Page 216 [216]
214 GYULA NAGY
Top-down Enforcement of Bottom up B
interest
Global 2)
2 — ®
: oO . Oo
Enforcement of D 7 1) Regional 6 Regional 3
interest D An [de]
{ Local 1)
men OO a
community Powerful O
community Local conflict in interest
Figure 4. Environmental injustices generated by decision-making. Source: author
The evaluation of good and bad in the decision-making mechanism is the outcome
of a social process, the imprint of the given social, power, and economic conditions
— not generally valid truths. Justice as defined by the provisions of law may deviate
from what is socially regarded as just (Blacksell et al. 1986; Blomley 1994; Butler
2009). It follows that the general rules laid down by environmental and social
policies may often be interpreted differently on the environmental periphery
(Kovacs 2004). A specific sense of what is right, in accordance with the local
environment, may have evolved there , as a local (re)interpretation of the
“universally” accepted system of concepts. Studies have demonstrated (Blomley
1994; Blacksell et al. 1986) a correlation between legal setting and geographical
inequalities. Moreover, the legal regime also takes part in the process of producing
space. In other words, the legal provisions, the processes of legislation and
jurisprudence actively shape our environment, places and public spaces (Lefebvre
1991; McAuslan 1980). It is therefore important to clarify what qualifies as
necessarily or (also) expectedly just, the way it can be attained and how it can be
used (Heffron — McCauley 2018). However, what justice actually is has been
studied but not resolved since Antiquity.
Interpreting the concept of justice from a variety of perspectives may help
environmental justice studies to explore a given theme critically, from various
angles. The concept of justice is normative and context-specific in all possible
approaches. The concepts of justice can be grouped around three themes when
considering environmental justice.
One approach, mostly used in geographical science, studies the spatiality of
factors which cause injustice, i.e., their frequency and distribution. It is presumed
that the processes or factors that produce the unjust situation can be plotted along
a spatial pattern, a noticeable design. Under this idea, distribution is truly just if
the allocation of goods is fair for everyone and is the outcome of a rational social
contract based on a common decision (Rawls 1971). Equity or fairness can be
measured in terms of equality (equal welfare, resources and chances), importance
(necessary rights ensured for all) and adequacy (rights ensured sufficiently for all)
(Weston 2008). Most researchers of environmental justice put equity and fairness
before the principle of equality (fig. 5). The minimum principle of justice also
declares this: all activities have to be carried out in a fair manner that does not
worsen the position of the most deprived groups (Sachs 2008). Equitable justice
is the foundation of communal life in which people collectively accept the norms
of cooperation, as stated by Rawls (1971).