Evidence mapPaperPMID 42217138Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2026

Encoding Justice with Data: Environmental Justice Screening Tools and the Limits of Quantification.

Misbath Daouda, Carlos F Gould

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Misbath DaoudaDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA. misbath.d@berkeley.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2441-4227
Carlos F GouldSchool of Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7736-3905

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review examines government-sponsored environmental justice indices used in the United States, focusing on how their design choices operationalize justice. Rather than evaluating index outputs, we analyze their structural features, aggregation strategies, and underlying assumptions, and assess how they are used in peer-reviewed research between 2020 and 2025. RECENT

findingsAcross jurisdictions, indices show strong structural convergence, typically including exposure and vulnerability domains. Additive and multiplicative aggregation approaches encode different assumptions about how burdens interact, affecting community rankings and designations. Despite growing policy influence, indices are infrequently used as primary analytical tools in research. Procedural and recognitional dimensions remain weakly represented, and index construction is rarely examined explicitly. Environmental justice indices function not only as measurement tools but as governance mechanisms shaping eligibility and resource allocation. While effective for distributive screening, they represent partial definitions of justice and should be interpreted with caution within broader democratic and community-based frameworks.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureEnvironmental JusticeHumansUnited StatesData scienceEnvironmental exposuresEnvironmental justiceGovernmentResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID42217138
PMCPMC13222189

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.