Refugee integration versus encampment approach; A synthesis of their applicability and adoption in developing countries

Countries adopt diverse approaches to refugee management, producing uneven outcomes for refugees, host communities, and the environment. In East Africa, governance evolved from an open door policy guided by international conventions to formalized national frameworks following the refugee influxes of the mid-1990s. Tanzania adopted a restrictive encampment approach through the Refugee Act of 1998, while Uganda implemented an integrated, self-reliance approach under its Refugee Act of 2006. This study compares these approaches using a systematic review of 113 articles and 11 reports (1998–2024), complemented by bibliometrix and thematic analyses. The findings reveal that Uganda's approach provides broader rights, including freedom of movement, employment, and self-reliance, which enhance livelihoods and social inclusion. However, it also intensifies environmental pressure, resource competition, and localized insecurity. In contrast, Tanzania's encampment approach restricts mobility and economic participation, limiting environmental spillovers while increasing dependency and generating negative perceptions among refugees and international actors, with mixed responses from host communities. Bibliometrix results show a growing but uneven body of literature dominated by migration, governance, and humanitarian themes, with increasing attention to environmental issues such as deforestation, climate change, and energy access. Co-occurrence networks show environmental pollution, deforestation, climate change and drought being among the major issues facing hosting countries, hence straining the refugee-host relationship. In conclusion, refugee governance reflects trade-offs between inclusion, control and sustainability. Integration offers a viable pathway but requires alignment with environmental capacity, while encampment models need reform to address socio-economic and human rights limitations.