Perceived fairness of conservation decision-making more strongly influenced by absence than presence of procedural equity criteria

Full description

Abstract [Extract from related publication]: People’s perceptions about how fair conservation decision-making is can play a critical role in whether they support and comply with conservation efforts. Termed procedural equity, fair decision-making is emphasized in policy and practice due to its ethical and instrumental importance. However, limited understanding of what contributes to perceptions of fair decision-making may hamper efforts to foster procedural equity. We examine how six criteria of procedural equity (accountability, correctability, voice, decision control, transparency, and trust) are related to perceptions of fairness in decision-making for 1799 residents of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We find that: 1) five out of six procedural equity criteria are related to perceived fairness of decision-making; and 2) the absence of procedural equity criteria has a stronger relationship to perceived (un)fairness in decision-making than the presence of procedural equity criteria. Rather than making assumptions about what constitutes fairness, we empirically demonstrate the relative importance of each criterion in promoting perceptions of fairness in conservation decision-making. Comparing the uneven relationship between absent and present criteria to perceived decision-making fairness highlights the strong negative impacts that ignoring procedural equity concerns can have for conservation projects.

Dataset description: The Social and Economic Long-Term Monitoring Program (SELTMP) collects primary data on a subset of Great Barrier Reef (GBR) human dimension indicators relating to social, economic, cultural, and governance aspects of the GBR. These human dimensions are considered to play a pivotal role in resilience-based management of the GBR. The full methodology is available in Hobman et al 2024 in the Related publications link below.

NOTE: This analysis was conducted with location-specific data that is not publicly available. Therefore, the analysis cannot be entirely reproduced using the attached R script.

Software/equipment used to manipulate/analyse the data: R Statistical Software v4.2.2