Satellite Data for Environmental Justice: A Scoping Review of the Literature in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In support of the environmental justice (EJ) movement, researchers, activists, and policymakers often use environmental data to document evidence of the unequal distribution of environmental burdens and benefits along lines of race, class, and other socioeconomic characteristics. Numerous limitations, such as spatial or temporal discontinuities, exist with commonly used data measurement techniques, which include ground monitoring and federal screening tools. Satellite data is well poised to address these gaps in EJ measurement and monitoring; however, little is known about how satellite data has advanced findings in EJ or can help to promote EJ through interventions. Thus, this scoping review aims to 1) explore trends in study design, topics, geographic scope, and satellite datasets used to research EJ, 2) synthesize findings from studies that use satellite data to characterize disparities and inequities across socio-demographic groups for various environmental categories, and 3) capture how satellite data are relevant to policy and real-world impact. Following PRISMA extension guidelines for scoping reviews, we retrieved 81 articles that applied satellite data for EJ research in the United States from 2000 to 2022. The majority of the studies leveraged the technical advantages of satellite data to identify socio-demographic disparities in exposure to environmental risk factors, such as air pollution, and access to environmental benefits, such as green space, at wider coverage and with greater precision than previously possible. These disparities in exposure and access are associated with health outcomes such as increased cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, mental illness, and mortality. Research using satellite data to illuminate EJ concerns can contribute to efforts to mitigate environmental inequalities and reduce health disparities. Satellite data for EJ research can therefore support targeted interventions or influence planning and policy changes, but significant work remains to facilitate the application of satellite data for policy and community impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".