Challenges in Implementing Justice Research in the Allocation of Natural Resources. Blair E. Nancarrow1,2 and Geoffrey J. Syme1. Water reform in Australia ...
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
C 2002) Social Justice Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2001 (°
Challenges in Implementing Justice Research in the Allocation of Natural Resources Blair E. Nancarrow1,2 and Geoffrey J. Syme1
Water reform in Australia has demanded that water usage for irrigation operates in an environmentally sustainable manner. It has resulted in the need to reduce allocations in some local communities, and to date government policy has relied on economic instruments to take the lead in developing equitable processes to do this. A series of community-based justice studies were undertaken and demonstrated that it is possible to derive a package of actions, which reflect the fairness judgments of the vast majority of the community. However, the implementation of these actions within the decision-making process has proven to be a more complex matter. This paper discusses four professional, methodological, and ethical challenges for all justice researchers. It concludes by noting the applicability of this form of research in other natural resource allocation dilemmas. Therefore it is imperative that justice researchers confidently insert themselves in to environmental policy debates. Only in this way will the social criteria for “triple bottom line” accounting for sustainable development be adequately represented. KEY WORDS: fairness; water allocation; community decisions; self-interest; water markets.
INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, Australian government policy has been demanding environmentally sustainable management of the country’s scarce water resources. In a number of places, this has meant placing moratoriums on further allocations of surface or groundwater for irrigation. In some circumstances, where water has been both overallocated and overused, it has necessitated in the reduction of allocations to irrigators. These reductions can threaten the future viability of irrigators and 1 Australian
Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO Land and Water, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 2 All correspondence should be addressed to Blair E. Nancarrow, Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO Land and Water, Private Bag 5, Wembley 6913, Western Australia, Australia. 441 C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation 0885-7466/01/1200-0441/0 °
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
442
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Nancarrow and Syme
the overall stability of the rural communities. To date, government policies have promoted economic instruments, such as water markets, for developing processes whereby the reallocation can be implemented. However, because the processes involve uncertain judgments which will distribute negative outcomes to some people within the community, it would appear to be an example of where social justice research and practice could make a strong contribution to accountable decision making. Unfortunately, when we first began addressing this problem over a decade ago, we were faced with a series of state water acts which asserted that they would allocate water “equitably” but provided no definition of this term or criteria which could demonstrate if this had been achieved. Neither the environmental sciences nor the social justice literature could provide adequate guidance on how to improve this situation in the field. As a result, we undertook a systematic series of community-based studies which eventually developed, and proceeded to apply, universal and situational fairness principles for the (re)allocation of water (Syme et al., 1999). These studies demonstrated that a “package” of actions to reallocate water could be derived which reflected community judgments of what was seen to be fair (Syme and Nancarrow, 2000). For example, in the Namoi Valley in northern New South Wales, major adjustments in groundwater allocations were necessary for aquifer sustainability. The stress levels within the community were high. However, our research with the irrigators derived a four component management solution that included aspects of perceived fairness for over 95% of the community. The components represented a balance between the self-interest of the varying sectors of the community as well as their aspirations for the community as a whole. It was intended that these fairness components would be discussed and refined by the community in light of the uncertainty of hydrological estimations of groundwater availability, perceived alternative sources of water, and other farm level analyses to arrive at a specific community-based reallocation plan. In actuality, the incorporation of this course of action within the decisionmaking process proved to be a troublesome matter. The responsible government subsumed the intended process with deliberations by an expert panel. This panel, which included representation of the justice researchers, could commission further investigations, but was required to make the final recommendations on how to proceed with the reallocation of the groundwater. A large-scale community protest followed the report of the expert panel and that spawned further independent expert analysis. The refinement by the community of its fairness-based solution never occurred. This was perhaps the most vivid example of our experiences over the years in attempting to have our justice research accepted in the implementation of water reform policy. But the purpose of this paper is not to mourn the lack of development of what we believed to have been a promising start to incorporating justice research in decision making. Instead, we suggest that the professional, methodological, and ethical issues that have arisen from this and other case studies present a challenge
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Implementing Justice Research in Allocating Natural Resources
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
443
for all justice researchers. We found, over time, that we had to acknowledge the need to coexist with other professionals and lobbyists if we were to maximize attention to justice issues and the adoption of the findings from the research. This leads to a realization that, if just decision making is to occur, it will inevitably have to emerge from the complex system of interactions that occur in “real life.” We address four main issues in this paper. 1. 2. 3. 4.
