literature review on gender based violence

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.12(6); 2022

Estimating the global health impact of gender-based violence and violence against children: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Cory n spencer.

1 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

María Jose Baeza

2 School of Nursing and Health Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA

Jaidev Kaur Chandan

3 Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Alexandra Debure

Molly herbert, teresa jewell.

4 University Libraries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mariam Khalil

Rachel qian hui lim.

5 Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Sonica Minhas

Joht singh chandan.

6 Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Emmanuela Gakidou

Nicholas metheny, associated data.

bmjopen-2022-061248supp001.pdf

bmjopen-2022-061248supp002.pdf

Introduction

Exposure to gender-based violence (GBV) and violence against children (VAC) can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Previous reviews of health outcomes associated with GBV and VAC have focused on limited definitions of exposure to violence (ie, intimate partner violence) and often investigate associations only with predefined health outcomes. In this protocol, we describe a systematic review and meta-analysis for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of violence exposure on health outcomes and health-related risk factors across the life-course.

Methods and analysis

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane and Web of Science Core Collection) will be searched from 1 January 1970 to 30 September 2021 and searches updated to the current date prior to final preparation of results. Reviewers will first screen titles and abstracts, and eligible articles will then be full-text screened and accepted should they meet all inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted using a standardised form with fields to capture study characteristics and estimates of association between violence exposure and health outcomes. Individual study quality will be assessed via six risk of bias criteria. For exposure–outcome pairs with sufficient data, evidence will be synthesised via a meta-regression—Bayesian, regularised, trimmed model and confidence in the cumulative evidence assessed via the burden of proof risk function. Where possible, variations in associations by subgroup, that is, age, sex or gender, will be explored.

Ethics and dissemination

Formal ethical approval is not required. Findings from this review will be used to inform improved estimation of GBV and VAC within the Global Burden of Disease Study. The review has been undertaken in conjunction with the Lancet Commission on GBV and the Maltreatment of Young People with the aim of providing new data insights for a report on the global response to violence.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022299831.

Strengths and limitations of this study

• This review is the first effort to systematically identify and assess all health-related impacts of multiple and overlapping forms of gender-based violence and violence against children.
• Data analysis plans include meta-regression and burden of proof frameworks to synthesise all available evidence and provide policy-direct interpretations of associations.
• Findings from the review will be incorporated in the Global Burden of Disease Study, the most comprehensive observational epidemiological study to date and a critical tool for researchers, advocates and decision-makers.
• Challenges remain in the comparability of definitions of exposure to gender-based violence and violence against children and availability of high quality data for under-studied forms of violence (ie, cyberviolence, stalking, elder abuse).

Gender-based violence (GBV) (including but not limited to intimate partner violence (IPV), elder abuse and violence against women (VAW)) and violence against children (VAC) are global public health issues associated with a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality. It is well known that the immediate consequences of both VAC and GBV in adulthood include physical injuries and death. 1 However, the medium-term and longer-term consequences are less well understood, but have shown to span a variety of physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health issues. 2 3 Until recently, the fields of VAC and GBV were largely siloed, stunting our understanding of how different exposures to violence influence each other across the lifespan. To address these challenges, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative, UNICEF Innocenti and the World Health Organization (WHO) have recently developed a framework of guiding principles encouraging interaction of research in the field of violence epidemiology. 4 As international advocacy and research organisations push for the integration of these fields, a more fulsome understanding of the health impacts of violence across the life-course is needed. 5 6

The Global Burden of Diseases (GBD), Injuries and Risk Factors Study has quantified the global disease and disability burden of two violence-related risk factors, IPV and childhood sexual abuse (CSA), within a comparative risk assessment framework since 2010. 7–10 An advantage of the comparative risk assessment framework is the ability to compare the relative contribution to disease and disability among several health risk factors. Indeed, country-specific and age-specific findings from the GBD have shown IPV to account for more overall disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in women ages 15–49 than more traditionally highlighted health risk factors such as smoking. 11 12 On a global scale, IPV was estimated to account for 6.44 million (95% uncertainty interval (UI), 3.55–9.87 million) DALYs among this group in 2019 while, by comparison, smoking contributed to 4.52 million (95% UI 3.87–5.23 million) DALYs in the same population in 2019. 8 Much of the estimated health impact stems from GBD meta-analyses of scientific literature, which have found IPV exposure to be associated with a 54% increased risk of depression and 60% increased risk for HIV infection. 8 Likewise, those exposed to CSA have been estimated to be 2.21 times as likely to experience alcohol use disorder (relative risk (RR)=2.21, 95% UI=1.15–4.04) and 1.56 times as likely to experience depression (RR=1.56, 95% UI=1.30–1.86), accounting for 3.67 million (95% UI, 1.75–6.56 million) global DALYs among males and females of all ages in 2019. 8 While these findings provide a basis for understanding the impact of violence on health, the lack of a comprehensive analysis of the longitudinal literature has so far precluded the ability to expand the types of violence included in the GBD as well as the specific health outcomes that comprise the final estimates of burden. A more complete understanding of the adverse health outcomes associated with exposure to more types of GBV and VAC, and the magnitude of these associations, is needed to capture the negative health and societal impacts of GBV and VAC.

Beyond the estimates provided by the internationally comparative GBD studies, existing reviews assessing the health impacts of GBV and VAC have typically focused on the impact of a single type of violence (eg, IPV) on a specific health outcome (eg, HIV). In 2013, the WHO, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and South African Medical Research Council conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of a variety of health effects related to specific forms of GBV, measured as physical and/or sexual IPV or non-partner sexual violence (NPSV). 2 Across studies identified, women exposed to IPV were 1.5 times as likely to become infected with HIV/AIDS and 1.97 times as likely to experience depression, among other adverse health outcomes. 2 A lack of comparable studies prevented meta-analysis for NPSV. 2 Following the publication of 2013 report, the WHO curated an extensive database of studies describing the literature explaining the relationship between VAW and VAC with subsequent health outcomes. 13 However, the database has not updated summaries of high-quality evidence on the health impacts of GBV (VAW/IPV) since 2013, which is urgently needed to inform global health policy. In 2018, Bacchus et al additionally reviewed cohort studies that reported on all health outcomes and behaviours related to recent physical and sexual IPV exposure, finding evidence of a positive, bidirectional relationship between these types of IPV and depressive symptoms. 14 Yet, there are fewer reviews investigating exposure types beyond physical and sexual IPV (eg, psychological violence, coercive control, financial abuse, stalking), and those available often define even finer scopes by investigating relationships between narrowly defined forms of violence and narrowly defined health outcomes, for example, mental health and gynaecological morbidity. 15 16

Similar to GBV, there have been attempts to synthesise the literature exploring the breadth of consequences following exposure to VAC and highlighting the relationship between exposure to childhood maltreatment (including CSA) and a wide variety of psychosocial and health outcomes. 17 18 Research into the consequences of VAC has more recently overlapped with the burgeoning literature base describing health outcomes secondary to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), two of which include direct exposure to violence and the witnessing of parental IPV. 19 A recent comprehensive review highlighted the pervasive harms that ACEs place on health throughout the life-course 20 and in a secondary analysis found that within Europe and North America, a 10% reduction in ACE prevalence could equate to annual savings of 3 million DALYs or US$105 billion. 21 However, despite these efforts to capture the literature on VAC through either exploring childhood maltreatment, CSA or ACEs as the marker of exposure, included studies are often limited to exposure in high-income countries and exclude other forms of violence such as female genital mutilation, trafficking, forced marriage and cyberviolence.

While the existing literature has illuminated the significant health impacts of violence, critical evidence gaps remain. These include the quantification of the health burden of less-studied forms of violence, the health burden of violence in in lower-income and middle-income settings, as well as the integration of violence in childhood and adulthood as an intergenerational issue that could be more effectively measured using a life-course approach. The life-course approach as outlined in the Minsk Declaration essentially recognises that all stages of a person’s life are intricately intertwined with each other, with the lives of other people in society, and with past and future generations of their families. 22 23 In order to do adopt this approach effectively when considering the health effects of GBV/VAC, we must consider that violence can occur at any stage in one’s life (preconception to death) but also that the impact of such event can be inter-generational and societal. Additionally, as highlighted through the reviews cited above, the current research trajectory often creates distinctions between GBV/VAC and other forms of life-course violence such as elder-abuse. 24 However, considering that GBV and VAC share risk factors, co-occur and can lead to compounding consequences across the life-course, there is a clear need to examine these phenomena in unison.

We present a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol to generate estimates of a comprehensive range of health impacts associated with exposure to GBV and VAC. Findings will contribute to the assessment of risk-outcome relationships and attributable burdens of disease within the GBD. To our knowledge, there has been no other systematic review and meta-analysis conducted with such a life-course approach across multiple types of violence.

The presentation of our review design follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines ( online supplemental material 1 ). 25

Supplementary data

Aims of the review.

The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise all available data on the health impacts of exposure to any form of GBV and VAC. This data can then be used to assess risk–outcome relationships and quantify their contribution to global disease and disability burdens.

Specific review questions

• How does exposure to GBV and/or VAC impact health across the life-course?
• What is the strength of evidence on the associations between exposure to GBV and VAC and different health impacts?
• Do estimates of association vary by characteristics of the violence, global region, characteristics of the perpetrator and/or characteristics of the victim?

Definitions

Definitions of violence.

We include in our searches the following terms describing exposure to GBV and/or VAC:

• IPV, partner abuse/violence, wife/spouse abuse, dating abuse/violence.
• Sexual abuse, rape, forced sex, sexual assault, sexual coercion, sexual exploitation.
• Reproductive coercion.
• Female genital mutilation, female genital cutting, female circumcision.
• Sex trafficking, child, early and forced marriage.
• Physical abuse.
• Psychological abuse, emotional abuse, verbal abuse.
• Economic abuse, financial abuse.
• Cyberviolence, cybervictimisation.
• Domestic violence/abuse.
• ACEs that include direct exposure to and witnessing of violence.
• Child maltreatment, molestation, child abuse.
• Elder abuse, senior abuse, aged abuse.
• Stalking, cyberstalking.
• Dehumanisation, torture.
• Workplace violence, student abuse, sexual harassment.
• GBV perpetrated with a firearm.

We expect author definitions and methods used to measure exposure to vary and will accept all definitions, documenting study definitions and measurement techniques as a part of study-level quality assessment.

Health outcomes

We did not restrict searches to predefined health outcomes and aim to accept all literature reporting an association between violence exposure and health. Definitions of health outcomes and health-related risk factors will be guided by cause, injury and risk factor case definitions from the GBD study. 8 26 Studies that report on certain biomarkers without accompanying clinical diagnoses (ie, neural connectivity patterns, salivary cortisol as a stress response, DNA characteristics) will not be eligible for inclusion. Similarly, studies that report on the presence or number of disease symptoms without an accompanying diagnosis of a health outcome will not be eligible for inclusion. Reviewers will meet regularly to raise questions about eligible health outcomes, with consensus decisions documented and circulated via written guidelines. Differences in measurement methods or case definitions of eligible health outcomes will be documented as a part of quality assessment as well. Final selection of associations to be synthesised will depend on the availability of studies that examine the association between a comparable form of exposure and reported health outcome.

