literature search in Semantic Scholar and PubMed produced 1,050 potential papers, of which 86 were included.

The review shows that gender-responsive disaster management and risk communication enhance resilience and

mitigate the impacts of disasters. They do so by addressing gendered vulnerabilities, adopting intersectional

and inclusive approaches, and fostering adaptive capacity. The analysis also notes barriers to effectiveness,

such as persistent patriarchal norms and implementation gaps. However, further research and action are needed

to close existing gaps and achieve truly inclusive and effective disaster risk reduction.

Keywords: Disaster crunch model; Disaster reduction; Disaster resilience; Gender responsive disaster

management; Pressure and Release (PAR) model.

Gender-responsive disaster management (GRDM) has emerged as a critical approach for enhancing disaster

leadership capacities of women, minorities, and marginalized groups to support community resilience (Ejem et

al. 2025; Abdalla et al., 2024; Yarramsetty & Prasanna, 2024; Tobi et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2022; Roy &

Mukherjee, 2024; Khalid et al., 2021).

Studies from diverse contexts - including Oman, Indonesia, Bangladesh, the Caribbean, and the Philippines -

highlight that empowering women, mainstreaming gender in policy and practice, and ensuring inclusive

participation in all phases of disaster management lead to more effective preparedness, response, and recovery

(Abdalla et al., 2024; Brenner et al., 2024; Septanaya & Fortuna, 2023; Ramailis & Sakir, 2024; Hasan et al.,

2019; Gaisie et al., 2021; Chisty et al., 2021). However, challenges remain, such as persistent patriarchal

norms, insufficient policy implementation, and the need for intersectional approaches that include all gender

identities (Zaidi & Fordham, 2021; Oktari et al., 2021; Gaillard et al., 2017; Bradshaw, 2015). This review

likelihood and impact of disasters, often through risk assessment, early warning systems, and community

education (Ejem et al., 2023). Disaster resilience describes the capacity of individuals, communities, or

systems to anticipate, withstand, adapt to, and recover from adverse events, emphasizing not just survival but

also the ability to bounce back stronger. Gender-responsive disaster management recognizes that disasters

affect men and women differently due to social, economic, and cultural factors, and seeks to address these

disparities by actively involving women in planning, decision-making, and recovery processes.

Research shows that integrating gender perspectives leads to more effective disaster risk reduction, as

women’s knowledge, leadership, and adaptive skills are crucial for community resilience and recovery

(Abdalla et al., 2024; Yarramsetty & Prasanna, 2024; Erman et al., 2021; Brenner et al., 2024; Achmad et al.,

2024; Ramailis & Sakir, 2024; Septanaya & Fortuna, 2023; Inal et al., 2018). However, traditional disaster

women through education, training, and participation in disaster planning protects vulnerable groups. It also

strengthens community resilience and supports broader development goals (Abdalla et al., 2024; Brenner et al.,

2024; Achmad et al., 2024; Ramailis & Sakir, 2024; Septanaya & Fortuna, 2023; Sartorio & Davalos, 2025;

Owoeye, 2021).

Disaster resilience

Disaster resilience refers to the ability of individuals, communities, and systems to prepare for, respond to, and

recover from disasters while minimizing negative impacts and adapting to future risks. The literature highlights

that resilience is a multidimensional concept, evolving from simply “bouncing back” after a disaster to

encompassing adaptation, transformation, and proactive risk management strategies such as “building back

better” and “bouncing forward” (Graveline & Germain, 2022; Parker, 2020). Key components of disaster

The field of disaster resilience is inherently interdisciplinary, drawing from environmental science,

psychology, public policy, and emergency management, and is still maturing in terms of unified definitions

and operational frameworks (Parker, 2020; Demiroz & Haase, 2019). Recent research emphasizes the

importance of regulatory flexibility and adaptive capacities at both individual and community levels, as well as

the need for risk-informed strategies and institutional reforms, especially in low-resilience countries (Bonanno

et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2022). Practitioners in international development see the resilience paradigm as a

positive shift but caution that its vagueness can limit practical application unless grounded in local realities and

practitioner insights (Keating & Hanger-Kopp, 2020). Overall, disaster resilience is recognized as a promising

but complex paradigm, requiring ongoing refinement in both theory and practice to effectively guide disaster

risk reduction and sustainable development (Mayer, 2019; Graveline & Germain, 2022; Parker, 2020; Khan et

against a triggering hazard event and create disaster impacts (Saha, 2014; Smyth & Hai, 2012). Recent

research uses the model to analyze real-world events, such as Cyclone Aila in Bangladesh, highlighting how

socioeconomic, environmental, and institutional factors escalate disaster risk and how affected communities

perceive and respond to hazards (Saha, 2014).

The disaster crunch model has also been adapted to emphasize gendered vulnerabilities, recognizing that

women and men experience disasters differently due to social roles and inequalities, and calling for disaster

risk reduction strategies that address these differences (Smyth & Hai, 2012). Beyond community and national

contexts, the crunch/release model has been proposed as a tool for building organizational resilience, helping

organizations identify and address their own vulnerabilities to crises (Elwood, 2009). Overall, the disaster

crunch model remains a foundational tool for analyzing disaster risk, guiding both research and practical

PubMed. The search strategy illustrated in Fig. 1 involved 21 targeted queries grouped into seven thematic

areas, identifying 1,050 potentially relevant papers. After de-duplication and relevance screening, 468 papers

were screened, 347 were deemed eligible, and the top 86 most relevant and high-quality papers were included

in this review. A total of 21 unique searches were executed, focusing on gender, disaster management,

resilience, risk communication, and related mechanisms, with inclusion based on relevance, recency, and

methodological rigour.

effects of disasters on women and children, and support their empowerment and resilience (Achmad et al.,

integration of local and scientific knowledge, resulting in more contextually relevant and accepted risk

communication, which are essential for resilience and adaptive responses to future risks (Asteria et al., 2020;

Rahmawati & Riskiyah, 2023; Drolet et al., 2015; Kusumasari, 2015).

