ArticleNature communications2026
Methodological Variations in Environmental Justice Screening Tools and Their Impact on Disadvantaged Community Designations.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methodological Variations in Environmental Justice Screening Tools and Their Impact on Disadvantaged Community Designations.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.