4
Pro
ced
env
iro
n
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iron
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
eco
log
ical
inju
stic
e
Pro
ced
env
iro
n
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iron
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
eco
log
ical
inju
stic
e
Pro
ced
env
iro
n
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iro
n
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
ecolo
gic
al
inju
stic
e
Pro
ced
env
iron
just
ice
Dis
trib
env
iro
n
inju
stic
e
Tre
atm
ent
ecolo
gic
al
inju
stic
e
Wh
ite
(vs.
no
nw
hit
e)
.02
7
(.1
21
)
.05
3
(.1
42
)
.13
9(.
11
6)
.28
9
(.2
20
)
.42
9?
(.2
56
)
.60
7*
*
(.2
29
)
.23
4
(.1
96
)
33
6 (.2
31
)
.51
1*
*
(.1
81
)
.06
8
(.1
87
)
.31
1
(.2
37
)
.42
5*
*
(.1
82
)
Par
ent’
s
inco
me
.01
1
(.0
31
)
.04
1
(.0
36
)
.05
2?
(.0
30
)
-.0
02
(.0
57
)
-.0
24
(.0
66
)
-.0
51
(.0
59
)
.02
7
(.0
52
)
.01
2
(.0
61
)
-.0
04
(.0
48
)
.03
8
(.0
48
)
.01
4
(.0
61
)
.00
2(.
04
7)
Mo
ther
’s
educa
tion
-.0
27
(.0
44
)
.03
7
(.0
52
)
-.0
79
?
(.0
42
)
-.0
53
(.0
74
)
-.0
26
(.0
86
)
-.0
35
(.0
77
)
-.0
62
(.0
67
)
-.0
42
(.0
79
)
-.0
70
(.0
62
)
-.0
67
(.0
62
)
-.0
43
(.0
79
)
-.0
72
(.0
60
)
Fat
her
’s
edu
cati
on
-.0
12
(.0
41
)
-.0
72
(.0
48
)
-.0
22
(.0
39
)
-.0
15
(.0
65
)
.02
7
(.0
76
)
.03
5(.
06
7)
-.0
99
?
(.0
61
)
-.0
56
(.0
71
)
-.0
61
(.0
56
)
-.1
16
*
(.0
56
)
-.0
59
(.0
72
)
-.0
70
(.0
55
)
Pre
vio
us
beh
avio
r
.00
1
(.0
72
)
-.0
71
(.0
85
)
-.0
32
(.0
70
)
.43
8*
**
(.0
88
)
.45
2*
**
(.1
03
)
.49
9*
**
(.0
92
)
.12
0
(.1
10
)
.11
7
(.1
30
)
.05
8(.
10
1)
.15
3
(.1
02
)
.12
2
(.1
30
)
.07
6(.
10
0)
R2
.26
5.2
43
.43
2.4
18
.32
0.4
65
.53
7.4
51
.66
5.6
02
.45
2.6
80
V2
80
.58
**
*7
1.7
6*
**
17
0.3
9*
**
64
.67
**
*4
2.3
9*
**
78
.33
**
*1
01
.95
***
72
.19
**
*1
74
.78
**
*1
32
.88
***
72
.56
**
*1
86
.93
***
Sta
nd
ard
erro
rsin
par
enth
eses
;?
pB
.10
;*
pB
.05
;*
*p
B.0
1;
**
*p
B.0
01
Soc Just Res
123
demonstrates that even including contextual factors, environmental identity
continues to exert the expected effects on procedural environmental justice
(b = .410, p B .01), distributive environmental injustice (b = .336, p B .05), and
ecological injustice (b = .520, p B .001).
Effects of Contextual Factors
Surprisingly, the actual context—residing in a green or conventional dorm—has no
effect on respondents’ perceptions of procedural environmental justice, distributive
environmental injustice, or ecological injustice, contrary to Hypothesis 4. Similarly,
perceptions of the peer context have little effect. Hypothesis 5, which suggests a
positive effect of the perception of peers’ ERBs on perception of procedural
environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and ecological injustice,
is fully disconfirmed.