Methods and partnerships. Overcoming perceived selfishness. Getting on with other disciplines and interests. The role of historical water-use.
The first two issues are predominantly related to interactions between the researchers and the community, while the latter two relate directly to the professional roles, attitudes, and practices of the researchers and decision makers. The first issue is vital if “fairness” solutions are to be understood and accepted by communities and their decision makers, and hence be adopted at policy level. We examine the challenge of achieving a partnership with the community and how this partnership could affect methodological choice. Secondly, the issue of self-interest, as Montada (1998) has pointed out, is an easy concept for the community to embrace. On the other hand, the Australian community finds it difficult to accept and discuss the more prosocial aspects of community life. It is almost as if people, through either social norms (Miller, 1999) or personal negativity bias (e.g., Lupfer et al., 2000), suspect that others are more self-interested and less community conscious than they themselves are. This can be a problem for the justice researcher. The third issue discusses the difficulties of incorporating local fairness data with wider socioeconomic and biophysical analyses in a decision-making process. In particular, how do fairness measures relate to the more traditional social impact assessments (Rakowski, 1995)? Finally, as outlined in the Giordano and Wolf (2001) discussion of the international setting, regardless of the wider justice considerations, often allocation decisions end up being based on apparent need which is reflected by the historical use of the water. We have found that this also occurs at a regional level in Australia despite the objections of many in the community. As will be discussed, this is usually for pragmatic reasons rather than an assertion that the best fairness principles have been applied. Nevertheless, the constant tendency by decision makers to fall back on this strategy because anything else is “too hard” is perhaps the greatest challenge to those wishing to demonstrate that fair and just decisions have been made. METHODS AND PARTNERSHIPS Social and community psychological measurement has increasingly moved on the one hand towards sophisticated techniques such as quantitative latent
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
444
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Nancarrow and Syme
variable modeling, and on the other towards qualitative postmodernist approaches to data analysis. Both have their good points. We have found, however, that results of such analyses fed back to farmers (and others involved with allocation dilemmas as well) with the researchers’ interpretation can often be inadequate. It is the community’s interpretation of the meaning of data that will lead to accepted solutions (Bishop and Syme, 1992). Regression weights and in-depth qualitative discourses may often seem to be excessive by the community. All may not understand the jargon, or the analysis, and to present fairness recommendations from such analyses is likely to cause resentment. Certainly, not providing information that is understandable, and more importantly useful for all, is in defiance of the need for procedural or interactive justice (Folger, 1996). Similar comments may be offered in terms of ensuring that justice issues dealt with through group processes such as expert panels or stakeholder advisory groups are visible to all in the community. Because these groups have special knowledge or ongoing availability of data or discussion, the basis of its thoughts can become quite different from that of the general community. It is most important, as demonstrated with the Namoi Valley expert panel, that the groups’ understanding of the allocation issues is brought along in parallel with the community rather than presenting conclusions as a fait accompli at the end. The process of argumentation needs to be understood as the discussion proceeds, and the groups’ logic open to question by the community as it develops. This is the case whether these groups consist of professionals or local representatives of stakeholder groups. While such a process may seem to decision makers to be long and tedious, in the end, it saves time if it avoids major indignation because of community rejection of arguments that they were previously denied access to. Sometimes disputes that develop from the findings of “secretive” advisory groups can last for years. We have taken a number of measures to ensure that all can be included within a study. Firstly, before surveys are conducted, individuals, like-minded groups, and groups with diverse interests are all employed in semistructured discussions. Each participant is then provided with written feedback of the group meetings and individual interview to ensure the researcher has understood what was said and to provide the opportunity for new ideas that may have emerged after reflection on their early participation. All have the opportunity to meet with the researchers if they should wish. If a survey is then used, every affected community member is then given the opportunity to respond. The language and the fairness issues in the questionnaire are crafted from statements made by the affected community during the interviews and group meetings. The analyses include simple arithmetic to ensure that each participant can see how their views have been included (or not). Public feedback meetings are then held for the community to review the interpretations and conclusions that have been drafted by the researchers. This type of research presents a distinct challenge for academic researchers and others as the agenda is not entirely under their control, and methodological and statistical rigor is often not attainable. This hinders journal publication while
