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