Finally, Hypothesis 6 predicts a positive relationship between an individual’s
perception that the university legitimizes sustainability efforts/ERBs and assess-
ments of procedural environmental justice, distributive environmental injustice, and
ecological injustice. Findings confirm this hypothesis. Perceptions of the extent to
which the university encourages ERBs are significant for perception of procedural
environmental justice in the partial (b = .299, p B .001) and (b = .296, p B .001)
full models. For distributive environmental injustice, these perceptions approach
significance in the partial (b = .166, p = .062) and full (b = .152, p = .058)
models. And, perceptions of university of encouragement are significant for
ecological injustice in the partial (b = .220, p B .01) and full (b = .216, p B .001)
models.
Combining Environmental Identity and Perceptions of the University Context
Given the consistent significance in the full models of environmental identity and
perceptions of the university context for the three types of justice, we explored an
interaction effect between these two factors. Inclusion of the interaction in Model 4
did not alter the pattern of findings shown in Model 3. The interaction term,
however, was significant for perceptions of procedural environmental justice
(b = -.163, p B .001) and ecological injustice (b = -.085, p B .05). This
negative relationship indicates that when environmental identity is strong, the
perceived university context does not matter. When environmental identity is weak,
however, the perceived university context does matter.6
Effects of Control Variables
We find that our control variables have varying effects on perceptions of
environmental and ecological justice. Gender approaches significance for ecological
6 We ran two additional models with an interaction terms. First, we included an interaction for perceived
university context and political liberalism. Second, we included an interaction for environmental identity
and political liberalism. Neither of these interactions was significant, nor did they change the general
pattern of findings from Model 3.
Soc Just Res
123
injustice in Model 1 (b = .202, p = .066) and Model 2 (b = .320, p = .103),
suggesting that women are more perceptive of this type of injustice than are men,
but the effect disappears in the full model. Race is significant for ecological justice
in Models 2 (b = .607, p B .01) and 3 (b = .511, p B .01) and approaches
significance for distributive environmental injustice in Model 2 (b = .429,
p = .094). These race effects indicate that whites, compared to nonwhites, are
more attuned to ecological injustices. A respondent’s own behavior is strongly
significant in Model 2 for perception of procedural environmental justice (b = .438,
p B .001), distributive environmental injustice (b = .452, p B .001), and ecological
injustice (b = .499, p B .001). These effects, however, disappear in the full model.
Discussion
In this paper, we extend the justice literature by examining perceptions of justice
beyond the individual. We do so by considering factors affecting perceptions of
justice and assessments of injustice for the environment. We distinguish between
two types of justice perceptions related to the environment, uniquely bringing
together consideration of procedural and distributive justice for communities
affected by environmental burdens (environmental justice) and for the natural
environment itself (ecological justice). Moreover, we evaluate the contributions of
both individual-level and contextual factors on justice perceptions. Finally, with our
focus on university students, we augment existing literature on the influence of
university sustainability efforts on perceptions of environmental issues.
Our set of arguments pivots around the idea that individuals forge consistency in
their beliefs about themselves, the (actual and perceived) contexts in which they are
embedded, and their perceptions of justice relating to the environment. That is,
individuals’ motivations, beliefs, and identities influence their assessments of
information relevant to making justice judgments. These individual-level processes
are embedded within the social context, however, and perceivers’ actual and
constructed contexts color resulting assessments of justice through appraisals of
what others do and what they encourage.
The results of our analysis provide the basis for several central observations. First
and most importantly, of all of the factors considered, environmental identity and
perceived university context have the most consistent effects. Model 3 findings
support Hypothesis 3 predicting that those with strong environmental identities are
more likely to perceive procedural environmental justice and to perceive distributive
environmental and ecological injustice to be more severe than those with weak
identities. Such findings are consistent with other environmental concerns research
that demonstrates the impact of environmental identity on ERBs, controlling for
attitudes and other beliefs (e.g., Stets & Biga, 2003; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). The
findings also highlight the importance of identity for justice processes, an often under-
studied issue (for exceptions see Bobocel & Zdanuik, 2010; Stets, 2003). Moreover,
the results demonstrate how individual-level environmental identity is intimately
related to evaluations of collective forms of injustice. As such, cultivating strong
environmental identities leads to recognition of injustices both for the natural world
Soc Just Res
123
and the distribution of environmental burdens. Our results reinforce Clayton’s (1998)
findings that macrojustice principles promoting concern for and identification with a
collective are more salient in evaluations regarding the environment than are
microjustice principles focused on individual entitlement.