Criteria for considering studies for this review

• Study design: case–control, cohort or case-crossover studies.
• Participants: Studies conducted in participant groups likely to be generalisable to the population of interest. Exposed groups are defined as any individual who has experienced a form of GBV and/or VAC throughout the lifetime. Comparators will be non-exposed control groups, or study groups without reported exposure to a form of GBV and/or VAC.
• Outcomes: Studies reporting an estimate of association (either RR, risk ratio, odds ratio, hazard ratio or similar) or reporting cases and non-cases among those exposed and unexposed. If not provided directly, studies providing enough information to allow an estimate of RR to be calculated will meet inclusion criteria.
• Study design: Cross-sectional, ecological, case series or case studies. We exclude cross-sectional studies in accordance with GBD study risk factor analyses, which typically do not include cross-sectional studies. This exclusion reason is related to the inability to assess temporality between exposures and outcomes in cross-sectional studies. We do not anticipate there to be any experimental studies, however, these will also be excluded.
• Participants: Studies conducted in subgroups identified only by convenience sampling or subgroups identified via a shared characteristic that is likely related to risk of exposure to violence or the reported health outcome (eg, domestic violence shelter residents).
• Exposure measurement: Studies that report only an aggregate measure of exposure combining exposure to a form of violence with other, non-eligible exposures (eg, reports a composite ACE score only) will be excluded. For these studies, we are unable to disentangle the effect of violence exposure from the effects of other hardships or exposure types, preventing their inclusion in our review.
• Does not meet minimum reporting criteria: Studies missing essential data, that is, those that do not report effect sizes and uncertainty information (confidence intervals, sample sizes) or the data needed to impute an effect size with uncertainty information.
• Studies reporting on the same exposure and outcome using the same data: The study with the longest follow-up time period or most complete dataset will be included.

Search strategy for identifying relevant studies

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane and Web of Science Core Collection will be searched using controlled vocabulary and keyword search terms. All relevant studies published between 1 January 1970 and 30 September 2021 will be considered, regardless of language of publication or study setting. Immediately prior to preparing final results from the review and meta-analysis, searches will be updated to the current month to retrieve for inclusion any further studies identified. The search strategy for PubMed is provided in table 1 . The search terms for Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane and Web of Science are provided in online supplemental tables 1–6 , respectively ( online supplemental material 2 ).

Search terms and strategy for PubMed

Data management and extraction

Search results will be merged and duplicates removed using the systematic review management software Covidence. 27 All reviewers will initially screen the first 50 search results and meet to compare screening decisions and clarify any questions with regard to the inclusion criteria. The first two-thirds of titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers, and JSC, NM and CNS will review and resolve all conflicts that arise during screening decisions. Upon confirmation of a low rate of conflicts (less than 10%) in the first two-thirds of double-screened articles, the remaining third of articles will be screened by a single reviewer. This approach balances the priorities of independent review and completing our review in a timely manner. Non-English publications will be reviewed using the language fluencies (Spanish, French and Portuguese) of the reviewers. Should articles in other languages be retrieved and eligible for extraction, the reviewers will contact colleagues fluent in these languages for assistance.

Reviewers will complete title and abstract screening of all articles before the team proceeds to full-text screening. Studies that met inclusion criteria in title and abstract screening will additionally be full-text screened and excluded if found to meet any of the exclusion criteria. Following the PRISMA guideline, each exclusion will include documentation of a specific exclusion reason. Within Covidence, there are several built-in exclusion reasons (ie, wrong study design, wrong setting, etc) as well as the possibility to create custom exclusion reasons. Reviewers will meet to discuss the addition of custom exclusion reasons prior to beginning full-text review, and will iteratively meet to discuss addition of new reasons as necessary. For full text review, 10% of articles will be reviewed by two independent reviewers and a meeting held to resolve misunderstandings and ensure all reviewers clearly understand inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining 90% of articles will be reviewed by one independent reviewer. If reviewers are unable to access the full text of a publication, the reviewers will reach out directly to the corresponding author and wait a maximum of 1 month for response, after which point the article will be excluded.

Data extraction will occur in parallel with full-text review, with some team members beginning to extract data once a sufficient number of full-text articles have been accepted. Before any reviewer begins data extraction, the entire review team will conduct a consensus building exercise in which all reviewers extract data from the same 10 accepted articles. In a group meeting, extractions will be compared and any questions resolved. Reviewers will extract data from accepted articles using a standardised form created in Covidence. 27 The data extraction form will include variables related to (1) characteristics of the study, (2) characteristics of the study population, (3) exposure and outcome measurement, (4) effect size and uncertainty, (5) risk of bias (quality assessment). 28 29 Data items are provided in table 2 .

Variables to be collected in the data extraction process

If a study reports on multiple forms of violence exposure, multiple associated health outcomes or reports findings by subgroup or model specification, data pertaining to each subanalysis will be extracted in addition to any aggregate results. In the case of a study reporting effect sizes for multiple model specifications, the most appropriately adjusted model will be selected for inclusion in meta-analysis.

Risk of bias in individual studies

Sources of bias will be assessed and collected during data extraction. Following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach, 29 risk of bias criteria for individual studies include:

• Exposure measurement: How exposure to violence was assessed (whether standard, acts-based and specific questions were asked, eg, ‘Have you ever been shoved, slapped, hit, or kicked by an intimate partner?’ versus questions that rely on participants’ own definition of abuse, eg, ‘Have you ever experienced domestic abuse?’). In addition, whether exposure was based on self-reports or another source (eg, health records).
• Outcome measurement: How reported health outcome(s) were measured (by physician diagnosis, diagnostic survey instruments, or electronic health records).
• Representativeness of study population: If a study sample was based on the general population or if study results are reported from a sub-group for which there are prior reasons to believe that findings would be different.
• Control for confounding: If a study statistically controlled for confounding using all major known confounders, including age, sex, education, income and other critical determinants of the health outcome.
• Selection bias: If a study is at risk of selection bias, based on per cent follow-up for longitudinal study designs and based on the percentages of cases and controls for which exposure data can be ascertained for case–control designs.
• Reverse causation: If a study is at risk of reverse causation, evaluated through study design and opportunity for recall bias (ie, case–control studies). 30

Data synthesis

If there are at least three studies identified with a comparable form of exposure and reported health outcome, we will synthesise effect sizes using a meta-regression—Bayesian, regularised, trimmed (MR-BRT) model. 8 31

For each risk–outcome pair identified, we will use the MR-BRT tool to perform a meta-regression analysis of the risk of the given outcome for those exposed to the violence type relative to the reference category of those not exposed to the violence type. For risk–outcome pairs with sufficient data points, we will introduce likelihood-based trimming to detect and remove outliers before fitting the model, with an inlier fraction of 90%. 31

For each risk–outcome pair meta-analysis, we will consider study-level covariates with the potential to bias the study’s reported effect size estimates and adjust for these covariates if they are found to significantly bias the estimated RR. The MR-BRT tool includes an automated covariate selection process using a Lasso strategy to identify statistically significant covariates at a significance threshold of 0.05. 31 32

The MR-BRT tool quantifies between-study heterogeneity by accounting for heterogeneity uncertainty and small numbers of studies. 31 In this approach, the Fisher information matrix is used to estimate uncertainty of the between-study heterogeneity parameter, γ. 31 33 The final uncertainty estimate reflects both the posterior uncertainty corresponding to the fixed effect and the 95% quantile of γ, which is sensitive to the number of studies, study design and reported uncertainty of the effect size. 31

For each risk-outcome pair, we will additionally test for and report publication bias in the input data based on the Egger’s Regression strategy, which tests the degree to which standard error is correlated with effect size in the data, and present funnel plots. 34 35

Additional analyses

If meta-analysis is not possible with all studies, we will synthesise the included study findings graphically 36 following the systematic review without meta-analysis guidance. This will include forest plots, which will graphically depict all study effect estimates using a single metric (eg, percent change) for each available health outcome and type of violence. 37 To produce the forest plots, we will transform effect estimates to a comparable metric wherever possible (ie, where the necessary data are available in the paper or from the authors). Harvest plots will demonstrate where inequities based on, for example, age of exposure, low-income and middle-income country versus high-income country, gender identity, ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, urban–rural location, exist in the available data. 38 When the necessary data are missing, all study effect estimates will be summarised in supplementary tables and discussed as relevant in text. If the necessary data are available (standardised effect estimate, p value) we will also consider albatross plots to summarise results. 39

Confidence in cumulative evidence

Confidence in risk–outcome pair results will be assessed via the burden of proof risk function (BPRF) methdology developed by GBD 2020 Risk Score Collaborators (unpublished methods). For a harmful risk, the BPRF is the 5% quantile risk function interpreted as the lowest level of risk consistent with available evidence. The average BPRF values across exposure observed in the studies will be summarised into star-rating categories, which are a policy-direct way to interpret the evidence for risk-outcome pairs, with higher star-ratings indicating stronger evidence of an association.

Narrative synthesis

Narrative synthesis will be conducted by grouping studies according to exposure type and health outcome. We will explore the breadth of available evidence across groupings as well as highlight the health outcomes and violence types for which there is stronger evidence than others, drawing on results from meta-analyses and star-rating categories. The description of these patterns will allow us to make recommendations for future research as well as discuss the ways in which distinct types of violence affect health.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

The proposed review does not require formal ethical approval. Findings from this review will contribute to GBD estimates of the health impact of GBV and VAC. The GBD includes data on morbidity and mortality from 1990 to present in 204 countries and territories for 369 diseases and injuries and 87 risk factors. 40 It is the most comprehensive worldwide observational epidemiological study to date and a critical tool used by clinicians, policy-makers and researchers. Review findings will inform the GBD assessment of new risks and/or risk–outcome relationships and revisions to the magnitude of currently included associations. Updated global health estimates of the impact of GBV and VAC will be highlighted in consequent GBD releases and accompanying capstone publications.

In addition, this review is being conducted in conjunction with the Lancet Commission on GBV and the Maltreatment of Young People. 41 The aim of the commission is to complete a path breaking report on the global response to violence across the life-course, complete with new data insights and concrete policy and research recommendations that are informed by survivors and advocates. This report will be published by The Lancet in an effort to initiate debate, offer insight and explanation, and influence decision makers across the globe regarding GBV and VAC.

Supplementary Material

Contributors: The initial PubMed search strategy was developed by CNS and refined and adapted to other databases by TJ. The writing and methodological plan for this protocol was developed by CNS, JSC, NM and EG. Further revisions to the protocol were made by all remaining authors (MJB, AD, MH, TJ, JKC, MK, RQHL and SM) and the final copy of the manuscript was approved by all authors.

Funding: This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation grant number INV-018617.

