Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42893997›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Methodological Variations in Environmental Justice Screening Tools and Their Impact on Disadvantaged Community Designations.

Thomas Robbins, Qingran Li, Stephen Bird, Susan E Powers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Thomas RobbinsSchneider Electric, Louisville, KY, 40223, USA.
Qingran LiPeter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA. Qingran.Li@unh.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5506-3066
Stephen BirdCarsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1822-6238
Susan E PowersInstitute for a Sustainable Environment, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 13699, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3529-9084

Funding

Clarkson University Team Science Project Planning GrantNational Science Foundation (NSF) 2150238
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Government agencies in the United States have developed environmental justice screening tools (EJSTs) and designations to promote equitable distribution of benefits from environmental policies to disadvantaged communities (DACs). However, the methodological choices embedded in these tools, including the selection, weighting, and aggregation of environmental justice indicators, vary across EJSTs, and their implications for DAC designation outcomes are poorly understood. Here we systematically compare four EJSTs at the federal and state levels and show that these tools produce substantial variation in the DAC census tracts, with some tools emphasizing socioeconomic burdens while others prioritize environmental risks. Using quantitative regression models, we further show that indicator weighting and other design choices shape final DAC designations in ways that are not always made explicit. These findings highlight the need for greater transparency in EJST methodological choices to support informed policymaking and public understanding of DAC eligibility.

Indexed as

Environmental JusticeVulnerable PopulationsHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42893997
PMCPMC13677704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.