This systematic review aimed to assess the current knowledge of human–animal interactions (HAIs) in disaster settings and identify areas for future research. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search was conducted on three multidisciplinary databases, identifying English-language journal articles published between January 2000 and February 2022 that explored the benefits of and challenges associated with HAI in disasters and emergencies. The review analyzed 94 articles using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The review found a paucity of universal terminology to describe the bidirectional relationship between humans and animals during disasters and a failure to include all animal types in every stage of disaster and emergency management. Additionally, research predominantly focused on the health and well-being benefits of HAI for humans rather than animals. Efforts to promote social and environmental justice for humans and their co-inhabitants should support the welfare of both humans and animals in disaster settings. Four recommendations were developed based on these findings to increase the inclusion of HAI in research, policy, and practice. Limitations of the review included the exclusion of pre-2000 articles and all grey literature, limited research examining different combinations of animal and disaster types, and limited research outside of North America.

该系统评价旨在评估当前关于灾害环境中人与动物相互作用 (HAI) 的知识，并确定未来研究的领域。对三个多学科数据库进行了系统评价和元分析搜索的首选报告项目，确定了 2000 年 1 月至 2022 年 2 月期间发表的英文期刊文章，这些文章探讨了 HAI 在灾害和紧急情况中的好处和相关挑战。该综述使用定量和定性方法分析了 94 篇文章。该审查发现缺乏通用术语来描述灾害期间人与动物之间的双向关系，并且未能将所有动物类型纳入灾害和应急管理的每个阶段。此外，研究主要集中在 HAI 对人类而非动物的健康和福祉益处。为人类及其共同居民促进社会和环境正义的努力应该支持灾难环境中人类和动物的福祉。基于这些发现提出了四项建议，以增加 HAI 在研究、政策和实践中的纳入。审查的局限性包括排除了 2000 年之前的文章和所有灰色文献、对动物和灾害类型的不同组合进行的有限研究以及北美以外的有限研究。基于这些发现提出了四项建议，以增加 HAI 在研究、政策和实践中的纳入。审查的局限性包括排除了 2000 年之前的文章和所有灰色文献、对动物和灾害类型的不同组合进行的有限研究以及北美以外的有限研究。基于这些发现提出了四项建议，以增加 HAI 在研究、政策和实践中的纳入。审查的局限性包括排除了 2000 年之前的文章和所有灰色文献、对动物和灾害类型的不同组合进行的有限研究以及北美以外的有限研究。