ArticleiScience2025
Measuring environmental (in)justices: Insights from a systematic literature review on methodological approaches.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.