Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41341843›Full record

ArticleiScience2025

Measuring environmental (in)justices: Insights from a systematic literature review on methodological approaches.

Jacqueline Loos, Charlotte Gohr, Noelia Zafra-Calvo, Gonzalo Cortés-Capano, Anna Lena Tonninger, Henrik von Wehrden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2025. 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

6 authors.

Jacqueline LoosUniversity of Vienna, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria.
Charlotte GohrLeuphana University, Center of Methods and Faculty of Sustainability, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany.
Noelia Zafra-CalvoBasque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940 Leioa, Spain.
Gonzalo Cortés-CapanoDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Anna Lena TonningerUniversity of Vienna, Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria.
Henrik von WehrdenLeuphana University, Center of Methods and Faculty of Sustainability, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental (in)justice research uses various conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches, leading to fragmentation across contexts and disciplines. Our systematic review provides a methodological overview of how environmental (in)justice has been studied in 421 English-language scientific articles. Most studies approach environmental (in)justice from a quantitative and interdisciplinary perspective, primarily using purposive sampling, secondary data, and GIS/remote sensing tools with an emphasis on distributive justice. Although there is a notable diversification over time in data collection and analysis, there is a strong geographic bias with short-term, locally focused, and limited actor involvement, though actor diversity is growing over time. We identified eight thematic clusters with distinct methodological patterns: health, pollution, governance, climate change, collaboration, access, and green space. The lack of broadly adopted methodological approaches for evaluating environmental (in)justices largely stems from the context-specific, multi-scalar nature of cases and the philosophical and normative diversity embedded in the EJ concept itself.

Indexed as

Earth sciencesEnvironmental scienceSocial sciences

Identifiers

PMID41341843
PMCPMC12670945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.