Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38896241›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2024

Interstate Air Pollution Governance in the United States: Exploring Clean Air Act Section 126.

Alixandra Underwood, Richard Marcantonio, Danielle Wood, Paola Crippa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alixandra UnderwoodInternational Food Policy Research Institute, 1201 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC, 20005-3915, USA.
Richard MarcantonioKroc Institute for International Peace Studies in the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame, 100 Jenkins Nanovic Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA. rmarcant@nd.edu.
Danielle WoodEnvironmental Change Initiative at the University of Notre Dame, 700 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.
Paola CrippaDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences at the University of Notre Dame, 162 Fitzpatrick Hall of Engineering, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Air pollution is arguably the most pressing human health concern today, accounting for approximately 7-9 million premature deaths worldwide. In the United States, more than 40% of early deaths caused by air pollution are assessed to be caused by emissions produced by neighboring states. This article examines one of the governance mechanisms used by the U.S. to address this issue: section 126 of the Clean Air Act. Critical factors including case length, evidence used, and case outcome are compiled for the population of section 126 petitions submitted from 2000-2022. This evidence is assessed using comparative case analysis. The findings reinforce two issues with the petition process already identified in the literature-the use of cost as a proxy for significance and the excessive and unclear burden of proof placed on downwind states-adding texture to the latter issue by examining the modeling techniques used by downwind states. This analysis identifies lengthy response timelines as an additional issue and calls to attention the infrequency with which the EPA has formally accepted petitions. Collectively, these issues increase the cost, complexity, and unpredictability of filing a section 126 petition.

Indexed as

Air PollutionUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyAir PollutantsEnvironmental PolicyHumansUnited StatesAir Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID38896241
PMCPMC11306419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.