Justice, Democracy, and Hazardous Siting

Abstract

In this essay we examine some issues of justice associated with the siting of hazardous industrial facilities. Utilitarian justifications of siting decisions are inadequate because they fail to address questions of fairness. Approaches that consider questions of distributive equity provide a better framework for siting justice, but are still incomplete. Limiting questions of justice to the distribution of benefits and burdens fails to examine the justice of procedures for deciding such issues of distribution. We argue that justice requires a participatory communicative democratic process for siting hazardous facilities, in two respects. It is prima facie unjust to impose a risk on citizens without their having participated in the siting process. Participatory communicative democratic procedures in facility siting, moreover, when structured according to specific norms of discussion and inclusion, are likely to yield the most just outcomes. We propose procedural as well as substantive conditions for such democratic procedures, and briefly apply these conditions to evaluate the siting of a landfill in Switzerland.

Procedural justice and the implementation of community wind energy projects: A case study from South Yorkshire, UK

“…Whilst the project leaders predominantly emphasised community inclusion and influence in one particular decision (whether the proposed project was acceptable and could proceed to planning), for many local residents adequate information and influence in other project decisions were just as vital. This finding casts doubt on Cowell et al's (2011) assertion that allowing communities to determine if a wind project proceeds will be sufficient for justice, suggesting that, as others have argued (Hunold and Young, 1998;King, 2010;Knudsen et al, 2015), fairness must also be ensured in relation to other project decisions and procedural dimensions. Particularly crucial may be to ensure community participation and democratic processes in the 'agenda setting' decision of which RE technology is suitable and should be utilised (Barry and Ellis, 2011;Devine-Wright, 2011).…”

“…Origin broadly shared this view, although they did not emphasise the importance of information quite as strongly. Resonating with arguments made in environmental justice literature (Hunold and Young, 1998;Schlosberg, 2007;Shrader-Frechette, 2002) However, despite this broadly shared perspective, disagreement emerged over whether 'sufficient and accurate' information had actually been provided. Origin, and many of those local residents who felt the project had been implemented fairly, believed it had been (although, as shall be discussed, for different reasons).…”

“…The first element of the framework recognises that procedural justice has multiple 'dimensions', comprising the basic criteria by which the fairness of a decision-making process is judged (Hunold and Young, 1998;McLaren et al, 2013;Shrader-Frechette, 2002). Overall assessments of a decision process are shaped by whether fairness is felt to be achieved in these different dimensions (Knudsen et al, 2015).…”

“…Inclusion refers to the question of who is present and given voice in a decision-making process (Hunold and Young, 1998;Smith, 2009). 2 One common principle of justice here is that all those affected by a decision should be involved to some degree in making that decision (Goodin, 2007;Young, 2000).…”

“…There are also pertinent questions about the responsibility to ensure presence and participation (Fuller and Bulkeley, 2013) Influence relates to the extent that different participants' opinions, suggestions and concerns shape decision outcomes (Smith, 2009). A person or collective can exercise different degrees of influence in a decision process (Arnstein, 1969;Haggett, 2011;Hunold and Young, 1998;Rowe and Frewer, 2005), which I broadly categorise here as 'listen as a spectator', 'consultative influence', and 'direct authority'. 'Listen as a spectator' refers to a situation where a stakeholder receives information about a decision, but has no influence over that decision.…”