Perceived university encouragement had a consistent, positive effect on
perceptions of procedural environmental justice and ecological injustice, providing
evidence for Hypothesis 6. Results pertaining to perceived distributive environ-
mental injustice, moreover, approached significance as well. These findings show
that the perceived context influences perceptions and assessments of justice even
when controlling for individual characteristics. In this case, students perceive the
university efforts to promote sustainability, which in turn affects how they assess
procedures for handing environmental distributions and the current treatment of the
natural world represented by ecological injustice. Support from the university
potentially signals to students the importance of environmental and ecological
justice, thus heightening their own perceptions of these issues. In so doing, the
university contributes to transforming how college freshmen think outside of the
classroom and provides a basis for future environmental citizenship.
In addition to these two central findings, our results also include an interaction
effect between environmental identity and perceived university context for both
procedural environmental justice and ecological injustice. Both of these relation-
ships are negative, indicating that when environmental identity is strong, the
perceived university context has little effect on justice perceptions. But, when
environmental identity is weak, the perceived university context matters more.
Based on these results, universities or other organizations concerned with
environmental and ecological justice may be able to foster increased perceptions
of (in)justice through organizational encouragement, even when students/members
do not have a personal sense of connection to the environment.
Second, results disconfirmed several of our hypotheses. Motivations had little
effect on justice perceptions. The lack of an effect for facilitating motivations may
be due to the strength of its positive relationship with environmental identity, a
factor that clearly impacts justice perceptions. In contrast, inhibiting motivations
were significant in Model 1, but they failed to reach significance in the full model,
which included other, more powerful predictors. Additionally, the actual structure in
which respondents lived (i.e., a green or conventional dorm) exerted no effect on
perceptions of justice. This disconfirmation of Hypothesis 4 may stem from the
timing of the data collection; by the end of their first year, students in the green
dorms may have come to take the amenities and associated meanings of their actual
environment for granted. If so, then there may be little difference in the meaning of
the living space for green and conventional dorm residents. Furthermore, the
amenities in green dorms are designed to reduce the environmental impact of the
structure itself and its residents, making enactment of ERBs very easy. As such,
living in these dorms may result in the impression that LEED-certified structures
provide a solution to at least some form of ecological injustices. At the time of the
study, no dorm programing existed to raise consciousness of environmental
injustices. And, the absence of any expected impact of perceived peer behaviors
Soc Just Res
123
(and thus disconfirmation of Hypothesis 5) may reflect respondents’ lack of
opportunity to observe their peers in the behaviors described by the measures or the
fact that freshmen are simply not careful observers of what might be considered the
routine behaviors of their friends. Rather than focus on observed peer behaviors, to
more clearly assess the impact of peers on individuals’ justice evaluations may
require detailed inquiry about peers’ environmental attitudes and identities.
Third, overall, our findings illustrate generally consistent patterns for both
procedural environmental justice and ecological injustice. The patterns for
distributive environmental injustice, however, are a bit weaker and distinct. Given
the focus on ecological justice issues on sustainability-oriented campuses, however,
this is hardly surprising. Students do not necessarily learn about the current
inequality in the distribution of environmental harms when they are introduced to
environmental issues. Instead, colleges and universities tend to focus on ecological
justice issues in their greening efforts. For example, discussions regarding
sustainability and energy usage typically emphasize energy reduction measures to
stymie the adverse effects of coal and carbon dioxide on the environment (National
Wildlife Federation, 2008), but rarely is there a discussion of how environmental
burdens are disproportionately experienced by minorities and poor people living
near coal-fired power plants supplying a campus. Although oftentimes the existence
of a fair procedure attenuates the perceived unfairness of a distribution (see van den
Bos, 2005), the bivariate correlation between our measures of perceived procedural
environmental justice and distributive environmental injustice is positive, ruling out
that possibility. An alternative may be that the youthfulness of our respondents may
have precluded contemplation of the sorts of distributions described in our
measures.