Disclaimer: The funders of had no role in the review design or the writing of the report.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

< Back to my filtered results

Literature review on school-related gender-based violence: how it is defined and studied

A review of the SRGBV literature serves several purposes. First, it identifies overarching SRGBV types or categories with the intent to assist researchers and the international development community to align more closely around common SRGBV definitions. Greater definitional agreement will contribute to the expansion of the evidence on effective SRGBV interventions and will allow for greater comparability of research, and the identification of research gaps. Second, this review provides a global overview of the common methodologies observed across SRGBV studies and evaluations and contributes to a clearer understanding of the research trends, strengths, and weaknesses for consideration when conducting studies and evaluations of SRGBV. The findings serve to better inform SRGBV prevention activities, future investigations of SRGBV and more effective measurement of SRGBV. Third, this review is informing USAID's development of a companion document, Conceptual Framework for Measuring School-Related Gender-Based Violence, that will provide development partners and researchers with a conceptual framework and measurement tools to inform programming and research protocols. Finally, a review of the methodologies used to examine SRGBV may provide guidance to policymakers, other program designers and researchers in many countries who are grappling with the same set of issues around SRGBV. The wide variety of sectors where SRGBV is studied underscores the comprehensive nature of the SRGBV issue and the broad base of factors that mediate its occurrence, manner of presentation, and intensity. Tapping into this broad literature base is important because it will extend the frame from which researchers and implementers design further investigations and prevention programs.

Improving gender equality will help end violence against women, but it’s only part of the puzzle

Research Fellow, La Trobe University

Disclosure statement

Stephanie Lusby is Research Manager with Respect Victoria.

La Trobe University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The spike in reports of women murdered by men this year has prompted widespread conversations across Australia about how we end gender-based violence . Much of this discussion has been about the importance of creating a more gender-equal society.

This then spurred conversations about the “ Nordic paradox ”. This theory questions why countries closer to achieving gender equality still report high rates of violence against women.

Countries such as Iceland elect more women to parliament, have more equitable parental leave policies and better pay parity, but have rates of violence similar to ostensibly less gender-equal countries.

At first glance, this seems an interesting contradiction. However, research informing Australian approaches is clear. These forms of gender parity are important, but they’re not enough to prevent violence against women on their own.

What is Australia doing?

In Australia, there’s a large focus on primary prevention, or stopping violence happening in the first place. This work happens alongside other prevention efforts that ensure perpetrators are helped to change their behaviour and keep survivors safe. This continuum is often talked about as fitting into three categories of effort : primary, secondary and tertiary prevention.

Primary prevention means changing the social conditions that allow gender-based violence to occur. This requires comprehensive effort across every setting where we live, work, play and learn, to address the gendered drivers of violence and the reinforcing factors that can make this violence more severe.

Secondary prevention, also called early intervention, aims to support people ( predominantly men ) who have used violence (or are at risk of doing so) from perpetrating further harm. Tertiary prevention is also referred to as crisis response. This category supports victim-survivors to get help, such as safe housing and emergency funds when escaping violence. It also includes men’s behaviour change programs and law and justice responses to perpetrators.

Work to address the gendered drivers of violence happens across all these categories. However, Australia’s National Plan to end violence against women rightly emphasises the importance of dedicated attention to primary prevention. Most primary prevention efforts in Australia draw on international evidence reviews , developed by Our Watch into a framework called Change the Story . This sets out four categories of gendered drivers of violence against women:

condoning of violence against women

men’s control of decision-making and limits to women’s independence in public and private life

rigid gender stereotyping and dominant forms of masculinity

male peer relations and cultures of masculinity that emphasise aggression, dominance and control.

Layers of complexity

Violence against women is a complex, multi-layered problem. These four categories overlap with drivers of other forms of structural discrimination. Ableism , colonialism and racism and heteronormativity and cisnormativity (building society around the idea that heterosexual and cisgender people are the norm) all add complexity.

Change the Story also highlights additional factors to consider, such as heavy alcohol use or backlash to gender equality.

Alone, these do not necessarily cause gender-based violence, but they do reinforce the likelihood that violence will occur or cause significant harm.

All these dynamics shape how gender-based violence is perpetrated and experienced by different cohorts of the community. Addressing these different needs, therefore, should be tailored and comprehensive.

This is already happening in many areas. Programs in faith-based organisations and different diasporic communities , women’s health networks and Aboriginal community-controlled organisations take this approach. So too do programs led by people with disability and those in LGBTQIA+ communities.

Measuring the wrong things

Primary prevention calls on everyone to help change social norms, while not losing sight of the need for broader structural change.

The multifaceted nature of these strategies means measuring success based only on the data used to construct the Nordic paradox is like critiquing a theatre performance purely on the set design. It’s important, but you must also consider the efforts of the playwrights, actors and directors when deciding whether the play is a success.

Studies used to inform the Nordic paradox report on measures of gender equality where progress is easier to track across more countries. Measures include who is accessing education and health services, who is going to work, who is in parliament, how much people are paid, and what laws are in place.

These play an important role in progressing efforts on the ground. Reducing structural barriers to things like women’s financial security, for example, makes a tangible difference.

However, such broad metrics can’t tell us how individual people react to such changes. They don’t provide insight into how reforms are administered and taken up. They don’t reveal whether men think violence against women is a problem or how people think they should behave in intimate relationships. Nor do they say anything about how men think about consent or pornography , or how men talk to each other about women.

Piecing the puzzle together

In Australia, there are different studies that build a more nuanced picture of progress to address all the drivers. These exist alongside tracking progress towards gender parity across measures considered in the Nordic paradox.

We measure change over time in attitudes towards gender equality and violence against women across Australia. There’s also work considering how men’s endorsement of harmful masculine norms shapes their attitudes towards women and gender-diverse people. This research provides crucial insight into where change is happening at a national level.

We also need to understand how and why progress is (or isn’t) made locally. We need to consider the effectiveness of all prevention initiatives, including respectful relationships education , equitable parenting initiatives and digital campaigns . We need more research to understand how, why and by whom violence is perpetrated .

We then need to bring all these separate pieces together to complete the puzzle. What’s the cumulative impact of all these programs and services, and how do they work together?

This kind of evaluation is a work in progress for Australia . However, we know from international examples that they can demonstrate powerful change .

Ending gender-based violence requires complex strategies informed by an evolving evidence base. This must include more than high-level gender parity measures.

• Domestic violence
• Gender inequality
• Violence against women
• Gender equality
• Family violence
• Gender-based violence
• Violence prevention
• Domestic violence support services

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Health Safety and Wellbeing Advisor

Social Media Producer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Senior Research Fellow - Curtin Institute for Energy Transition (CIET)

A systematic review of peer-reviewed gender literature in sustainability science

• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 15 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Elisabeth Frank 1 ,
• Rike Mühlhaus 2 ,
• Katinka Malena Mustelin 3 ,
• Esther Lara Trilken 4 ,
• Noemi Katalin Kreuz 5 ,
• Linda Catharine Bowes 6 ,
• Lina Marie Backer 7 &
• Henrik von Wehrden 8  

255 Accesses

Explore all metrics

We conducted a systematic review of the available peer-reviewed literature that specifically focuses on the combination of sustainability and gender. We analyzed the existing peer-reviewed research regarding the extent to which gender plays a role in the empirical literature, how this is methodologically collected and what understanding of gender is applied in those articles. Our aim is to provide an overview of the current most common fields of research and thus show in which areas gender is already being included in the sustainability sciences and to what extent and in which areas this inclusion has not yet taken place or has only taken place to a limited extent. We identified 1054 papers that matched our criteria and conducted research on at least one sustainable development goal and gender research. Within these papers (i), the overall number of countries where lead authors were located was very high (91 countries). While the majority of lead authors were located in the Global North, less than a third of the articles were led by authors located in the Global South. Furthermore, gender is often just used as a category of empirical analysis rather than a research focus. We were able to identify (ii) a lack in coherent framing of relevant terms. Often no definition of sustainability was given, and only the sustainability goals (SDGs or MDGs) were used as a framework to refer to sustainability. Both gender and sustainability were often used as key words without being specifically addressed. Concerning the knowledge types of sustainability, our expectation that system knowledge dominates the literature was confirmed. While a problem orientation dominates much of the discourse, only a few papers focus on normative or transformative knowledge. (iii) Furthermore, the investigated literature was mainly contributing to few SDGs, with SDG 5 ‘Gender Equality’ accounting for 83% of all contributions, followed by SDG 8 ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’ (21%), SDG 3 ‘Good Health and Well-being’ (15%) and SDG 4 ‘Quality Education’ (12%). We were additionally able to identify seven research clusters in the landscape of gender in sustainability science. (iv) A broad range of diverse methods was utilized that allow us to approximate different forms of knowledge. Yet within different research clusters, the spectrum of methodologies is rather homogeneous. (v) Overall, in most papers gender is conceptualized in binary terms. In most cases, the research is explicitly about women, running the risk that gender research in sustainability sciences grows into a synonym for women's studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends

Climate change effects on vulnerable populations in the Global South: a systematic review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The progression of climate change and further environmental degradation have direct ecological and social consequences that affect and will affect people differently according to different structures of social inequality (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014 ; Johnson et al. 2022 ; Thompson-Hall et al. 2016 ). This insight is important insofar as it sheds light on the fact that environmental problems and climate change will not have the same effects globally, but are context specific and related to power and domination structures (see contextualized vulnerability O’Brien et al. 2007 ) and must therefore be analyzed accordingly (Hackfort 2015 ; Johnson et al. 2022 ). However, sustainability science is not only dedicated to analyzing the problems that we will face as a result of ecological exploitation in ecological, social and economic terms, but also attempts to develop solution-oriented strategies and provide policy advice (von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). Therefore, it is equally important to reflect this power and domination-critical perspective in the search for solution options and to include different stakeholders (Malin and Ryder 2018 ). One specific issue that should be analyzed in connection with sustainability science problems and solution development is gender. As many studies have already shown, the effects of climate change and other problems resulting from the exploitation of natural resources have a gender-specific (Dankelman 2010 ; Denton 2002 ; MacGregor 2010 ) or intersectional impact (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014 ; Johnson et al. 2022 ; Thompson-Hall et al. 2016 ). Even though the unequal impacts of, e.g., climate change in terms of gender have been researched empirically in many areas such as agriculture (Agarwal 1998 ; Alston and Whittenbury 2013 ; Glazebrook et al. 2020 ), migration (Chindarkar 2012 ; Lama et al. 2021 ) and natural disasters (Enarson and Chakrabarty 2009 ; Neumayer and Plümper 2007 ), to date there has been no systematic recording of the research field of gender in the sustainability sciences. Our focus in this review is to give a broad overview of the current state of art regarding the topic of gender in sustainability science. We analyze the existing research regarding the extent to which gender plays a role in the empirical literature, how this is methodologically collected and what understanding of gender is applied in those articles. Our aim is to provide an overview of the currently most common fields of research and thus show in which areas gender is already being included in the sustainability sciences and to what extent and in which areas this inclusion has not yet taken place or has only taken place to a limited extent. Before describing our research focus in more detail, we first define our two main concepts, namely sustainability and gender.