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Implementing Justice Research in Allocating Natural Resources
445
creating more work and worry. Similar problems in the development of social and community psychology have been discussed before (Bishop and Syme, 1992) and are not confined to justice research. From our experience, the communities involved have appreciated the above methodological measures, but often it is at the community level where the findings stay. Adoption of findings by policy makers is by no means guaranteed. In an effort to avoid this dead end, before the research begins, there is a need to clearly ascertain how the relevant decision makers see the research fitting with their policy formulation, and how committed the relevant politicians are to implementing the findings. For us, this has been the most difficult issue because exercises such as this are novel, and the role of fairness measures is often not clear to decision makers. There is an urgent need for the profile of justice research to be raised in these groups. For many current decision makers, economic and self-interest interpretations of issues seem to reflect the real and rational motives of the community, and therefore receive priority. Fairness and prosocial motivations are not seriously considered. More disappointingly, the community itself often shares these views. OVERCOMING PERCEIVED SELFISHNESS We first became forcibly aware of this problem when we fed back our results to one community. We presented the four-component fairness solution mentioned above in the Introduction. It contained some aspect of concern for different farming interests as well as size of enterprise. It allowed for the provision of a viability base while demanding water-use efficiency. However, one prominent community member rose to explain to the auditorium that of course there was inclusion because everyone “voted for themselves.” When it was pointed out that if people had only voted for their self-interest, the pattern of responses could not have been obtained, he clearly didn’t believe us, nor could he contemplate that the community would have responded in such a way (Miller, 1999). While such a response is extreme, we have sat in many community and committee meetings where results that a justice researcher would interpret as prosocial ethical responses have been vigorously discussed with a view to demonstrating an underlying self-interest. This apparent adherence to a self-interest culture is a distinct threat to the ability of using such justice data, and it is not clear how it can easily be combated in community contexts. Further, economists have dominated modern policy environments and the global competition framework in Australia, and this has meant that influential individuals have tended to bring a particular rational, self-interestbased, ethical approach to policy formulation (Frank et al., 1993). Agriculture itself has become more “corporate” in its orientation. Nevertheless, support for self-interest does not always lead to profitmaximizing preferences in allocation. Farming communities themselves in a national study have rejected water markets as a means of reallocating water for sustainability purposes (Syme and Nancarrow, 2000). The introduction of markets
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
446
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Nancarrow and Syme
for this purpose has consistently been the least preferred policy option. Prosocial fairness judgments are also common even in studies where there are substantial possibilities for personal losses by the participants (Syme et al., 1999). One way to bridge the mismatch between the endorsed culture of self-interest and profit maximization and the real, but less publicized, need for fairness is to ensure that the wider public perceptions of fairness are routinely measured in public involvement programs. Particular emphasis should be taken to include all community members in the discussion, rather than just rely on stakeholder groups and their representatives. Even though the participants within stakeholder advisory groups can provide much valuable information, and even if they have instructions to try to consider the wider public interest, the fact is, this is difficult. People become labeled as the “rice growers representative” or the “conservation representative” and experience tends to tell us they then proceed to support the current positions of those whom they represent. Any wider prosocial views they might hold as individuals are suppressed in their adherence to their expected roles. Thus the ability of the community to move from entrenched positions to negotiated settlements is greatly reduced. This may be especially the case when the