Political liberalism, however, stands out for its impact on distributive environ-
mental injustice perceptions. Although both environmental justice and ecological
justice are politicized, the former in particular may draw attention to impact on
disadvantaged communities. That political liberalism is associated with attentive-
ness of the welfare of the disadvantaged may partly account for the stronger findings
with regard to environmental injustice and suggest, at least, that even our relatively
young adults are attuned to the beliefs associated with their political ideologies with
regard to inequality.
And fourth, while we did not specifically predict the effects of demographic
characteristics, a few noteworthy patterns emerged. As discussed in the introduc-
tion, concerns for ecological and environmental justice exist in racialized patterns.
While advocates of ecological justice tend to be middle class whites, proponents of
environmental justice tend to be minorities and working class. As such, it is
unsurprising that being white is associated with perceptions of ecological injustice.
Additionally, the population from which our sample was drawn is limited and fairly
homogenous: undergraduates at a private university. And while racially and
ethnically diverse, it may be the case that few students who attend such a university
have direct or indirect experience with the situating of toxic waste in their
neighborhoods. In future research with more heterogeneous populations, involving
greater variation in race and socio-economic status, demographic factors may exert
Soc Just Res
123
stronger impact on perceptions of environmental and ecological injustice. More-
over, experience with discrimination may influence evaluations of environmental
injustice to a greater extent than ecological injustice. Such future work may identify
the importance of contextual factors beyond those represented here.
Future research might also develop a more robust ecological injustice scale.
While the items on our scale tap into a narrow portion of our conceptualization of
ecological injustice, we see future research improving upon our scale in several
ways. First, we suggest that future investigations employ more items that explicitly
capture the full conceptual definition of ecological injustice. This may include items
meant to take into account perceptions of ecological injustice with reference to non-
human species’ rights to continue to exist in their habitats. Moreover, future
research could focus on more ways to measure how human activities harm the
environment and how individuals perceive those activities in terms of injustice
suffered by the environment itself. Finally, researchers should incorporate items that
are positively phrased, measuring ways to insure well-being of all species.
With our cross-sectional data, we could not assess how contextual factors might
shape individuals’ environmental motivations and identity or whether those
individual-level factors influence perceptions of contextual factors. Longitudinal
data would provide the opportunity to examine such relationships. In addition, such
data would allow us to take our models a step further to examine how justice
perceptions affect future behaviors.
Out results have implications for universities concerned with promoting
sustainability among their students. To elicit perceptions of injustice and thus
possibly spur future environmentally responsible behaviors, universities might focus
on creating stronger environmental identities among students, rather than channel-
ing their efforts toward student motivation or political involvement. For instance,
programs educating students on the ecosystem that the university occupies, through
guided nature walks, foster a sense of connection to that natural setting. Such
programs could also provide a starting point to discuss environmental and
ecological justice by explaining how climate change affects the university
ecosystem relative to other areas, and comparing the campus exposure to
environmental burdens to other neighboring communities. These and other popular
programs like energy competitions provide opportunities for students to confirm
their environmental identities through social behavior. Furthermore, such program-
ing emphasizes the well-being of the collectivity and offers students the prospect of
considering procedures, outcomes, and treatment for groups of people often distant
from the self and for the natural environment itself. When universities provide these
types of programing, they signal to students their encouragement of sustainable
practices, which we have shown to be related to perceptions of justice.
Young adults, like those in our sample, will be making decisions that will affect
environmental conditions for future generations. Institutions that implement
programs geared toward strengthening students’ environmental identities are likely
to insure heightened awareness of both environmental and ecological justice. In
effect, when universities cultivate stronger environmental citizenship among their
students, they may, in the long run, enhance (environmental) justice for all.
Soc Just Res
123
Appendix
Dependent Variables
How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Procedural Environmental Justice (a = .771)
1. Decisions about where to situate polluting industries should take into account
the opinions of the people who would live near those sites.
2. Equal treatment of all people should be considered when decision makers are
solving environmental problems.
3. People have a general responsibility to conserve environmental resources for
future generations.
Distributive Environmental Injustice (r = .536, p B .001)
1. Environmental damage generated here in the US harms people all over the
world.
2. Poor neighborhoods are unfairly disadvantaged in terms of exposure to
environmental hazards.