Barriers and Critiques

Persistent patriarchal norms

Research shows that deeply rooted gender norms and power structures often limit the effectiveness of GRDM,

especially when women’s participation is tokenistic or procedural rather than substantive (Septanaya &

Fortuna, 2023; Oktari et al., 2021; Gaillard et al., 2017; Sartorio & Davalos, 2025; Bradshaw, 2015). In many

contexts, men control access to resources and dominate leadership roles, making it difficult for women to

contribute to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery policies (Azad & Pritchard, 2023; Oktari et al.,

2021; Mardialina et al., 2024; Ruslanjari et al., 2022). As a result, studies have shown that women’s vital roles

Bradshaw, 2015). These bodies of research concluded that women are often praised only when conforming to

traditional roles and face criticism or exclusion when taking on leadership or non-traditional tasks,

perpetuating restrictive gender expectations (Danielsson & Eriksson, 2020; Petraroli, 2021; Kotsinas, 2020).

Implementation gaps

Policy implementation gaps are a major barrier to achieving truly gender-responsive disaster management.

While many frameworks and policies acknowledge the importance of gender inclusion, their implementation is

often inconsistent, superficial, or incomplete. Evidence from 4 of the studies shows that many policies

acknowledge gender but lack mechanisms for meaningful inclusion, monitoring, and accountability (Zaidi &

Fordham, 2021; Hasan et al., 2019; Mardialina et al., 2024; Recovery & Headquarters, 2009).

This has been accentuated by several studies that understand that policies may mention gender or women’s

root causes and providing actionable strategies for gender equity in disaster risk reduction (DRR) (Zaidi &

leaving women and girls particularly vulnerable (Ejem et al., 2025; Al-Mamun et al., 2025; Achmad et al.,

2024; Venganai & Mupoperi, 2023). There is also evidence of the absence of gender-disaggregated data and

clear indicators that hamper the ability to monitor progress and hold institutions accountable for gender-

responsive actions (Hasan et al., 2019; Yunus et al., 2022; Shrestha, 2023; Lee et al., 2022; Chambers, 2019).

Need for context-specific solutions.

The reviewed bodies of literature confirm that one-size-fits-all approaches are less effective; context-specific

solutions that address the unique social, cultural, and economic realities of each community (Lee et al., 2022;

Gaillard et al., 2017; Maobe, 2021; Tickamyer & Kusujiarti, 2020; Seira & Kurniati, 2020; Forbes-Biggs,

2020). Generic or one-size-fits-all approaches often fail to recognize the diverse needs and capacities of

women and marginalized groups, limiting the effectiveness and inclusivity of disaster risk reduction efforts.

(Gaillard et al., 2017; Cocina-Díaz et al., 2025). Therefore, evidence from this systematic review concludes

that inclusive planning, gender-sensitive risk assessments, and the active involvement of women in decision-

making are crucial for developing solutions that resonate with local realities and build genuine resilience

(Mushwani et al., 2025; Abdalla et al., 2024; Yarramsetty & Prasanna, 2024; Ramailis & Sakir, 2024; Lee et

al., 2022).

The research strongly supports the claim that gender-responsive disaster management improves resilience and

reduces disaster impact, especially when it moves beyond token inclusion to meaningful participation and

empowerment of women and marginalized groups (Abdalla et al., 2024; Mukhopadhyay, 2011; Lee et al.,

2022; Ginige et al., 2009; Enarson et al., 2017; Recovery & Headquarters, 2009; Roy & Mukherjee, 2024;

gender mainstreaming without challenging underlying power structures or addressing intersectionality

(Septanaya & Fortuna, 2023; Oktari et al., 2021; Gaillard et al., 2017; Sartorio & Davalos, 2025; Bradshaw,

2015). There is also a need for more robust monitoring, evaluation, and context-specific adaptation of GRDM

strategies (Zaidi & Fordham, 2021; Hasan et al., 2019; Mardialina et al., 2024; Recovery & Headquarters,

2009).

The importance of this research lies in its implications for policy and practice. As disasters become more

frequent and severe due to climate change, ensuring that DRR and management strategies are gender-

responsive is not only a matter of equity but also of effectiveness and sustainability (Erman et al., 2021; Ginige

The evidence base is strong for the benefits of GRDM, but further research is needed on intersectionality, long-

term outcomes, and the experiences of gender minorities (Neelima & Thomas, 2022; Gaillard et al., 2017;

Diab, 2024).

persistent gaps and ensure truly inclusive and effective disaster risk reduction.

Competing interest

The authors declare that there is no competing interest.

Author contributions

AAE conceived and designed the study; carried out the literature review and wrote the first draft of the report;

NFA re-wrote the report; SVO and ETA rewrote some portions of the work and proofread it.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit

sectors.