People are concerned about more than the effects of local decision making on their lives. They also care about how those decisions are made. Procedural fairness and inclusive public participation in decision making are instrumentally and intrinsically valuable. They are instrumentally valuable because they allow people to defend their own interests in the decision-making process. If the decision making process unfairly excludes some people or unfairly limits their power to affect a decision, they are more likely to find that decision does not benefit them. As Arnstein suggests, a lack of procedural fairness makes it possible for some people to benefit at the expense of others.

However, the value of procedural fairness is not just instrumental. We are also independently concerned that decisions are made fairly. We care about how decisions are made as well as what the actual outcomes are (Frey et al, 2004). As Frey et al suggest:

Institutions or decision-making processes that exclude some people or leave some people powerless to influence decisions fail to recognise those people as the political or moral equals of the included and powerful. This failure to show equal respect or equal recognition is itself an important form of injustice. So, for example, we may be unhappy with a decision because we were not properly consulted or included in the decision-making process even if we would have supported the decision that was reached (Frey et al, 2004: 377). Equally, we might accept a decision as legitimate even when we disagree with the outcome because we believe that the institutional arrangements for making the decision were fair and inclusive.