individual’s commitment to the advisory group is intermediate or low as compared with his or her own interest group (Tyler and Dawes, 1993). Even when group dynamics are good, without appropriate feedback to and from the general community, gaps between the stakeholders’ opinions and those of the general community will widen, leaving potentially unproductive confusion. This has certainly occurred in many of our case studies. A slower and more inclusive approach may result in a more coherent statement from the community which includes more than the current “politically correct” rationalist view of the world. Community aspirations for themselves and their quality of life may become more evident, and the politicians may find fairness conclusions more readily acceptable. It is up to the justice researcher to reassure the decision maker that “making haste slowly” and understanding the wider fairness issues may in the end produce more lasting agreements. To assist this, the justice researchers could scan for problems in environmental management that are likely to have fairness or justice implications before they occur. In this way, the justice issues can be framed and accepted early in the process as a legitimate part of the policy problem. The fundamental issue may be a cultural one as Miller (1999) suggests. In this case, there will need to be an aggressive push for the legitimacy of the inclusion of much researched cooperative motives and behaviors within our planning activities. We need to enter the self-interest debate outside the confines of academic discussion. GETTING ON WITH OTHER DISCIPLINES AND INTERESTS As stated above, we began our research program confident that justice and fairness issues were all important for decision makers. We were particularly pleased
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Implementing Justice Research in Allocating Natural Resources
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
447
with our development of existing fairness theory as we felt the ethic of a “fair go” for all had been a central tenet for Australia’s development almost since federation, even though it had been overlooked in recent years. It came as a shock, therefore, that when serving on an expert panel and having created a fairness “solution,” it was largely ignored. But more ignominiously, a procedure that we were requested to design to sequentially adopt the fairness solution was noted, but never discussed. Even our appeal that there could have been more comprehensive representation of stakeholder interests on the expert panel (a basic principle of procedural justice) was rejected. This resulted in the justice researcher’s role (apart from that of the designated “expert”) gradually resembling an advocate for the unrepresented small farmer, as the findings of the research could provide the basis for the task. The final upset arose when, despite overwhelming community opposition being revealed in the fairness research, the solution of the expert panel included a substantial component of history of water-use. Perhaps the accounts of the expert panel process may have been similar from the perspective of the other disciplines, and such recognition of the limitation of influence may have occurred for all involved. Perhaps our disappointment reflected unrealistic aims. However, it is clear that the basic professional role of the justice researcher has not yet been defined. At one extreme, the planning process can be viewed as multidisciplinary and multidimensional. Fairness or justice provides just one dimension to an overall holistic planning analysis. The degree of priority for fairness measures may depend on the problem, or the composition of the planning team. Sometimes it may have high importance, but on other occasions it may have lower importance with economic or biophysical constraints predominating. Alternatively, planning may be seen as an ongoing process of negotiation (Alexander, 1986) into which fairness can be brought either earlier or later, depending on the agreed constraints. Finally, fairness as an issue may simply be regarded as a prerogative of the politicians. Since they are democratically elected, it may be that it is up to them to safeguard the interests of their electors. The role and ethics of the justice researcher need to be clear so that appropriate expectations of the outcomes of the research can be developed, both with other disciplines and within social science. Perhaps there is a need for an ongoing literature among justice researchers, such as that which has existed for the planning profession, in which multiple roles and ethics are a constant source of debate (Syme and Bishop, 1993). In particular there is a need for the clarification of the role of justice research within the context of social impact assessment of planning. Currently, in the rare cases it has been used, fairness has been one factor on which a variety of social alternatives have been evaluated. Justice issues are often presented under an undefined heading labeled “equity.” An alternative may be that it can provide a central role around which the social impact assessment can be built. Currently, social impact assessment provides predictions from a variety of theoretical and methodological stances on what may happen if a particular decision or policy is adopted.
