Environmental health in forced displacement: A systematic scoping review of the emergency phase.

Clicks: 358
ID: 86942
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #104 of 637 articles by views in The Science of the total environment

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 637 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
There are 70.8 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, including internally displaced persons, refugees, and asylum seekers. Since mortality rates are highest in the first six months of displacement, the provision of adequate services and infrastructure by relief organizations is critical in this "emergency phase." Environmental health provisions such as adequate water supply, excreta management, solid waste management, and vector control measures are among those essential services. We conducted a systematic scoping review of environmental health in the emergency phase of displacement (the six months following first displacement). A total of 122 publications, comprising 104 peer-reviewed and 18 grey literature publications, met the inclusion criteria. We extracted data relating to environmental health conditions and services, associated outcomes, and information concerning obstacles and recommendations for improving these conditions and services. Despite the fact that most displaced people live outside of camps, publications largely report findings for camps (n = 73, 60%). Water supply (n = 57, 47%) and excreta management (n = 47, 39%) dominate the literature. Energy access (n = 7, 6%), exposure to harsh weather from inadequate shelter (n = 5, 4%), food hygiene and safety (n = 4, 3%), indoor air quality (n = 3, 3%), menstrual hygiene management (n = 2, 2%), dental hygiene (n = 2, 2%), and ambient air quality (n = 1, 1%) are relatively understudied. The most common health outcome attributed to inadequate environmental conditions in the included publications is diarrhea (n = 43, 35%). We found that organizations and governments often embrace their own standards, however we call for policymakers to adopt standards no less rigorous than Sphere for the emergency phase of displacement. Although other reviews examine water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions in emergencies, this is the first systematic review of environmental health more broadly in the first six months of displacement.
Reference Key
shackelford2020environmentalthe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Shackelford, Brandie Banner;Cronk, Ryan;Behnke, Nikki;Cooper, Brittany;Tu, Raymond;D'Souza, Mabel;Bartram, Jamie;Schweitzer, Ryan;Jaff, Dilshad;
Journal The Science of the total environment
Year 2020
DOI
S0048-9697(20)30063-2
URL
Keywords
Migration emergency refugee wash humanitarian internally displaced person (idp)

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.