Measuring environmental (in)justices: Insights from a systematic literature review on methodological approaches
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.
Authors
- Gonzalo Cortés‐Capano (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6714-6560)
- Henrik von Wehrden (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2087-5552)
- Charlotte Gohr (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0459-0939)
- Jacqueline Loos (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7639-2894)
- Noelia Zafra‐Calvo (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3350-0784)
- Anna Lena Tonninger
Institutions
- University of Kassel (DE)
- Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Basque Centre for Climate Change (ES)
- University of Göttingen (DE)
Publication Details
- Journal
- iScience
- Published
- 2025-10-29
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.113889
- Primary Topic
- Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00