Ecological Injustice (a = .825)
1. Humans are severely abusing the environment.
2. The greenhouse effect is dangerous to the environment.
3. Pesticides and chemicals are dangerous to the environment.
Independent Variables
Motivations
In thinking about what you can do for the environment, do you…? (1 = not at all,
7 = a great deal)
Facilitating (a = .747)
1. Genuinely believe that such action will make the world a better place.
2. Anticipate personal or spiritual rewards.
3. Feel a sense of responsibility.
Inhibiting (r = .507, p B .001)
1. Think the problem is not as serious as some make it out to be (e.g., media,
environmentalists).
2. Think it takes too much time (i.e., is inconvenient).
Soc Just Res
123
Political Liberalism
Where would you place yourself on a liberal/conservative scale of political
attitudes? (1 = Extremely Conservative, 7 = Extremely Liberal)
Environmental Identity (a = .882)
How ‘‘true’’ of you are each of the following statements? (1 = not at all true,
7 = completely true)
1. Engaging in environmental behaviors is important to me.
2. I think of myself as a part of nature, not separate from it.
3. Being a part of the ecosystem is an important part of who I am.
4. I feel that I have roots to a particular geographic location that had a significant
impact on my development.
5. In general, being part of the natural world is an important part of my self-image.
6. My own interests usually seem to coincide with the position advocated by
environmentalists.
Residence Hall Assignment
‘‘What dorm do you live in?’’ (Conventional Dorm = 0, Green Dorm = 1)
Perceptions of Peer Behavior (a = .905)
How much do the people who live on your hall…? (1 = not at all 7 = a great deal)
1. Conserve water.
2. Conserve energy (e.g., electrical).
3. Turn off lights when exiting a room.
4. Turn off the faucet when brushing teeth.
5. Recycle paper.
6. Recycle containers.
7. Advocate for environmental solutions.
8. Belong to environmental groups.
Perceptions of University Context (a = .943)
How much does [university] encourage students to…? (1 = not at all, 7 = a great
deal)
1. Conserve water.
2. Conserve energy (e.g., electrical).
3. Turn off lights when exiting a room.
4. Use alternative forms of transportation (e.g., bicycling and campus shuttles).
5. Recycle paper.
Soc Just Res
123
6. Recycle containers (e.g., plastic, glass, and aluminum).
7. Belong to environmental groups.
8. Advocate for environmental solutions.
Controls
Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female
Race: 0 = nonwhite, 1 = white
Income: What is your parents’ estimated annual combined income?
1. Less than 25,000 5. $100,001–$150,000
2. $25,001–$50,000 6. $150,001–$200,000
3. $50,001–$75,000 7. $200,001–$250,000
4. $75,001–$100,000 8. More than $250,000
Mother’s/Father’s Education: What is the highest level of school that your mother
(father) or female (male) guardian has completed?
0. N/A.
1. High school graduate/GED/less than high school.
2. Technical/vocational.
3. Some college or associates degree.
4. Bachelor’s degree.
5. Master’s degree (e.g., MA, MBA, MPH, MSW).
6. Professional school degree (e.g., MD, JD, DVM, DDS).
7. Doctorate degree (e.g., PhD, EdD).
Environmentally Responsible Behaviors (a = .874)
‘‘During the last 6 months, how often did you…?’’ (1 = never, 7 = always)
1. Turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth.
2. Turn off lights when exiting a room.
3. Walk, ride a bike, or take public transportation instead of driving or riding in a
car.
4. Unplug chargers for phones, iPods, etc., when not in use.
5. Carpool to a destination.
6. Recycle paper.
7. Recycle containers (e.g., plastic, glass, and aluminum).
8. Advocate for solutions to environmental problems.
9. Attend a meeting or event sponsored by an environmental group.
10. Encourage family members to recycle.
11. Encourage friends to recycle.
Soc Just Res
123
References
Barkan, S. E. (2004). Explaining public support for the environmental movement: A civic voluntarism
model. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 913–937.
Barlow, L. K. (2008). Implementing behavioral change in residence halls at the University of Colorado at
Boulder: Energy conservation and reusable bags. Retrieved from http://envs.colorado.edu/uploads/
undergrad/Energy_Conservation_Reusable_Bags_report.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2011.
Bartels, L. M. (2010). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Baxter, B. (2005). A theory of ecological justice. New York: Routledge.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self perceptions: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.
Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.
Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., & Marlin, M. M. (1980). Parental and peer influence on adolescents. Social
Forces, 58(4), 1057–1079.
Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano
(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Biga, C. F. (2006). Explaining environmentally significant individual behaviors: Identity theory, multiple
identities, and shared meanings. Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations (AAT 3221798).
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall Inc.
Bobocel, D. R., & Zdanuik, A. (2010). Injustice and identity: How we respond to unjust treatment
depends on how we perceive ourselves. In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson
(Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (11th volume). New York:
Psychology Press.
Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Cambridge, MA:
South End Press.
Bullard, R. D. (1994). Unequal protection: Environmental justice and communities of color. San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Bullard, R. D. (1996). Environmental justice: More than waste facility siting. Social Science Quarterly,
77(3), 493–499.
Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in dixie. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 836–849.
Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Buttel, F. H., & Flinn, W. L. (1978). Social class and mass environmental beliefs a reconsideration.
Environment and Behavior, 10(3), 433–450.
Capek, S. (1993). The environmental justice frame. Social Problems, 40(1), 5–24.
Clayton, S. (1998). Preference for macrojustice versus microjustice in environmental decisions.
Environment and Behavior, 30(2), 162–183.
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton &
S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature
(pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Clayton, S. (2012). Environment and identity. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental
and conservation psychology (pp. 164–180). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical
overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56).
London: Psychology Press.
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 450–471.
Dillman, D. A., & Christensen, J. A. (1972). The public value for pollution control. In W. R. Burch Jr.,
et al. (Eds.), Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment (pp. 237–256). New York:
Harper Row.
Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. Society and
Natural Resources, 4(3), 285–312.
Soc Just Res
123
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2008). Social movement identity: Validating a measure of
identification with the environmental movement. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1045–1065.
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate denial. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, &
D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (pp. 144–160). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for
environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1013–1028.
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(3), 425–442.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Los Angeles: Sage.
Gillespie, J. Z., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Are the goals of organizational justice self-interested? In J.
Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 179–213). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior
by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
29(12), 2505–2528.
Hegtvedt, K. A. (2006). Justice frameworks. In P. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological
theories (pp. 46–69). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hegtvedt, K. A., & Cook, K. S. (2001). Distributive justice: Recent theoretical developments and
applications. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp.
93–132). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2000). Justice beyond the individual: A future with legitimation. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 298–311.
Hegtvedt, K. A., & Markovsky, B. (1995). Justice and injustice. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House
(Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 257–280). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Huizinga, D., Weiher, A. W., Espiritu, R. C., & Esbensen, F. A. (2003). Delinquency and crime: Some
highlights from the Denver youth survey. In T. P. Thornberry & M. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock: An
overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. New York: Plenum Press.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective
affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert,
& G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1122–1165). New York: Wiley.
Kahler, S. (2003). The ripple effect: How one dorm room can affect a university’s energy use.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4(3), 230–238.
Kahn, A., Nelson, R. E., Gaeddert, W. P., & Hearn, J. L. (1982). The justice process: Deciding upon
equity or equality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(1), 3–8.
Kals, E., & Russell, Y. (2001). Individual conceptions of justice and their potential for explaining
proenvironmental decision making. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 367–385.
Katzev, R. D., & Mishima, H. (1992). The use of posted feedback to promote recycling. Psychological
Reports, 71, 259–264.
Khanna, N., & Johnson, C. (2010). Passing as black: Racial identity work among biracial Americans.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 380–397.
Killian, C., & Johnson, C. (2006). ‘‘I’m not an immigrant!’’: Resistance, redefinition, and the role of
resources in identity work. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 60–80.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In
G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer.
Low, N., & Gleeson, B. (1998). Justice, society, and nature: An exploration of political ecology. New
York: Routledge.
Marcell, K., Agyeman, J., & Rappaport, A. (2004). Cooling the campus: Experiences from a pilot study to
reduce electricity use at Tufts University using social marketing methods. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 5(2), 169–189.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis
of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47(4), 499–522.
Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 15(4), 418–434.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first- and second-order
confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 289–303.