We refer to sustainability based on the widely quoted definition by the Brundtland report from 1987 as meeting present needs without compromising the ability to compromise the needs of future generations (Brundtland 1987 ). Furthermore, our sustainability understanding includes an integrational perspective, also referred to as nested circles model, meaning that sustainability builds on economic, social and ecological dimensions that are interdependent and interconnected (Lozano 2008 ; Odrowaz-Coates 2021 ). In this framework in opposition to others, the economic and social pillars are not independent from the environmental dimension, but instead depend on it (Mebratu 1998 ).

Sustainability science addresses the challenges that threaten the long-term security of societal development conditions by distinguishing three levels that need to be researched: the systemic level to create system knowledge, the normative level to map out target knowledge and the operative level that aims to develop transformative knowledge (Brandt et al. 2013 ; Grunwald 2007 ; Michelsen and Adomßent 2014 ). System knowledge aims at describing and understanding a given social and/or ecological system via descriptive analysis. This often is disciplinary empirical research to analyze the dynamics, root causes and underlying mechanisms of the identified problem or system. System knowledge tries to reflect the current state of a system and its ability to change (Brandt et al. 2013 ; Grunwald 2007 ; von Wehrden et al. 2017 ; Wiek and Lang 2016 ). After identifying a problem and being able to describe it, target or normative knowledge is important to indicate the perception and direction of change. By asking what a desirable future situation could look like, target knowledge provides an orientation and an aim toward the development of solution options. This knowledge is normative since it asks which values are important when developing solutions to the identified problem (Grunwald 2007 ; von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). To then be able to address real-world place-based problems, transformative or action-oriented knowledge is necessary. By developing evidence-supported solutions, transformative knowledge offers possible transition paths from the current to the desirable situation (Grunwald 2007 ; von Wehrden et al. 2017 ; Wiek and Lang 2016 ). This action-oriented knowledge which aims at solving and mitigating the identified context-specific problem represents the main gap to this day (von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). While there are diverse and multi-faceted approaches in sustainability science (Clark and Harley 2019 ), we use the sustainable development goals as a lens of analysis. We agree that the conceptual foundation of sustainability is very diverse, and have mentioned the root literature above. However, the sustainable development goals can be seen as a main policy basis that currently attempts to shift the world toward a more sustainable development. While we agree that many conceptual foundations exist to this end, we focus on the SDGs since these contain a diversity of topical focuses, including gender.

Within the domain of sustainability, this review focuses on the diverse scientific literature published under the term of ‘gender’. We refer to gender as a historical construct consisting of attributes, norms, roles, opportunities, responsibilities and expectations that are socially, culturally and institutionally embedded and produce certain gender identities and social constructs (Arevalo 2020 ; Lieu et al. 2020 ; Mechlenborg and Gram-Hanssen 2020 ). Consequently, gender is not ‘given’ but learned and therefore dynamic and changing across a diverse and fluid spectrum (Curth and Evans 2011 ; Moyo and Dhliwayo 2019 ). Furthermore, we acknowledge the ‘intersectional’ nature of gender, i.e., the idea that one’s gendered experience of life overlaps and interacts with other axes of identity and systems of oppression (Richardson 2015 ).

Gender and environment

Now that we have defined the two core concepts of this article, sustainability and gender, we proceed to briefly summarize the state of research on gender in environmental and sustainability sciences. Before sustainability was declared a central part of international development in the 1990s and gender issues were incorporated in those development frameworks from the early 2000s, activists and researchers drew attention to the links between environmental degradation and gender inequality as early as the 1970s, with a particular focus on the disadvantages faced by women (Levy 1992 ; Mehta 2016 ). This early field of research called ecofeminism postulated an intrinsic relationship between women and nature based on their shared reproductive capacity (Majumdar 2019 ). Ecofeminism unites many currents and movements. Some of these take up an essentialist and biologistic understanding of gender, e.g., Shiva ( 1988 ), Mies and Shiva ( 1995 ), Agarwal ( 1992 ), Hackfort ( 2015 ). Women are understood as caring and nurturing by nature and at the same time suppressed by patriarchy as always being inferior and dominated by men (Agarwal 1992 ). Ecofeminists identified that the exploitation of women as well as of nature occurs in similar patterns, which is why it was assumed that "all women would have the same kind of sympathies and understandings of environmental change as a consequence of their close connection to nature [as well as their shared experience in exploitation]" (Majumdar 2019 , p. 72). Politically, these arguments and claims were taken up by the Women in Development (WID) approach which was adopted by many development agencies and NGOs in the 1970s. They argued that because of women's unique relationship with the environment as well as their particular affection by the effects of environmental degradation, women should receive special attention in global economic development (Levy 1992 ; Mehta 2016 ; Sasser 2018 ). Over the years, the arguments and theories of the essentialist view of ecofeminism outlined above have been widely criticized (e.g., Agarwal 1992 ). Many feminist researchers have pointed out that concepts of nature and gender are socially and historically constructed and not biologically determined (Agarwal 1992 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Levy 1992 ). Furthermore, the depiction of women as a unitary was declared insufficient, as gender must be considered and analyzed in combination with other forms of oppression such as race, class, caste and so on (Agarwal 1992 ; Häusler 1997 ; Levy 1992 ).

What is disputed, however, is not that the oppressive relationship between gender and nature exists, but how it is justified and how it should be responded to Gottschlich et al. ( 2022 ). One of the most recited critiques stems from the Indian economist Bina Agarwal ( 1992 ), who, instead of an essentialist derived connection between nature and gender, adopts a materialist perspective to describe the link between Indian women and the environment (Agarwal 1992 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ). Agarwal points out that a gendered and class-based organization of production, reproduction and distribution results in differential access to natural resources and ecological processes (Agarwal 1992 ). For example, women’s responsibility for certain natural resources is based on the gendered division of labor as well as class-specific ownership and property relations. This ascription can also be seen as dependence of women on these natural resources to make a living, which often entails a greater sensitivity to the respective ecological processes (Agarwal 1992 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Sasser 2018 ). Agarwal terms this research perspective ‘feminist environmentalism’ (Agarwal 1992 ). As a further development of feminist environmentalism, feminist political ecology (FPE) emerged in the 1990s, which takes a more holistic, intersectional perspective regarding gender on the connections between gender and nature (see for example Rocheleau et al. 1996 ; Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Sasser 2018 ). FPE focuses explicitly on gender-specific power relations, which are considered in their historical, political and economic contexts, as well as across a range of scales (Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Mehta 2016 ). Possible research foci include, for example, gender-specific access to natural resources and an intersectional and decolonial approach to environmental degradation and ecological change, as well as ecological conservation and sustainable development (Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Mehta 2016 ; Sasser 2018 ). FPE questions the so far dominating victimizing narratives and stereotypes of women often from the Global South and emphasize instead their agency in, for example, highlighting their resistance practices and activism (MacGregor 2020 ). As research from feminist environmentalism and feminist political ecology has broadened the perspective on the connections between gender and the environment, new approaches have also been sought at the international political level. The focus and programs now shifted toward gender and development (GAD) which addresses all genders. GAD approaches also acknowledge socially constructed gender roles as the cause for gender inequality and aim at creating different forms of empowerment from a grassroots, bottom-up perspective that includes, for example, women as active participants in development from the beginning (Sasser 2018 ). The last concept which we want to highlight is queer ecology that was developed from the 2010s onward, e.g., Mortimer-Sandilands and Erickson ( 2010 ). Queer ecology analyzes and critically reflects the dominant human–environment relationships in terms of the underlying heteronormative order of the gender binary. The queer perspective expands feminist political ecology by deconstructing the 'naturalness' of heterosexual desire and the associated heteronormative relations of reproduction and production. The queer theoretical perspective questions the heterosexual nuclear family as the basic economic unit of the household and instead expands the view of social re-production by focusing on queer care relationships (Bauhardt 2022 ; Hofmeister et al. 2012 ).

Gender and sustainability

Research integrating gender as well as insights and theories from gender studies into sustainability science is relatively new and as we will see is not yet an established cornerstone in this research field. Nevertheless, scholars so far have already presented some important aspects as to why and how gendered perspectives should be integrated into sustainability science. Both gender studies and sustainability science are inherently normative sciences. They aim both at system knowledge about existing inequalities and unsustainable structures and their causes, but at the same time also gaining transformational knowledge about how inequalities can be reduced and resolved to create a more just world (Hofmeister et al. 2012 ). Both research fields position themselves as inter- and transdisciplinary and furthermore conduct their research across different scales, spatial as well as temporal (Bürkner 2012 ; Jerneck et al. 2011 ; Martens 2006 ; Rodenberg 2009 ). Feminist analyses and the integration of gender into sustainability science can however help integrate social and historical contexts more comprehensively in the analysis of socio-ecological systems as well as contribute to the development of suitable policy instruments for reducing gender inequalities and expanding adaptive capacities by contributing a social science perspective (Hackfort 2015 ; Hofmeister et al. 2012 ; Littig 2002 ). Feminist scholarship especially enhances sustainability science research by including analysis of power relations. Research interests within sustainability science should uncover the prevalent power relations in nature–society relationships and deconstruct them at various levels (Hackfort 2015 ; Hofmeister et al. 2012 ). Furthermore, feminist analysis critiques the claims of objective, universal and (gender) neutral scientific research and instead emphasizes the generation of situated knowledge that adopts partial perspectives which cannot be understood in isolation from its context (Hofmeister et al. 2012 ).

While the concept of gender is already explored within some research areas of sustainability science literature (Eger et al. 2022 ; Khalikova et al. 2021 ; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2014 ), the current state of the art remains widely unclear (Gottschlich et al. 2022 ; Hackfort 2015 ).

Research interests

Thus, in this paper, we explore the heterogeneous research area of gender in sustainability science by means of a systematic literature review of the peer-reviewed literature to identify prevalent research foci, trends and gaps. We focus on five research interests outlined in the following.

Bibliometric indicators

Firstly, we create a bibliometric overview of the scientific literature on gender in sustainability, thereby giving an account of the geographic origins, contexts and affiliations of authors as well as geographic tendencies concerning both authorships and study locations. Moreover, we closely examine definitions and perceptions of gender within the given research. Here, we differentiate between two applications: (1) gender as a specific empirical category and (2) gender as the general research topic. We focus on analyzing whether articles use gender as one of several variables in their empirical research or focus on gender as a central research topic. Our aim here is to examine whether research to date has addressed gender in a rather superficial way or whether and in which cases deeper analyses of gender and sustainability are taking place.

