English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Significance Local environmental conditions, such as air and water quality, are shaped, in part, by how societies allocate environmental harms and benefits. Since environmental conditions have long-lasting impacts on people’s lives, understanding the psychology behind such allocation decisions is critical. Across studies, we demonstrate that people are less likely to support decisions that increase environmental equality when considering the allocation of environmental harms (vs. benefits). Our findings suggest that careful attention to the way that the allocation of environmental harms is presented to the public could change the support for decisions that address environmental inequality.

Inconsistent allocations of harms versus benefits may exacerbate environmental inequality