Soc Just Res
123
Minnotte, K. L., Mannon, S. E., Pedersen Stevens, D., & Kilger, G. (2008). Does it take a village to make
a marriage? Exploring the relationship between community and marital satisfaction. Sociological
Focus, 41(1), 119–136.
Mobley, C., Vagias, W. M., & DeWard, S. L. (2010). Exploring additional determinants of
environmentally responsible behavior: The influence of environmental literature and environmental
attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 420–447.
Mohai, P., Pellow, D. N., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental justice. Annual Review of
Environmental Resources, 34, 405–430.
Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2007). Race inequality in the distribution of hazardous waste: A national-level
reassessment. Social Problems, 54(3), 343–370.
Mueller, C. W., & Landsman, M. J. (2004). Legitimacy and justice perceptions. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 67(2), 189–202.
National Wildlife Federation. (2008). Campus environment 2008: A national report card on sustainability
in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.nwf.org/*/media/PDFs/Campus-Ecology/Reports/
CampusReport82008Finallowres.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130110T1632116718. Accessed 14 Jul 2009.
Neumayer, E. (2004). The environment, left-wing political orientation and ecological economics.
Ecological Economics, 51(3–4), 167–175.
Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behavior: Bringing back
social context. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 181–208.
Opotow, S., & Clayton, S. (1994). Green justice: Conceptions of fairness and the natural world. Journal
of Social Issues, 50(3), 1–11.
Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing
things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28(5), 437–468.
Pellow, D. N., & Brehm, H. N. (2013). An environmental sociology for the twenty-first century. Annual
Review of Sociology, 39, 229–250.
Pellow, D. N., & Brulle, R. J. (2005). Power, justice, and the environment: A critical appraisal of the
environmental justice movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pendarvis, S. S. (2002). SUI student survey preliminary results. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/
sustainableu/studentsurvey.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2008.
Peterson, J. E., Shunturov, V., & Janda, K. (2007). Dormitory residents reduce electricity consumption
when exposed to real-time visual feedback and incentives. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 8(1), 16–33.
Picou, J. S. (2008). In search of a public environmental sociology: Ecological risks in the twenty-first
century. Contemporary Sociology, 37(6), 520–523.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Status structures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House
(Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–311). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Schultz, G. (2002). Examining the effects of recycling outreach on recycling behavior in residence halls
at the University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/
projects/2002final/Schultz.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2011.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2005). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A justice
perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 183–229.
Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (2010). Knitting together an elephant: An
integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In D. R. Bobocel, A.
C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario
symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1–26). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction and
avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1336–1371.
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50,
65–84.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social psychological
context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723–743.
Stets, J. E. (2003). Justice, emotion, and identity theory. In P. J. Burke, T. J. Owens, R. Serpe, & P.
A. Thoits (Eds.), Advances in identity theory and research (pp. 105–122). New York: Springer.
Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological
Theory, 21(4), 398–423.
Soc Just Res
123
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J.
M. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychology perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 33–66). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Taylor, D. E. (2000). The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: Injustice framing and the social
construction of environmental discourses. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(4), 508–580.
Thapa, B. (2001). Environmental concern: A comparative analysis between students in recreation and
park management and other departments. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 39–52.
Timm, N. H. (2002). Applied multivariate analysis. New York: Springer.
Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
United States Green Business Council. (2008). What LEED is. Retrieved from http://www.usgbc.org/
DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988. Accessed 14 Jul 2009.
Uyeki, E. S., & Holland, L. J. (2000). Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? The American Behavioral
Scientist, 43(4), 646–662.
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.
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). The psychology of procedural and distributive
justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in
the workplace (pp. 49–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of
hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(2), 181–197.
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how it’s
measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651–676.
Villacorta, M., Koestner, R., & Lekes, N. (2003). Further validation of the motivation toward the
environment scale. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 486–505.
Walker, H. A., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1993). Power, legitimation, and the stability of authority: A theoretical
research program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), Theoretical research programs: Studies in
the growth of theory (pp. 364–381). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-
identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314.
Wong, W. (2008). Sustainable education: Community colleges as environmental champions. Community
College Journal, 78(5), 22–26.
Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Scrull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93,
322–359.
Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2007). Environmental concern and sociodemographic variables: A study of
statistical models. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(2), 3–14.
Soc Just Res
123
top related