Sustainability definitions

Our second research interest centers around specific definitions of sustainability, which we acknowledge to be diverse and often incoherent within the available literature. We examine which sustainability concepts are predominantly used in the reviewed articles as well as if and how sustainability is defined. By identifying the diverse understandings of sustainability within gender research, we explore the different ways that specific concepts of sustainability and gender are intertwined. In addition, we link these notions to the three knowledge types we described above, system, target and transformative knowledge. These different types of knowledge are all important when conducting transdisciplinary research as is done in sustainability science (Wiek and Lang 2016 ). They all fulfill important steps when approaching wicked problems such as climate change or gender equality and build the basis for a comprehensive understanding which is needed when dealing with multifaceted and complex problems (von Wehrden et al. 2017 ). Our research interest is to analyze what kind of knowledge there is already in regard to gender in sustainability science and to present a state of the art which knowledge types are prevalent and which need more attention in the future. To this end, we assume that systemic, descriptive knowledge (Brandt et al. 2013 ; CASS et al. 1997 ) is decreasing over time, yet still expect to find overall less papers creating target or transformative knowledge.

Sustainable development goals and gender equality

Thirdly, we focus our scope of research on articles linked to at least one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2015 ). Building on and extending the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs provide an umbrella of sectors which the examined research articles can be attributed to and/or associate themselves with. The SDGs were agreed on by the United Nations as “a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centered set of universal and transformative Goals and targets” (United Nations 2015 ). Applying the lens of the SDGs allows us to narrow down the range of articles related to sustainability, while acknowledging they do not provide an ultimate, but a prominent framework. In view of the SDGs as forming an entity of interlinked targets which are aimed at fostering simultaneous, overarching developments (Toth et al. 2022 ), we want to find out whether the papers are equally distributed to the SDGs or whether a few SDGs are dominating the discourse. This approach makes it possible to compare the number of research articles on gender associated with individual goals as well as to highlight clusters of SDGs which are prevalently mentioned together. By deriving research areas which are represented in a smaller share, we identify possible future areas to focus on.

In the fourth research interest, we concentrate on the methods used in the reviewed articles. Research within gender studies and feminist research are dominated by qualitative methods. Many scholars investigate their research interests regarding gender and gender equality by applying qualitative methods which document the subjects’ experiences and perspectives in their own terms (Gaybor 2022 ; Harcourt and Argüello Calle 2022 ). We determine clusters of methods used and how these connect to the knowledge types of sustainability and also to the respective SDGs that each article targets. Based on that, we are able to specify certain research clusters which can be grouped according to their generated knowledge and applied methods as well as thematic focus. This gives us information about which methods dominate in which research fields, to what extent they differ and which methods have not been used much to date.

Definition and understanding of gender

Finally, we aim to draw conclusions on definitions and understandings of gender in sustainability science and how these have changed over time. There cannot be a general historical account of the understanding of gender as it must always be specific to societies, cultures and regions of the world. For instance, the Western academic understanding of gender has undergone certain fundamental changes in the past century (Haig 2004 ; Muehlenhard and Peterson 2011 ). In this paper, we focus on two changes, namely (i) the constructivist turn which conceptualizes gender as not biologically determined in a binary of man and woman, but instead socially constructed (Fenstermaker 2013 ; West and Zimmerman 1987 ) and (ii) the acknowledgment of the ‘intersectional’ nature of gender (Bürkner 2012 ), i.e., the idea that one’s gendered experience of life overlaps and interacts with other axes of identity and systems of oppression (Crenshaw 1989 ; Richardson 2015 ). We explore if these important developments in the understanding of gender are reflected in the temporal distribution of the reviewed literature. Moreover, we detect correlations between (non-)binary, (non-)intersectional understandings of gender and research clusters/fields of sustainability.

In this review, we attempt to systematize a complex and heterogeneous field of research, which is why we are aware that this aim entails the risk of uncovering inconsistencies, renewing them or even creating them. We do not claim that our research interests and choice of methods are the ‘correct’ ones to systematically assess the topic of gender in sustainability science, but rather to provide an overview of which topics and methods have dominated the field of research to date, how these can be located in light of sustainability science concepts such as knowledge types or the SDGs as well as how individual international contributions can be used constructively for the further development of the subject area.

The paper is organized as follows. In section two, we describe the methods used, followed by the presentation of our results in section three. In section four, we discuss these results and give an account of their methodological limitations. Finally, we conclude by reflecting upon the results of this review and postulate future research implications.

Our systematic literature review was based on a quantitative bibliometric content analysis of the available literature. We thus created a broad overview of the state of the literature, with a particular focus on the key interests named in the introduction.

We identified articles via the Scopus database (Elsevier B.V 2020 ). Scopus was chosen as it contains natural science as well as social science articles. Additionally, Scopus allows for the search and preview of abstracts, which was helpful for conducting the systematic review.

We applied a search string containing the two words ‘gender AND sustainab*’. The initial search resulted in 5993 papers for the period of 1991–2021. We restricted our search to this time period because hardly any literature was available before, and most journals have no online record before. We excluded books, conference papers and book chapters and limited the review to articles that were published in English.

Inductively we created the following criteria: the included articles must

be able to be assigned to at least one SDG and

have gender as a research focus, and not only as a category of analysis.

Since the review focuses on gender in sustainability science, we needed at least two criteria for the inclusion of the articles. For one, the paper should make a clear link to sustainability, since this term is often used as a buzzword and we tried to exclude any literature that mentioned the concept only vaguely or in passing, such as in the first part of the introduction of the latter parts of the discussion. Regarding the first exclusion criteria, we decided to use the SDGs as one possible framework that reflects our understanding of sustainability science topics, and that can be seen as the current policy baseline. For our analysis, this meant in practical terms that we checked whether the topic of an article could be assigned to at least one SDG and, if so, which one. The extent to which the article addresses the SDGs themselves did not play a role here.

The second criterion to include a paper in the full-text analysis refers to the realization of gender. When conducting a pre-test with a random sample of articles, we realized that many articles just used gender as one of many variables in their empirical research and that the focus of the research question lay upon something completely different, where gender was a mere building block or one of many variables. To be able to narrow down our sample, we decided to only include articles that focus on gender as a central research interest. Therefore, we always read the respective abstracts to be able to determine whether a thorough research focus on gender was given or not.

Based on these criteria, we excluded 4959 articles. The remaining 1054 papers were coded according to the following five questions:

Does the article create system knowledge, target knowledge and/or transformative knowledge? The definitions for the three individual types of knowledge were extracted and applied from various articles, as already detailed in the introduction (see: Brandt et al. 2013 ; Grunwald 2007 ; Michelsen and Adomßent 2014 ).

Which SDGs can be assigned to the article? Which sustainability concepts and definitions were named?

Which methods were used in the article? We inductively grouped the respective methods into categories.

Does the article conceptualize gender as binary, as non-binary and/or as social constructs?

Does the article consider gender as the only category of analysis? Were further social categories addressed as well or is there an intersectional approach? Other social categories were specified in such cases.

A team of seven coders worked on the literature review in an iterative process. We coded the papers separately as well as together and clarified possible pitfalls in the criteria to minimize ambiguities. The respective categories were then summarized in a table which was the basis of all statistical analysis of the content.

Furthermore, we are interested in investigating whether there are specific research clusters within the domain of gender in sustainability science. Our aim is to identify the dominant fields of research that deal with gender and sustainability and to characterize these in more detail on the basis of the above-mentioned research interests. To derive groups out of the reviewed papers, we used a linguistic approach that classifies all papers into groups based on their word abundance. Within this analysis, we compiled all words in a document containing all papers, and the respective x–y table was clustered into groups according to Ward ( 1963 ). To visualize the respective groups, we used a detrended correspondence analysis (Abson et al. 2014 ), which allows for a descriptive analysis of the linguistic patterns of the literature. The groups were illustrated by significant indicator words that we identified by an indicator species analysis. Based on this multivariate linguistic approach, we derived seven unbiased groups of the reviewed literature, which are solemnly based on the word abundance of the papers. All statistical analyses were conducted with the R Statistical Software (v4.2.2; R Core Team 2022 ).

We identified a total of 1054 papers, out of which almost half were published after 2017 (48%) (Fig.  1 ).

Total numbers of papers published per year

While some journals contain a relatively high proportion of papers (e.g., Sustainability 65 articles, Gender and Development 31 articles, World Development 21 articles, Gender, Place and Culture 14 articles, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14 articles), there is no dominating journal, and articles are published in a total of 566 journals. Lead authors originate mainly from the USA (19.9%), UK (11.5%), Australia (5.8%), Canada (4.6%), India (4.5%), South Africa (4.4%), Spain (4.3%) and Germany (4.2%). Lead authors from Sweden, Netherlands, Nigeria, Italy, China, Austria, Indonesia, South Korea, Denmark, Turkey, Norway and Switzerland published more than 1%, but less than 4% of the papers. All other countries have less than 1% of the lead authors in proportion (see online appendix 1). These numbers must be interpreted particularly in the aspect that only English articles were included in the analysis.

The vast majority of the papers (844) are empirical, and 113 papers utilize gender as a category within the empirical analysis. Roughly, a third of all the articles analyze gender in combination with other social categories. The most researched intersection is between gender and class (also specified as income differences), followed by the intersection between gender and race. Concerning the utilization of the SDGs, 83% of all papers research on Gender Equality (SDG 5). Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8) is included in 20% of all papers. Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3) and Quality Education (SDG 4) are mentioned by about 15% of all papers. All other SDGs are mentioned by less than 10% of the papers (Table 1 ).

The majority of concrete definitions regarding sustainability built on the SDGs (137); the Millennium Goals are mentioned by some 40 papers, the Brundtland report by 23, Agenda 21 by 16, while all other frameworks such as the Kyoto protocol (2), national strategies (2), Rio declaration (2), IPCC (1), the Three Pillar Framework (1), Corporate Sustainability (1) and Club of Rome (1) are mentioned less often. Concerning the knowledge types, system knowledge clearly dominates, with stronger ties to normative knowledge and slightly weaker ties to transformative knowledge. All three types of knowledge are only achieved by few (31) papers (Fig. 2 ).

Distribution of knowledge types

Concerning the use of scientific methods, the most abundantly applied methods are literature reviews (22.5%), closely followed by interviews (22%). Statistical approaches are used by 12,7% of the papers, closely followed by methods of participatory research (10.4%), case study approaches (10.6%) and surveys (9.8%). Other methods are less abundantly used, including ethnographic approaches (3.6%), discourse or content analysis (2.7%) or systematic literature review (2.7%) (Fig. 3 ).

Percentage of papers using certain scientific methods

The majority of papers consider a binary gender understanding. While there was an increase in the absolute total number of papers that considered a socially constructed gender understanding overall, the proportion of papers falling into this category did decrease.

In the following section, we introduce the different groups derived from multivariate analysis, and present key characteristics of the individual groups (Fig.  4 ).