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
448
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Nancarrow and Syme
The problem then becomes who interprets what is acceptable or not acceptable, and how. Questions on whether an impact, or planning decision, or compensation package is acceptable seem to revolve around what is seen as fair to the particular community. Fairness, as perceived by both the community and the professionals assisting change, needs to be measured, negotiated, and understood if change is to be seen as being “beneficial” to the community as a whole. Even if the discussions of fairness cannot be resolved, the value consequence of any particular decision can be clearly identified and described. Regardless, this use of fairness as a central concept in social impact assessment requires further debate. Without such an analysis it is likely that in the end, acceptable change will become a matter of professional judgment that can easily degenerate into well-meaning paternalism. Cries by social impact assessors, for example, that many small farmers will be forced off their land because of a particular policy, and that this may decimate rural communities and therefore should be avoided, makes many assumptions about what people want and what opportunities are seen as fair. Some in rural communities may feel that remaining on their land would lead to ongoing, undesirable, and unfair poverty. Others may believe that lifestyle, community, and location are most important and consider such lack of income as a fair trade. Only systematic justice research can tell. But interpreting and implementing it adequately requires much more professional discussion.
THE ROLE OF HISTORICAL WATER-USE As has already been stated in this issue, needs-based assessments have dominated international allocation decision making. The same may be said for local decision making. In this case although the “needs” are expressed in terms of certain income losses by some, due to reduced access to water, as being more important than the uncertain economic gains by others due to projected future development. The fact that water can be used in a variety of ways and on alternative crops so that the losses can also be uncertain seems to carry less weight. This avoidance of losses is of course an almost universal psychology when individual decision making occurs (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). A vivid example has been recently provided to us from groundwater allocation in the Lower Macquarie Valley in New South Wales. Because of increased demand for groundwater for irrigation in this valley in the 1990s and confusion about the resource availability, essential supply problems have occurred in the past 5 or 6 years for those who need the water for stock and domestic purposes. This followed a period in which very generous irrigation allocations had been made because of the perceived rising water table problems. Spatial variability and other issues that made it difficult for the decision makers led to this outcome and finally resulted in a moratorium on further irrigation allocations in 1996. Needless to say,
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Implementing Justice Research in Allocating Natural Resources
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
449
those slower to apply for the “generous licenses” and not aware of the potential “crisis,” missed out. The fairness survey in the Lower Macquarie Valley provided a series of management actions that included the views of all in the community. However, no solution was agreed for those who had missed out. There was little support for taking water from those who already had allocations, and this was understandable, given the substantial investment in developments to accommodate these allocations. Nevertheless, these people had only been given the water in recent years, and in highly uncertain circumstances, and with little hydrogeological information available to the decision makers. Therefore, those who missed out had an equally legitimate concern that the same decision makers had treated them unfairly. Despite uncertainty and the quality of decision making at the time, the reversal of “first come” or “first used” precedence is hard to contemplate regardless of the “fairness” of this or any similar situation. But where does this leave the recent and almost arbitrarily defined “missed outs” in the Lower Macquarie Valley, or in other similar cases (e.g., Syme and Nancarrow, 1996)? This question is fundamental for justice research. In a de facto way, by always supporting those who already have the resource, we are almost returning to oldfashioned virtue theory (e.g., Wenz, 1988). We are implicitly asserting that those who have water do so because they deserve it. Alternatively, we are asserting in pragmatic terms that the transaction costs, or the social impacts accrued by changing the status quo are too high. The economic power gained by those with the water will no doubt support the lobbying which will underline these costs. Using markets as tools for reallocation is also likely to consolidate the natural resources