3.8 Article

Environmental health and vulnerable populations in Canada: mapping an integrated equity-focused research agenda

Journal

CANADIAN GEOGRAPHER-GEOGRAPHE CANADIEN
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages 427-450

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2008.00223.x

Keywords

environmental health inequity; vulnerable populations; systematic review; Canada

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The uneven distribution of environmental hazards across space and in vulnerable populations reflects underlying societal inequities. Fragmented research has led to gaps in comprehensive understanding of and action on environmental health inequities in Canada and there is a need to gain a better picture of the research landscape in order to integrate future research. This paper provides an initial assessment of the state of the environmental health research field as specifically focused on vulnerable populations in Canada. We present a meta-narrative literature review to identify under-integrated areas of knowledge across disciplinary fields. Through systematic searching and categorization, we assess the abstracts of a total of 308 studies focused on the past 30 years of Canadian environmental health inequity research in order to describe temporal, geographical, contextual and epistemological patterns. The results reveal that there has been significant growth in Canadian research documenting the uneven distributions and impacts of environmental hazards across locations and populations since the 1990s, but its focus has been uneven. Notably, there is a lack of research aimed at integrating evidence-based and policy-relevant evaluation of environmental health inequities and how they are created and sustained. Areas for future research are recommended including more interdisciplinary, multimethod and preventive approaches to resolve the environmental burden placed on vulnerable populations and to promote environmental health equity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available