Research clusters with number of relevant contributions and the five most significant words that statistically indicate the research clusters

Cluster 1: gender equality and institutions

The first cluster, which contains 207 papers, emerged first in 1991 and is thus the oldest cluster. The proportion of articles displays a diverse activity, having peaked in 2020. The research focuses on the institutional commitment toward gender equality (Hennebry et al. 2019 ; Kalpazidou Schmidt et al. 2020 ; Larasatie et al. 2020 ). The topical focus encompasses entrepreneurship (Kamberidou 2020 ; Kravets et al. 2020 ; Vershinina et al. 2020 ), especially concerning the empowerment of women in social enterprises (Allen et al. 2019 ; Benítez et al. 2020 ; Green 2019 ), yet also research regarding peace building (Adjei 2019 ; Kim 2020 ; Turner 2020 ), foreign policy (Agius and Mundkur 2020 ; Cohn and Duncanson 2020 ) and security (Curth and Evans 2011 ; Mahadevia and Lathia 2019 ; Rothermel 2020 ) is conducted. These focal points are reflected in the usage of the most mentioned SDGs, 8 (decent work), 10 (reduced inequalities), and 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). About one-quarter of the articles channel sustainability through SDGs and MDGs or the Brundtland report as well as the Agenda 21. The research questions of nearly all articles aim at generating system knowledge, yet more than half of them also create normative knowledge. Besides gender, half of the papers include other social categories in their analysis, mostly focusing on class, race, sexuality and ethnicity. A binary gender framing is mainly used, yet one-quarter of the articles acknowledge gender to be a social construct. Most of the papers are qualitative case studies utilizing interviews or ethnographic approaches.

Cluster 2: gender in health and well-being

The second cluster, consisting of 165 papers, emerged in 2003 and is closely related to the first and the 6th cluster. The topical focus of this cluster is on health equity and the impacts of gender on health services (Manandhar et al. 2018 ; Scheer et al. 2016 ; Thresia 2018 ), for instance concerning the evaluation or assessment of health programs (Friedson-Ridenour et al. 2019 ; Williams et al. 2009 ). Next to barrier identification (Kennedy et al. 2020 ; Sawade 2014 ; Sciortino 2020 ) and empowerment strategy assessment (Maluka et al. 2020 ; Plouffe et al. 2020 ; Yount et al. 2020 ), system knowledge is created through qualitative assessment strategies such as methods of participatory research and interviews. A considerable number of papers discussed health equity also in terms of motherhood, especially maternal health and maternal mortality rates were covered often (Klugman et al. 2019 ; Morgan et al. 2017 ). One-quarter of the articles reference sustainability through SDGs and MDGs. About one-third of the articles also apply other social categories in their analysis, mostly adding the concept of class but also ethnicity, race and religion. While the papers in this cluster widely build on a binary gender framework, many concern gender inequalities, especially aiming at low- and middle-income countries and communities.

Cluster 3: gendered access to resources

Cluster number three, which contains 244 papers, started to emerge in 1995, with the majority of papers being published between 2017 and 2020. According to the word abundance analysis, this cluster partly overlaps with cluster number two and six. On the one hand, the papers in this cluster focus on the assessment of inequalities and gender-specific barriers. Specifically, they examine the structural discrimination as well as underrepresentation of women in certain areas (Crockett and Cooper 2016 ; Ennaji 2016 ; Lama et al. 2017 ; Woodroffe 2015 ). Two areas that are analyzed most often are the limited access to specific natural resources respective institutions such as water (Andajani-Sutjahjo et al. 2015 ; Pandya and Shukla 2018 ; Singh and Singh 2015 ), energy (Burney et al. 2017 ), education (Ansong et al. 2018 ) and healthcare (Rivillas et al. 2018 ; Theobald et al. 2017 ). Secondly, the limited and ineffective opportunities to participate in decision-making processes, for example, in politics (Dyer 2018 ; Lama et al. 2017 ; Sindhuja and Murugan 2018 ), agriculture (Azanaw and Tassew 2017 ) and at the workplace (Limuwa and Synnevåg 2018 ; Rohe et al. 2018 ). The identification of different challenges which women face in regard to participation and representation clash with the fact that the women in these cases often bear the responsibility for survival and sustainability of the respective community (Belahsen et al. 2017 ; Garutsa and Nekhwevha 2016 ; Limuwa and Synnevåg 2018 ; Rohe et al. 2018 ). Apart from this problem-oriented focus creating system knowledge, quite many articles in this cluster offer evidence-based recommendations and solution strategies on how to improve those inequalities by suggesting possible areas of intervention such as enforcing legislation, mentorship, quotas, financial inclusion, etc. (Ansong et al. 2018 ; Appiah 2015 ; Burney et al. 2017 ; Mello and Schmink 2017 ; Saviano et al. 2017 ). The authors emphasize that adaptation strategies and policy-making must be gender sensitive and critically reflect gender-specific circumstances, vulnerabilities and experiences (Garai 2016 ; Rakib et al. 2017 ; Rivillas et al. 2018 ; Shanthi et al. 2017 ; Theobald et al. 2017 ). Some papers channel sustainability through SDGs and MDGs or the Brundtland report as well as the Agenda 21. About 50 papers focus on class or caste, race, ethnicity and religion as categories apart from gender. A binary gender framing is mostly used, and studies are predominantly qualitative case studies utilizing interviews, surveys or methods of participatory research.

Cluster 4: gender inequality in public infrastructure

Cluster four contains 191 papers with first publications in 1997 and the majority of the papers being published between 2017 and 2020. The thematic focus of this cluster lies upon gender inequality in public infrastructure. The articles mainly apply a problem-oriented lens while addressing different areas of gender discrimination in which safe, affordable and sustainable access to certain institutions of public infrastructure is not given. Three areas are analyzed most often: gendered mobility investigates gender differences in travel patterns and modal split (Abasahl et al. 2018 ; Winslott Hiselius et al. 2019 ; Kawgan-Kagan 2020 ; Le et al. 2019 ; Mitra and Nash 2019 ; Polk 2003 ), gendered barriers in public transportation (Al-Rashid et al. 2020 ; Malik et al. 2020 ; Montoya-Robledo and Escovar-Álvarez 2020 ) as well as gender discrimination within transport planning and policy-making (Kronsell et al. 2016 , 2020 ; Wallhagen et al. 2018 ). The second area discusses gendered access to healthcare, mostly referring to services providing counseling and treatment for victims of gender-based violence (Betron et al. 2020 ; Minckas et al. 2020 ; Prego-Meleiro et al. 2020 ), sexual and reproductive health rights (Bosmans et al. 2008 ; Lince-Deroche et al. 2019 ; Loganathan et al. 2020 ) and HIV prevention as well as treatment (Gómez 2011 ; Ssewamala et al. 2019 ). The third area analyzes gendered access to education (Burridge et al. 2016 ; Islam and Siddiqui 2020 ). The majority of the papers create systemic knowledge. Notably, many papers are published in the journal ‘Sustainability’ and several articles contain ‘women’ in the papers’ title. A few articles reference sustainability by mentioning the SDGs and the Brundtland report. About 40 papers mention interlinkages with other types of social categories and do not solely focus on gender in their analysis. The gender framing is mostly binary. The methodology in this cluster utilizes most often literature reviews or case studies conducting interviews or surveys.

Cluster 5: gender inequalities in agricultural systems

This cluster consists of 102 papers, and dates back to 1995. Since 2017, its contribution is slowly increasing. The research within this cluster can be grouped into four aspects and widely generates system knowledge. The majority of the research focuses on gender roles and how these influence interactions with(in) local systems such as forestry (Benjamin et al. 2018 ; Nhem and Lee 2019 ; Stiem and Krause 2016 ), agriculture (Drafor et al. 2005 ; Ergas 2014 ; Fischer et al. 2017 ), fisheries (Tejeda and Townsend 2006 ; Szymkowiak and Rhodes-Reese 2020 ; Torell et al. 2019 ), water (Imburgia 2019 ; Singh 2006 , 2008 ) and the energy sector (Buechler et al. 2020 ; Stock 2021 ; Wiese 2020 ). One topical focus is about participation of women in decision-making and planning processes (Ihalainen et al. 2020 ; Mulema et al. 2019 ; Pena et al. 2020 ). Another focus aims at gender differences in climate adaptation and conservation strategies (Abdelali-Martini et al. 2008 ; Rao et al. 2020 ; Wekesah et al. 2019 ). Furthermore, many papers investigate challenges women face in (agricultural) resource control and management (Badstue et al. 2020 ; Pehou et al. 2020 ) as well as in the access to markets and the distribution of land (Holden and Tilahun 2020 ; Meinzen-Dick et al. 1997 ). Lastly, a considerable number of papers discuss gendered climate vulnerabilities and risk management (Friedman et al. 2019 ; Yadav and Lal 2018 ; Ylipaa et al. 2019 ). These research interests are also reflected in the mentioned SDGs, which are 15 (life on land), 8 (decent work), 2 (zero hunger) and 1 (no poverty). Only very few papers channel sustainability through SDGs and MDGs. About one-third of the articles also include other social categories in their research, mostly adding the concept of class but also religion, age, race and ethnicity. Regarding the understanding of gender about 10% perceive gender to be a social and cultural construct and only one mentions a non-binary understanding of gender. The majority of the papers conduct qualitative case studies, often combined with interviews, surveys or methods of participatory research. Papers within this cluster mostly report about local projects conducted in low- and middle-income countries of the Global South.

Cluster 6: inclusion of gender equality in sustainable development

Cluster six contains 45 articles and emerged in 1992. The number of published papers within this cluster fluctuated widely over the years, yet since 2019 the proportional contribution is slowly increasing. In contrast to the other clusters, the papers in this group are not centered around a certain topic, but rather focus on a general discussion regarding the inclusion of gender issues in research on sustainable development, yet here scholars mainly apply problem-oriented empirical research on gender inequalities, discrimination and biases often on a national scale. Those gender inequalities are often referred to as gender gap and focus mostly on political representation (Azmi 2020 ; Kreile 2005 ; Purwanti et al. 2018 ; von Dach 2002 ), access to education (Assoumou-ella 2019 ; Cortina 2010 ; Cheng and Ghajarieh 2011 ; Suvarna et al. 2019 ) and participation in natural resource management (Sasaki and Chopin 2002 ; Valdivia and Gilles 2001 ; Yadav and Sharma 2017 ). These topical areas also overlap with the mentioned SDGs, 4 (quality education), 8 (decent work), 3 (good health and well-being) and 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Gender equality is thus highlighted as one of the most important tasks in sustainable development. A few articles reference sustainability by mentioning the SDGs and the Brundtland report. About 20% of the articles also add further social categories apart from gender when analyzing inequalities in sustainable development. Besides gender, most of these focus on race and class. While a mere half of the papers in this cluster are conceptual, the rest conduct mainly qualitative case studies utilizing interviews, surveys and methods of participatory research. Studies range across the global and the country or local level.