with those who currently have economic assets. Part of the reluctance of irrigators to contemplate anyone giving up water may relate to the past certainty of having their licences and allocations renewed. Historically water allocations have remained with properties and affected the value of that land. Even in the case of water markets, permanent transfers appear to guarantee right of access to those who purchase the water. In a psychological sense this equates with “ownership.” Research on the endowment effect (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Vanhoven et al., 2000) has shown that the perception of ownership provides an enduring premium of valuation in terms of loss of property. Sellers are likely to value things they sell more than those who wish to buy them, partly because it involves loss of personal assets. This is seen as an important psychological reason for buyers and sellers valuing things so differently. Therefore, in reallocating water, given the perception of ownership of the resource, those already having allocations will perceive themselves as naturally more disadvantaged than those who have yet to gain an allocation. Ongoing arguments of unfairness based on the endowment effect are likely to arise. While the psychology of the endowment effect requires further investigation (e.g., Does continual use equate to a perception of ownership?), it would seem that
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
450
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Nancarrow and Syme
it is likely to be a complicating factor in water allocation issues and may provide a hitherto hidden motivation for arguing for historical use outside the wider fairness considerations usually measured in justice studies. It may be that the “ownership” expectations of those who are currently allocated licenses need to be modified by clearly establishing the renewal conditions at the time of issuing the licenses and emphasizing that renewal is not guaranteed. Conditions for renewal can relate to improved scientific knowledge, environmental sustainability, and fairness rules for reallocation and property development. Market mechanisms can be put into place for reallocation at the end of the license term if this is deemed desirable, but the sustainability and fairness rules could remain attached to the allocation license to prevent overutilization. The identification of appropriate market mechanisms can be part of the original fairness analyses. It is recognized that there are many long-standing allocations in a wide range of countries that have achieved equilibrium. But it must also be acknowledged that there are many new water projects being mooted throughout the world and many older ones that are socially and/or environmentally unstable. These will be associated with allocation disputes that will be embedded in political struggles where the current reliance on historical water-use will not be adequate. This suggestion of beginning with fairness principles and then adding mechanisms that enable the movement of water would provide security of negotiation. It would also enable better social and economic outcomes from water allocation at regional and possibly international levels. CONCLUDING REMARKS In this paper we have presented four challenges that have become evident in our attempts to implement the findings of our justice research in “real life” water reallocation situations. We are now finding that our fairness principles can be equally applied to other allocation dilemmas in natural resources management. For example, how can traditionally agricultural land in periurban locations be allocated fairly between those who need it to make a living and those who merely want to enjoy a more rural type of lifestyle? Who should be responsible for funding environmental restorative projects on private land when it is in the wider public interest? These are questions where the justice researcher should be able to make a significant contribution. But because field-based justice research as an ongoing part of environmental management is still relatively uncommon, none of the challenges discussed here will be easily overcome. There is not, as yet, a sufficient body of practice for us to address the uncertainties of the issues. Nevertheless, we have found that both decision makers and the Australian community can talk to us confidently about “equity” and “fairness.” The terms are ubiquitous in community discussions and in politicians’ interviews on television. Terms associated with public “involvement,” “participation,” and “consultation”
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Implementing Justice Research in Allocating Natural Resources
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
451
