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

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 analyze quantitative survey data to 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 generally 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Ocean Sustainability
Published
2025-12-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-025-00174-x
Primary Topic
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Melissa Hampton-Smith, Georgina G. Gurney, Matt Curnock, Cristina Ruano‐Chamorro et al.
npj Ocean Sustainability
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
article

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

Melissa Hampton-Smith, Georgina G. Gurney, Matt Curnock, Cristina Ruano‐Chamorro, Joshua E. Cinner
article en

Abstract

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 analyze quantitative survey data to 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 generally 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.

npj Ocean SustainabilityVol. 5(1)
The University of Sydney (AU), University of Tasmania (AU), Centre for Marine Socioecology (AU), Lancaster University (GB), James Cook University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.