Cluster 7: gender diversity and corporate performance

The last cluster is a recently emerging research area with contributions starting from the year 2016 onward. The 44 contributions in this cluster focus on human resource characteristics, primarily the gender diversity of boards (Orazalin and Baydauletov 2020 ; Romano et al. 2020 ; Xie et al. 2020 ) and the sustainable performance of firms or other organizations (Burkhardt et al. 2020 ; Mungai et al. 2020 ; Ozordi et al. 2020 ). The cluster as such is very homogenous with many contributions sharing similarly phrased research questions and a local approach that is reflected in either the focus on organizations in a certain geographic region or of a specific economic sector. This is also reflected in the most often mentioned SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth). Nevertheless, two research angles can be differentiated within this cluster which both contribute to create system knowledge: one angle investigates the relationship between gender representation and indicators of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Tapver et al. 2020 ; Valls et al. 2020 ; Yarram and Adapa 2021 ), corporate environmental performance or specific sustainable policies (Birindelli et al. 2019 ; Elmagrhi et al. 2018 ; García Martín and Herrero 2020 ), while another more economic angle investigates the relationship between gender representation and the limitation of risks for ‘sustainable’ i.e., continuous growth (Gudjonsson et al. 2020 ; Loukil et al. 2019 ; Suciu et al. 2020 ). In their findings, most papers tend to highlight gender-(binary-)based differences in morality or ethics. There is no intersectional approach or other social categories in the articles, as well as nearly no sustainability references. The majority of the papers conducted quantitative research utilizing statistics.

In the introduction, we set out five research interests for this systematic literature review. Based on the research clusters, we revisit these focal points and embed our findings into the current debate.

(i) Regarding bibliometric data, while the overall number of countries with lead authors is very high with 91 countries, there is a tendency that the majority of lead authors are from the Global North, and less than a third of the articles are led by authors located in the Global South. This depicts an overall determined imbalance of publication origins as shown by Blicharska et al. ( 2017 ), Collyer ( 2018 ), Jeffery ( 2014 ), Karlsson et al. ( 2007 ) and Rokaya et al. ( 2017 ). Previous accounts found a domination of SDG-related publications from European regions (Sweileh 2020 ). Within our analysis, all of the countries from which most lead authors come are listed OECD countries and can thus be described as belonging widely to the Global North (Blicharska et al. 2017 ), underlining the data gap between the Global North and the Global South (Karlsson et al. 2007 ). A comparable imbalance was found regarding the countries most affected by climate change which are equally underrepresented in environmental science (Blicharska et al. 2017 ). This is even more pronounced since researchers from the Global North tend to hold higher posts within research teams, compared to those from the Global South (Jeffery 2014 ). Such power imbalances can, however, be tackled by a higher contextual transparency in the research conduct (Maina-Okori et al. 2018 ), and other SDG-aimed research reviews show a similar bias toward the European regions (Sweileh 2020 ), while for instance SDG 5 was least researched in the Western Pacific regions. Deeper contextual information is often omitted in research papers due to the demand in brevity; there are counterexamples that incorporate the author's background into the research context (Maina-Okori et al. 2018 ).

The proportion of papers that utilizes gender as a research focus was less than 10% and thus relatively low. Based on the word-driven analysis, we identify clear groups differentiated based on the topical focus, methodological approaches and theoretical foundation. The literature ranges from rather qualitative and discourse-oriented approaches to more survey and interview-driven literature. A second gradient in the literature ranges across different systems, for instance from agricultural systems to different organizations and their development.

(ii) Concerning our second research interest, we identify a lack in coherent framing of relevant terms. Often no definition of sustainability is given, and only the sustainability goals (SDGs or MDGs) are used as a framework to refer to sustainability. With other diverse sources such as the Brundtland report and the WCED 1987 as well as the Agenda 21 and the Rio Conference 1992 being cited to define the sustainability understanding of the respective paper, it is clear that a coherent and uniting framing of sustainability science is still lacking in this specific scientific literature. After all, these sources are quite old, and much has been published since (e.g., Clark 2007 , etc.). One article we want to highlight that situates itself both within sustainability science and includes a gendered perspective is by Ong et al. ( 2020 ). They classified their research on queer identities within tourism and leisure research as social sustainability, arguing that social sustainability advocates equal opportunities and human rights for both individual and social well-being (Ong et al. 2020 ). Another paper which we want to mention is that by Maina-Okori et al. ( 2018 ) because it argues from a perspective that was taken up very little by the analyzed articles. They call for the inclusion of Black feminist thought and Indigenous knowledge in sustainability science research as well as the reflection on colonial history, which is not given enough attention in research on climate protection, education for sustainable development or land use rights. Concerning the knowledge types of sustainability (systemic, normative and transformative), our expectation that system knowledge widely dominates the literature was confirmed, with a combination of systemic and normative as well as systemic and transformative knowledge being also abundantly published. We cautiously interpret this as a reflection of the research we investigated on partial knowledge, while an overarching integration of knowledge types is needed for many of the sustainability challenges we face, including the ones associated with gender. While a problem orientation dominates much of the discourse, only few papers focus on normative or transformative knowledge. In their paper on environmental justice in urban mobility decision-making, for instance, Chavez-Rodriguez et al. ( 2020 ) combined all three knowledge types. First, they dismantled how discourses and narratives on urban mobility are often socially exclusionary and reproduce patterns of marginalization (systemic knowledge). They then argued that environmental justice as an intersectional system must include mobility justice (normative knowledge). In the end, they proposed a framework definition of ‘queering the city’ which shall help to create a more emancipatory narrative on urban mobility (transformative knowledge) (Chavez-Rodriguez et al. 2020 ). However, the small proportion of papers doing this indicates a lack of an overarching perspective when it comes to the diverse knowledge types, which can be considered relevant to overcome the problems we face globally.

(iii) Concerning the third research interest, the investigated literature mainly contributed to few SDGs, with SDG 5 ‘Gender Equality’, SDG 8 ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’, SDG 3 ‘Good Health and Well-being’ and SDG 4 ‘Quality Education’ being in the main focus. All other SDGs were mentioned by less than 10% of the papers. This underlines that most scientific papers are rather focused than holistic when viewed through an SDG perspective. While no research can meaningfully engage with all SDGs, we would propose that a wider coverage of other SDGs to be engaging more in gender research would be beneficial.

Furthermore, SDGs are often mentioned as a boundary framework while missing the chance to deeply engage with the conceptual foundation or purpose of the SDG framework. Within the vast majority of papers, the SDGs are referred to as a means to the end of positioning the research within a current discourse. In other words, many papers do not work with the SDGs to contribute toward its strategies and solutions, but instead to simply be affiliated to the broad movement of sustainable development. This reference often takes place in the introduction or conclusion of the paper and is of no importance in the actual research. This gives the impression that the popularity of the SDGs, which goes beyond the discourse of sustainability science, is used to categorize or identify one's own research within the light of sustainability.

However, there are many constructive contributions toward a critical perspective on the integration of the Sustainable Development Goals. Ong et al. ( 2020 ) highlight that queer identities are not included within the SDGs, yet they relate their research to several SDGs such as SDG 5, 10, 11 and 16. They argued that “these goals demonstrate the centrality of inclusivity to the development of sustainable communities'' (Ong et al. 2020 , p. 1477). Poku et al. ( 2017 ) went one step further and postulated the need to queer the SDGs by linking opportunities for addressing social exclusion for LGBTI in Africa to the SDGs.

(iv) Based on the set of the literature we analyzed, all in all, gender and sustainability research utilize a broad range of methods that allow for different forms of knowledge (Spangenberg 2011 ). However, we find strong links between specific methods and certain areas of sustainability within the emerging groups within the identified literature. For example, nearly all research in cluster seven, which focuses on corporations and economy, uses a quantitative statistical approach, while other clusters are defined by qualitative methods and lack quantitative ones. This methodological homogeneity within certain research clusters highlights already established preferences for certain methods in specific fields of research, disciplines and focal topics where some methods are more adequate than others. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of gender and sustainability, however, we critically regard these links as they often emerge from previously existing research traditions and thus lack methodological plurality.

(v) Within the examined literature, the two investigated understandings of gender, namely non-binarity and intersectionality, are differently acknowledged and incorporated in the reviewed literature. Very few authors challenge the gender binary approaches within the considered scientific articles, where less than a fifth of the papers considered gender to be socially constructed (14%) or non-binary (5%). While the vast majority of papers do not explicitly state that they build on a binary understanding of gender, they nevertheless replicate or suggest a binarity in their focus and/or empirical categorization that clearly indicates a binary division. Moreover, some papers put forward ethical or moral differences in men and women when it comes to sustainability. For example, some researchers are led by gender assumptions which often originate from the field of eco-feminism such as women being more caring of the environment, since they have a natural disposition to care and to being a mother (Brough et al. 2016 ; Lau et al. 2021 ). When such proposals do not pay attention to gender norms and power imbalances, they run the risk of further naturalizing the gender binarity as ‘immutable biological differences’ (Lau et al. 2021 ). Lastly, we find that gender differences are nearly always illustrated on behalf of women. While an explicit focus on women’s lives in research can be useful and necessary, it should not be limited to it. A narrow focus on women excludes many other genders from research and can furthermore evoke the assumption that gender equality and sustainability are ‘women’s issues’ (Lau et al. 2021 ).

No pattern regarding the temporal increase or decrease of non-binary or socially constructed gender understanding can be found in the body of literature examined by us, in absolute numbers or in proportions.

In summary, theories and findings from gender studies like the constructivist turn and queer theory as well as intersectionality are yet to permeate the field of sustainability research.

Within the examined research, there is clearly a limited acknowledgment of intersectionality, with less than a third of all articles using other social categories apart from gender in their analysis or applying even an intersectional approach. Intersectionality was thus applied in diverse research cluster groups underlining the importance for a diverse methodological approach to investigate intersectionality (Rice et al 2019 ). Intersectionality is most frequently addressed in the research cluster focusing on gender and institutions, meaning that this literature named and utilized the concept. We refrained from making a deeper analysis of whether more than one social category was analyzed, which would demand a deeper text analysis. We refrained from such interpretation, because due to the short form of peer-reviewed papers such information is often omitted or not coherently reported. However, intersectionality often is hardly mentioned in the analyzed papers, neither as a word nor as a concept. Instead, different identity categories than gender are merely used to further characterize the research subject(s). For instance, Theobald et al. ( 2017 ) referred to intersectionality in their research regarding gender mainstreaming within health and neglected tropical diseases, highlighting the impact of gender on health issues while acknowledging the intersection of gender with other axes of inequality. They illustrated how dimensions of gender interact with poverty, (dis)ability, occupation, power, geography and other individual positionalities in shaping impacts on health and care programs (Theobald et al. 2017 ).

The concept of intersectionality is applied on a diversity of topics. As Rice et al. ( 2019 ) point out, there is also “no single method for undertaking intersectional research. It can be used with many methods and approaches, quantitative and qualitative” (Rice et al. 2019 , p. 418). In addition to previously mentioned example papers from our analysis focusing on tourism as well as sustainability education, there are suggestions to match the SDGs with an intersectional conceptualization (Stephens et al. 2018 ; Zamora et al. 2018 ). Similarly, attempts to integrate intersectionality to other long standing policy communities such as global health exist (Theobald et al. 2017 ). Hardy et al. ( 2020 ) integrate the concept into research on indigenous youth. Such papers showcase the strong connectivity of the concept to many different branches of research. By integrating diverse voices, showcasing how injustices are intertwined and that different reasons for injustices amplify each other, intersectionality can serve as a strong foundational concept within sustainability science (Maina-Okori et al. 2018 ). Our review showcases that the majority of papers focusing on gender do not utilize the concept. Within the analyzed literature, overall citation rates are comparably low and the most highly cited papers do not utilize the concept. In summary, intersectionality has not fully reached the sustainability science community as of yet.

