Search

Background Persistence of cholera outbreaks in developing countries calls for concern and more targeted intervention measures for long-term control. This research undertook spatial analysis of cholera incidence in Nigeria over a seventeen-year period to determine the existence of regional hotspots and predictors. Methods A cross-sectional study design was used for the research. Cholera data for each of the thirty-six states and the federal capital territory (FCT) were obtained from the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) of the Federal Ministry of Health, Nigeria. Socioeconomic data including proportion of households using solid waste disposal (unapproved dumpsite, refuse burying, refuse burning, public dumpsite, and refuse collectors), water sources (pipe borne water, well, borehole, rain water, surface waters and water vendors), sewage disposal (water closet, pit latrines, bucket/pan, public toilet and nearby bush/stream), living in a single room and earning less than minimum wage (18,000 naira) were obtained from National Population Commission. On the other hand, proportion of illiterate adults (15 years and above) and poor people; and population density were obtained from National Bureau of Statistics. Each socioeconomic data was obtained at state level. Cholera patterns were analysed at state level using Global Moran’s I while specific locations of cholera clusters were determined using Local Moran’s I. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine socioeconomic predictors of cholera incidence. Results Local Moran’s I revealed significant cluster patterns in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2010 in Adamawa, Gombe, Katsina, Bauchi, Borno, Yobe, and Kano states. Households using surface water was the significant predictor (23%) of the observed spatial variations in cholera incidence. Conclusions Persistence of cholera outbreaks in some north east and north western states calls for more targeted, long-term and effective intervention measures especially on provision of safe sources of water supply by government and other stakeholders.

We present the first systematic, global stocktake of the academic literature on human adaptation. We screen 48,316 documents and identify 1,682 articles that present empirical research documenting human efforts to reduce risk from climate change and associated hazards. Coding and synthesizing this literature highlights that the overall extent of adaptation across global regions and sectors is low. Adaptations are largely local and incremental rather than transformative. Behavioural adjustments by individuals and households are more prevalent than any other type of response, largely motivated by drought and precipitation variability. Local governments and civil society are engaging in risk reduction across all sectors and regions, particularly in response to flooding. Urban technological and infrastructural adaptations to flood risk are prevalent in Europe, while shifts in farming practices dominate reporting from Africa and Asia. Despite increasing evidence of adaptation responses, evidence that these responses are reducing risks (observed and projected) remains limited.

Climate change adaptation responses are being developed and delivered in many parts of the world in the absence of detailed knowledge of their effects on public health. Here we present the results of a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature reporting the effects on health of climate change adaptation responses in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The review used the ‘Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative’ database (comprising 1682 publications related to climate change adaptation responses) that was constructed through systematic literature searches in Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar (2013–2020). For this study, further screening was performed to identify studies from LMICs reporting the effects on human health of climate change adaptation responses. Studies were categorised by study design and data were extracted on geographic region, population under investigation, type of adaptation response and reported health effects. The review identified 99 studies (1117 reported outcomes), reporting evidence from 66 LMICs. Only two studies were ex ante formal evaluations of climate change adaptation responses. Papers reported adaptation responses related to flooding, rainfall, drought and extreme heat, predominantly through behaviour change, and infrastructural and technological improvements. Reported (direct and intermediate) health outcomes included reduction in infectious disease incidence, improved access to water/sanitation and improved food security. All-cause mortality was rarely reported, and no papers were identified reporting on maternal and child health. Reported maladaptations were predominantly related to widening of inequalities and unforeseen co-harms. Reporting and publication-bias seems likely with only 3.5% of all 1117 health outcomes reported to be negative. Our review identified some evidence that climate change adaptation responses may have benefits for human health but the overall paucity of evidence is concerning and represents a major missed opportunity for learning. There is an urgent need for greater focus on the funding, design, evaluation and standardised reporting of the effects on health of climate change adaptation responses to enable evidence-based policy action.

Assessing global progress on human adaptation to climate change is an urgent priority. Although the literature on adaptation to climate change is rapidly expanding, little is known about the actual extent of implementation. We systematically screened >48,000 articles using machine learning methods and a global network of 126 researchers. Our synthesis of the resulting 1,682 articles presents a systematic and comprehensive global stocktake of implemented human adaptation to climate change. Documented adaptations were largely fragmented, local and incremental, with limited evidence of transformational adaptation and negligible evidence of risk reduction outcomes. We identify eight priorities for global adaptation research: assess the effectiveness of adaptation responses, enhance the understanding of limits to adaptation, enable individuals and civil society to adapt, include missing places, scholars and scholarship, understand private sector responses, improve methods for synthesizing different forms of evidence, assess the adaptation at different temperature thresholds, and improve the inclusion of timescale and the dynamics of responses. Determining progress in adaptation to climate change is challenging, yet critical as climate change impacts increase. A stocktake of the scientific literature on implemented adaptation now shows that adaptation is mostly fragmented and incremental, with evidence lacking for its impact on reducing risk.