The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A meta-analysis
Abstract
Over the past decade activists, academics, and policymakers have devoted a great deal of attention to “environmental equity,” or the notion that sources of potential environmental risk may be concentrated among racial and ethnic minorities and the poor. Despite these efforts, the existence and extent of environmental inequities is still the subject of intense scholarly debate. This manuscript reports the results from a meta-analysis of 49 environmental equity studies. The analysis demonstrates that while there is ubiquitous evidence of environmental inequities based upon race, existing research does not support the contention that similar inequities exist with respect to economic class. © 2005 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
(2010) · Social Science Quarterly · doi:10.1111/(issn)1540-6237 · Cited by 13,458
Statistical Methods for Research Workers
(1945) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/15.11.552b · Cited by 10,880
(1994) · Cited by 6,200
Journal of The American Statistical Association
Fienberg, S. E. (2005) · Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess1317 · Cited by 6,125
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Koehler, A. B. (1995) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(95)90067-5 · Cited by 5,337
Moffitt, R. A. (2009) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.99.2.660 · Cited by 4,694
Ireland, R. D., Elfring, T., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2011) · In Search of Research Excellence · doi:10.4337/9781849807630.00017 · Cited by 4,553
Cited by
Socioeconomic Disparities and Air Pollution Exposure: a Global Review
Hajat, A., Hsia, C., & O’Neill, M. S. (2015) · Current Environmental Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s40572-015-0069-5 · Cited by 1,097
Environmental Justice: The Economics of Race, Place, and Pollution
Banzhaf, S., Ma, L., & Timmins, C. (2019) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.33.1.185 · Cited by 615
Pellow, D. N. (2016) · Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race · doi:10.1017/s1742058x1600014x · Cited by 343
Cushing, L., Morello-Frosch, R., Wander, M., & Pastor, M. (2015) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122646 · Cited by 304
Health Risk, Inequality Indexes, and Environmental Justice
Sheriff, G., & Maguire, K. B. (2020) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13562 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Ringquist, E. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 223-247
- ISSN
- 0276-8739 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6688
- OpenAlex
- W2136212866
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 9.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pam.20088
- The paper
- Ringquist, E. J. (2005). Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20088
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
