Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:35:43.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fairness of distribution of risks with applications to Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2009

Barbara A. Mellers
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Jonathan Baron
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

In this chapter we consider distributional fairness issues in decision making regarding health, safety, and environmental risks in Antarctica. Alternative safety improvements or operating procedures can result in different risk distributions among different groups of individuals at risk in Antarctica. We describe some of the risk trade-offs involved in balancing safety and environmental concerns. The focus of the chapter is on the insights for modeling fairness gained by examining the potential application of models incorporating fairness to Antarctic policymaking. Illustrative examples of alternative Antarctic policies are used to motivate the discussion of the implications for fairness modeling.

Decision analysts have recently been investigating ways to incorporate equity considerations into preference functions for guiding decision making about policy issues involving substantial risks to humans or the environment. Most of this work has been at the foundational level, with a focus on the mathematical models that can incorporate preferences for equity (see, e.g., Fishburn, 1984; Fishburn & Sarin, 1991; Fishburn & Straffin, 1989; Harvey, 1985a,b; Keller & Sarin, 1988; Keeney, 1980a,b,c; Keeney & Winkler, 1985; and Sarin, 1985 and in this book). This stream of work uses the term equity to refer in general to the fairness of the distribution of risks, with or without added information on the distribution of benefits, effort, and so on. Related work by psychologists uses the terms “equality” when outcomes are equally balanced and “equity” when deserved outcomes are balanced with inputs such as effort.

Type
Chapter
Information
Psychological Perspectives on Justice
Theory and Applications
, pp. 292 - 312
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×