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

Institutions

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
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measuring environmental (in)justices: Insights from a systematic literature review on methodological approaches

Gonzalo Cortés‐Capano, Henrik von Wehrden, Charlotte Gohr, Jacqueline Loos et al.
iScience
Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
article

Measuring environmental (in)justices: Insights from a systematic literature review on methodological approaches

Gonzalo Cortés‐Capano, Henrik von Wehrden, Charlotte Gohr, Jacqueline Loos, Noelia Zafra‐Calvo, Anna Lena Tonninger
article en

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.

iScienceVol. 28(12)
University of Kassel (DE), Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE), University of Vienna (AT), Basque Centre for Climate Change (ES), University of Göttingen (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Measuring environmental (in)justices: Insights from a systematic literature review on methodological approaches — Gonzalo Cortés‐Capano, Henrik von Wehrden, et al. · iScience (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS