Environmental Justice and Pesticides in the Global South-A Scoping Review.

IF 7.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Meryl Jagarnath, Leslie London, Iman Nuwayhid, Rima R Habib
{"title":"Environmental Justice and Pesticides in the Global South-A Scoping Review.","authors":"Meryl Jagarnath, Leslie London, Iman Nuwayhid, Rima R Habib","doi":"10.1007/s40572-026-00535-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pesticide exposure is an urgent environmental health issue in the Global South, where structural inequalities, weak regulation, and the export of banned chemicals from the Global North create disproportionate risks for marginalized populations. While environmental justice (EJ) frameworks are increasingly applied in environmental health research, their integration in pesticide research and interventions in the Global South has not been reviewed. This scoping review maps how EJ is conceptualized and operationalized in studies on pesticides in the Global South, identifying justice dimensions, methodological approaches, and interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Fifty-four peer-reviewed and grey literature sources (1995 to 2024, English language) were reviewed using a five-dimensional EJ framework: distributive, procedural, recognition, capabilities-based, and epistemic justice. Distributive justice dominated, procedural and recognition justice were inconsistently addressed, and capabilities-based and epistemic justice were rarely applied. EJ applications varied regionally: Central and South American studies had a pluralistic approach to EJ. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) research emphasized acute exposure disparities but lacked epistemic justice. Southeast Asia focused on gender and caste-based inequities, and the Middle East and North African (MENA) region was notably under-represented, highlighting a significant geographic gap. Interventions included pesticide bans, litigation, advocacy, user training, and household adaptations, yet most reinforced individual responsibility rather than addressing structural drivers of pesticide use. Additional gaps include limited gender-specific analyses, scarce epidemiological evidence, and co-production of knowledge with affected communities. Pesticide-related EJ scholarship in the Global South remains uneven, with major regional, methodological, and epistemological gaps. Advancing EJ requires rights-based, community-led, gender-sensitive and epistemically inclusive approaches, strengthened regulations, and a global ban on prohibited pesticides. </p>","PeriodicalId":10775,"journal":{"name":"Current Environmental Health Reports","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13086650/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Environmental Health Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-026-00535-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pesticide exposure is an urgent environmental health issue in the Global South, where structural inequalities, weak regulation, and the export of banned chemicals from the Global North create disproportionate risks for marginalized populations. While environmental justice (EJ) frameworks are increasingly applied in environmental health research, their integration in pesticide research and interventions in the Global South has not been reviewed. This scoping review maps how EJ is conceptualized and operationalized in studies on pesticides in the Global South, identifying justice dimensions, methodological approaches, and interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Fifty-four peer-reviewed and grey literature sources (1995 to 2024, English language) were reviewed using a five-dimensional EJ framework: distributive, procedural, recognition, capabilities-based, and epistemic justice. Distributive justice dominated, procedural and recognition justice were inconsistently addressed, and capabilities-based and epistemic justice were rarely applied. EJ applications varied regionally: Central and South American studies had a pluralistic approach to EJ. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) research emphasized acute exposure disparities but lacked epistemic justice. Southeast Asia focused on gender and caste-based inequities, and the Middle East and North African (MENA) region was notably under-represented, highlighting a significant geographic gap. Interventions included pesticide bans, litigation, advocacy, user training, and household adaptations, yet most reinforced individual responsibility rather than addressing structural drivers of pesticide use. Additional gaps include limited gender-specific analyses, scarce epidemiological evidence, and co-production of knowledge with affected communities. Pesticide-related EJ scholarship in the Global South remains uneven, with major regional, methodological, and epistemological gaps. Advancing EJ requires rights-based, community-led, gender-sensitive and epistemically inclusive approaches, strengthened regulations, and a global ban on prohibited pesticides.

环境正义和农药在全球南方- a范围审查。
审查目的:农药暴露是全球南方的一个紧迫的环境卫生问题,在那里,结构性不平等、监管薄弱以及从全球北方出口违禁化学品给边缘化人群造成了不成比例的风险。虽然环境正义框架越来越多地应用于环境卫生研究,但尚未审查将其纳入全球南方的农药研究和干预措施。这篇范围综述描绘了发展中国家农药研究中EJ是如何概念化和操作化的,确定了正义维度、方法方法和干预措施。最近的发现:使用五维EJ框架对54个同行评审和灰色文献来源(1995年至2024年,英语)进行了审查:分配,程序,识别,基于能力和认知正义。分配正义占主导地位,程序正义和承认正义没有得到一致的解决,基于能力的正义和认识正义很少得到应用。EJ的应用因地区而异:中美洲和南美洲的研究对EJ采取了多元化的方法。撒哈拉以南非洲(SSA)的研究强调了严重的暴露差异,但缺乏认识上的公正。东南亚关注的是性别和基于种姓的不平等,而中东和北非(MENA)地区的代表人数明显不足,凸显了巨大的地域差距。干预措施包括农药禁令、诉讼、宣传、用户培训和家庭适应,但大多数都强化了个人责任,而不是解决农药使用的结构性驱动因素。其他差距包括针对性别的分析有限、流行病学证据匮乏以及与受影响社区共同生产知识。在全球南方,农药相关的EJ研究仍然不均衡,存在主要的区域、方法和认识论差距。推进EJ需要以权利为基础、以社区为主导、对性别问题敏感、认识上包容的方法,加强监管,并在全球范围内禁止禁用农药。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
1.30%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: Current Environmental Health Reports provides up-to-date expert reviews in environmental health. The goal is to evaluate and synthesize original research in all disciplines relevant for environmental health sciences, including basic research, clinical research, epidemiology, and environmental policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书