How screening tools measure disadvantage may leave rural communities overlooked for public support
Researchers compared four environmental justice screening tools, which use data on factors such as income, pollution and health to identify communities that may need additional public support. Three were developed by the White House, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), while the fourth was developed by New York state.
Nationally, the DOE tool designated about 18% of census tracts as disadvantaged, compared with about 35% for the White House and DOT tools. In New York state, more than half of census tracts (51.3%) were identified as disadvantaged by at least one of the four tools, but only about 14% were identified that way by all four.
“We expected some differences, since each agency has its own mission. What surprised us was how large they were and how often they came from choices that aren’t obvious from the documentation,” said Qingran Li, assistant professor of economics at UNH’s Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
“The tools also disagreed more for rural communities, where resources tend to be more constrained, and investment may have historically lagged.”
This is US focused but I think there is a lot to chew on here that applies broadly.
Link to open access paper www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-77824-2
Given the growing emphasis on climate resilience and equity, ongoing research and refinement of EJST methodologies and applications are crucial. Variation in indicator selection and weighting across tools can produce substantial differences in DAC designations, complicating efforts to evaluate their policy implications.
For instance, consider a hypothetical but plausible scenario: a community qualifies for charging infrastructure subsidies under an energy department program but not for electric bus grants under a transportation department program, because the two agencies used different DAC designations.
Since charging networks and electric bus deployment are complementary investments that generate greater value when implemented together, such a case could reduce the synergistic impact of coordinated EJ programs. While documenting the real-world extent of this risk would require developing a counterfactual beyond the scope of this study, our findings highlight the importance of transparency in EJST methodologies for enabling more coordinated and effective EJ policy. Future research should examine different use cases of EJSTs across programs, including whether policy synergy across complementary investments should be considered in EJST applications, and what benefits a more coordinated approach would yield.
Although the Justice40 Initiative and several environmental grant programs have been scaled back or discontinued in 202554, the need for equitable resource distribution remains. State and local governments now carry greater responsibility for protecting vulnerable communities, and within the context of U.S. federalism, are well-placed to implement state-level structures. Transparent DAC screening tools are essential for guiding investments, land-use decisions, and resilience planning in the absence of consistent federal support.