abound and have considerable local currency. Politicians and public servants in Australia regularly promise “comprehensive” public involvement programs. Why is it then that communities’ perceptions of fairness in problem solving does not rank highly in decision making? Responding to the challenges we have raised provides some of the answer. Probably the major reason is, however, the relatively low profile of social/community-based psychological studies, both academically and among those people who set the planning and decision-making agenda (Syme, 1997). This is in stark contrast to the track record of economists who also deal with uncertainty, decision making, and social statistics. The business and economic news segments show seemingly constant confident forecasting of what will happen tomorrow and next year in regard to unemployment rates, industry growth, and a variety of other issues. This is despite the predictions from yesterday being somewhat wrong. In reality, justice and social researchers can provide equally important but uncertain predictions about the likely consequences of environmentally and economically induced social change. That we don’t often do so in the public media could be partly due to the western capitalist culture being more amenable to the discussion of self-interest (Miller, 1999; Montada, 1998) and the lack of influential roles in other than traditional social welfare debates (Syme, 1997). The latter situation may arise because of our own lack of confidence in proclaiming predictions. Psychology is generally reliant on theory-based empirical data collection, and, despite having some theoretical rules of thumb (such as procedural and distributive justice), we need to substantially reinvent them to fit the situation to which they are being applied. Economists on the other hand are more content with their assumptions of human behavior and accordingly find it more gratifying and valid to expand on them publicly. But, however justifiable our coyness may be, it is time for justice researchers to make a concerted effort to deal with real environmental problems. We need to overcome our fears of uncertainty in a new area and regularly insert ourselves in the environmental policy debates. Environmental policy makers are starting to discuss “triple bottom line” accounting for environmental policy evaluation. These relate to environmental, economic, and social criteria. It is the social ones that are most hazy. The opportunity to insert fairness and justice research paradigms and methodologies as a cornerstone of the social dimension is too important to ignore. REFERENCES Alexander, E. R. (1986). Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Theories, Concepts and Issues, Gordon and Breach, New York. Bishop, B. J., and Syme, G. J. (1992). Social change in rural settings: Lessons for community change agents. In Thomas, D., and Veno, A. (eds.), Psychology and Social Change, Dunmore, Palmerston North, pp. 93–111. Folger, R. (1996). Distributive and procedural justice: Multi-faceted meanings and interrelations. Soc. Just. Res. 9: 395–416.
P1: Vendor/GVG/GIR
P2: FMN
Social Justice Research [sjr]
452
pp385-sore-367700
February 27, 2002
15:55
Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Nancarrow and Syme
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., and Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? J. Econ. Perspect. 7: 159–171. Giordano, M. A., and Wolf, A. T. (2001). Incorporating equity into international water agreements. Soc. Just. Res. 14(4): 349–366. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under uncertainty. Econometrica 47: 263–291. Lupfer, M. B., Weeks, M., and Dupuis, S. (2000). How pervasive is the negativity bias in judgments based on character appraisal? Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26: 1353–1366. Miller, D. (1999). The norm of self interest. Am. Psychol. 54: 1053–1060. Montada, L. (1998). Justice: Just a rational choice? Soc. Just. Res. 12: 81–101. Rakowski, C. A. (1995). Evaluating a social impact assessment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 8: 525–540. Syme, G. J. (1997). From hand to mouth: The fluctuating fortunes of social scientists in scientific research and natural resource agencies. In Vanclay, F., and Mesiti, L. (eds.), Sustainability and Social Research, Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga, pp. 3–12. Syme, G. J., and Bishop, B. J. (1993). Public psychology: Planning a role for psychology. Aust. Psychol. 28: 45–50. Syme, G. J., and Nancarrow, B. E. (1996). Planning attitudes, lay philosophies and water allocation: A preliminary analysis and research agenda. Water Resour. Res. 32: 1843–1850. Syme, G. J., and Nancarrow, B. E. (2000). Fairness and its implementation in the allocation of water. Xth World Water Congress, March 12–17, 2000, Melbourne, Australia. Syme, G. J., Nancarrow, B. E., and McCreddin, J. A. (1999). Defining the components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses. J. Environ. Manage. 57: 51–70. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458. Tyler, T., and Dawes, R. M. (1993). Fairness in groups: Comparing the self interest and social identity perspectives. In Mellers, B. A., and Baron, J. (eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Justice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 87–108. Vanhoven, L., Dunning, D., and Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39: 66–76. Wenz, P. S. (1988). Environmental Justice, State University of New York Press, Albany.
