Towards inclusive vulnerability mapping:A systematic review of gender integration in vulnerability analyses

Gender inequality is a key challenge and major barrier to human and economic development. Further, the integration of gendered data into political and/or decision-making structures is rare. This leaves a significant gap in the ability for interventions to be impactful and sustainable. For example, geospatial assessments at local, national, and regional scales of the vulnerability of populations to disaster risk, and/or climate change impacts typically use publicly available data from surveys, statistics agencies, and Earth observations to create one map. These vulnerability, impacts, and assessment studies have influenced governmental and donor investments in specific areas to protect these identified regions. Traditionally, these measures of vulnerability do not make gender informed or disaggregated conclusions despite a growing body of research documenting that men, women, and other diverse identities face different vulnerabilities to climate change across all sectors. Additionally, failure to disaggregate findings based on sex has been shown to exacerbate inequalities. This study conducts a systematic literature review on the current practices of how gender is incorporated into disaster and climate change vulnerability research in order to develop recommendations for better inclusion in the future. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2020 (PRISMA) guidelines. A search strategy was defined to capture studies that involved geospatial vulnerability mapping, gender, and climate change, 61 papers were identified and analyzed for 1) how gender has been operationalized within vulnerability analyses, 2) what were the findings of these analyses, and 3) what gaps and challenges remain.<br/><br/>Overall, the majority of studies focus on inherently vulnerable regions, but few comprehensively address gender. Methodologies of the studies varied widely, and validation of the results of any methodology remains a key challenge. Many additional opportunities are identified that work towards capturing the social dynamics that could shape our understanding of a more gender inclusive vulnerability assessment. Future research will apply the lessons learned from this review and develop methodologies for inclusive geospatial vulnerability assessments to inform resilience policies, planning, and implementation.