Before we come to our final conclusions, we would like to again reflect upon our positionality as scholars researching this topic. We recognize that we as scholars have a highly privileged position in academia as well as the world, both regarding resources and the institutions at which we are working in that make our voices heard. We would like to use this position to address the existing power dynamics within sustainability science to other equally privileged scholars. We hope to reflect upon and challenge the deeply embedded power structures within Western academic knowledge production as well as considering the role gender inclusive and intersectional approaches can play in addressing sustainability problems. This paper is a mere attempt to grasp the research that has so far been conducted upon gender in sustainability science, and from our end a definitive work in progress. Yet, this is then also the ultimate goal in writing this paper, to progress, even if it is only one step at a time.

Finally, we would like to give an outlook on what findings have been published in the period following our research period. For this purpose, we again entered our search string in the Scopus database and searched for articles on gender in sustainability science for the period January 2021 to October 2022. This search yielded a further 2.304 articles after applying our exclusion criteria. To narrow the analysis, we sorted these results by citation and looked at the articles with the highest citations. This cursory scan reveals that many papers consider gender only as an empirical category of analysis, and that these are thematically related to the field of economics and health, for example, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. Only a few focus on gender as a central research interest. These results also largely coincide with the results of this review. As a perspective, we would like to highlight the COVID-19 pandemic once again, because the analyses and studies that have been conducted in connection with gender can shed new light on the role of gender during global crises and are therefore an important contribution to sustainability science.

We have systematically examined the development and state of research focusing on gender in sustainability science by means of a quantitative analysis of 1054 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2021. Our analysis clearly illustrates that while a diverse body of literature on gender exists within sustainability science, several research clusters with different focal points are emerging. As all these branches of the literature utilize diverse methodological approaches and different conceptual foundations; there is a lack of a more holistic integration of the topic within the broader literature. While the word “holistic” is a clearly big claim, we can underline based on our review that conceptual foundations, definitions and agreement on the most simple terms and procedures are lacking to this day, while at the same time the problems of gender issues are mounting.

It is highly likely that the recent surge in literature will increase. Thus, we put forward five tangible suggestions on how the research community could further evolve below.

Although a research focus on gender will not solve the prevalent problem of postcolonial research structures, an increasing diversity of voices with different backgrounds would bring forth new and diverse knowledge. At this point, we would like to draw particular attention to the theories and bodies of knowledge of Black feminists, as well as Indigenous knowledge and decolonial approaches.

We advise the research community to build on distinct definitions of sustainability as well as to put a strong focus on the contribution toward solutions for sustainability challenges. The creation of descriptive-analytical system knowledge which outlines the current status quo of gender equality with regards to sustainability and points out many current problems is a necessary and helpful first step. Yet, knowing the mechanics and causes of a problem does not translate into knowing how to approach and move toward a state of more equality. We therefore urge scholars to also apply a solution-oriented perspective in their research regarding gender in sustainability science.

Moreover, although there is seemingly much research that discusses gender issues, only a low proportion of those papers actively engage with gender on an empirical level. To achieve the goal of a world with less inequalities, more research should enable deep normative understandings of diverse and inclusive recognitions of gender identities and associated social, economic and cultural consequences as well as investigate pathways of transformation and sustainable change. While such normative claims may facilitate ethical evaluations, more work is needed to enable an inclusive understanding of the context of such evaluations.

All in all, the emerging research clusters showcase that there are engaged researchers that focus on gender within sustainability science. However, there are gaps between the clusters where for example a recognition of intersectionality would hold benefits for more researchers, and a higher methodological plurality may benefit knowledge production, to name two examples. What is clear is that within sustainability science, gender issues are widely ignored to this day, and based on the systematic review we conducted, we can encourage more research on gender issues and diversity.

When gender is integrated as an analytical foundation or a concept associated with gender is being utilized within sustainability science, the critical perspective that the academic field of gender studies has developed over the past decades is seldom integrated, e.g., theories on the social construction of gender, queer theory and Black feminist theory. The concept of intersectionality should especially be further acknowledged, as it may shed a stronger light on perceived and endured injustices and give hope for a greater involvement of researchers not only to investigate these issues, but also to help to overcome them.

While our review only focuses on peer-reviewed literature and thus can only offer a specific perspective, we hope yet to offer a contribution to the bigger picture, thereby creating a link between gender and sustainability.

Abasahl F, Kelarestaghi KB, Ermagun A (2018) Gender gap generators for bicycle mode choice in Baltimore college campuses. Travel Behav Soc 11:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.01.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Abdelali-Martini M, Amri A, Ajlouni M, Assi R, Sbieh Y, Khnifes A (2008) Gender dimension in the conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity in West Asia. J Socio-Econ 37(1):365–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2007.06.007

Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.01

Adjei M (2019) Women’s participation in peace processes: a review of literature. J Peace Educ 16(2):133–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1576515

Agarwal B (1992) The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. Fem Stud 18(1):119–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217

Agarwal B (1998) The gender and environment debate. In: Roger K, Bell D, Penz P, Leeson F (eds) Political ecology. Global and local. London/New York, pp 193–219

Agius C, Mundkur A (2020) The Australian Foreign Policy White Paper, gender and conflict prevention: ties that don’t bind. Aust J Int Aff 74(3):282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2020.1744518

Allen E, Lyons H, Stephens JC (2019) Women’s leadership in renewable transformation, energy justice and energy democracy: redistributing power. Energy Res Soc Sci 57:101233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101233

Al-Rashid MA, Nahiduzzaman KM, Ahmed S, Campisi T, Akgün N (2020) Gender-responsive public transportation in the Dammam metropolitan region, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 12(21):9068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219068

Alston M, Whittenbury K (eds) (2013) Research, action and policy. In: Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change. Springer, Dordrecht, New York

Andajani S, Chirawatkul S, Saito E (2015) Gender and water in Northeast Thailand: inequalities and women’s realities. J Int Women’s Stud 16(2):200–212

Google Scholar  

Ansong D, Renwick CB, Okumu M, Ansong E, Wabwire CJ (2018) Gendered geographical inequalities in junior high school enrollment: do infrastructure, human, and financial resources matter? J Eco Stud 45(2):411–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-10-2016-0211

Appiah EM (2015) Affirmative action, gender equality, and increased participation for women, which way for Ghana? Statut Law Rev 36(3):270–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmv016

Arevalo JA (2020) Gendering sustainability in management education: research and pedagogy as space for critical engagement. J Manag Educ 44(6):852–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920946796

Assoumou-Ella G (2019) Gender inequality in education and per capita GDP: the case of CEMAC countries. Econ Bull. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3391773

Azanaw A, Tassew A (2017) Gender equality in rural development and agricultural extension in Fogera District, Ethiopia: implementation, access to and control over resources. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 17(4):12509–12533. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.80.16665

Azmi Z (2020) Discoursing women’s political participation towards achieving sustainable development: the case of women in Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). Kajian Malaysia 38(1):67–88. https://doi.org/10.21315/km2020.38.s1.5

Badstue L, Petesch P, Farnworth CR, Roeven L, Hailemariam M (2020) Women farmers and agricultural innovation: marital status and normative expectations in rural Ethiopia. Sustainability 12(23):9847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239847

Bauhardt C (2022) Queer ecologies. In: Gottschlich D, Hackfort S, Schmitt T, von Winterfeld U (eds) Handbuch Politische Ökologie: Theorien, Begriffe, Konflikte, Methoden. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, pp 427–432

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Belahsen R, Naciri K, El Ibrahimi A (2017) Food security and women’s roles in Moroccan Berber (Amazigh) society today. Matern Child Nutr 13:e12562. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12562

Benítez B, Nelson E, Romero Sarduy MI, Ortiz Perez R, Crespo Morales A, Casanova Rodriguez C et al (2020) Empowering women and building sustainable food systems: a case study of cuba’s local agricultural Innovation Project. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:554414. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.554414

Benjamin EO, Ola O, Buchenrieder G (2018) Does an agroforestry scheme with payment for ecosystem services (PES) economically empower women in sub-Saharan Africa? Ecosyst Serv 31:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.004

Betron M, Thapa A, Amatya R, Thapa K, Arlotti-Parish E, Schuster A et al (2020) Should female community health volunteers (FCHVs) facilitate a response to gender-based violence (GBV)? A mixed methods exploratory study in Mangalsen, Nepal. Glob Public Health 16(10):1604–1617. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1839929

Birindelli G, Iannuzzi AP, Savioli M (2019) The impact of women leaders on environmental performance: evidence on gender diversity in banks. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26(6):1485–1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1762

Blicharska M, Smithers RJ, Kuchler M, Agrawal GK, Gutiérrez JM, Hassanali A, Huq S, Koller SH, Marjit S, Mshinda HM, Masjuki HH, Solomons NW, van Staden J, Mikusiński G (2017) Steps to overcome the North-South divide in research relevant to climate change policy and practice. Nat Clim Change 7(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3163

Bosmans M, Nasser D, Khammash U, Claeys P, Temmerman M (2008) Palestinian women’s sexual and reproductive health rights in a longstanding humanitarian crisis. Reprod Health Matters 16(31):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(08)31343-3

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

Brough AR, Wilkie JEB, Ma J, Isaac MS, Gal D (2016) Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. J Consum Res 43(4):567–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044

Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future: report of the World Commission on environment and development

Buechler S, Vázquez-García V, Martínez-Molina KG, Sosa-Capistrán DM (2020) Patriarchy and (electric) power? A feminist political ecology of solar energy use in Mexico and the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 70:101743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101743

Bührmann AD (2009) Intersectionality—ein Forschungsfeld auf dem Weg zum Paradigma? Tendenzen, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven der Forschung über Intersektionalität. GENDER Zeitschrift Für Geschlecht, Kultur Und Gesellschaft (2):28–44

Burkhardt K, Nguyen P, Poincelot E (2020) Agents of change: women in top management and corporate environmental performance. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(4):1591–1604. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1907

Bürkner H-J (2012) Intersectionality: how gender studies might inspire the analysis of social inequality among migrants. Popul Space Place 18(2):181–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.664

Burney J, Alaofè H, Naylor R, Taren D (2017) Impact of a rural solar electrification project on the level and structure of women’s empowerment. Environ Res Lett 12(9):095007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7f38

Burridge N, Maree Payne A, Rahmani N (2016) ‘Education is as important for me as water is to sustaining life’: perspectives on the higher education of women in Afghanistan. Gend Educ 28(1):128–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2015.1096922

Butler J (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge, London

Chavez-Rodriguez L, Lomas RT, Curry L (2020) Environmental justice at the intersection: Exclusion patterns in urban mobility narratives and decision making in Monterrey, Mexico. DIE ERDE J Geogr Soc Berlin 151(2–3):116–128. https://doi.org/10.12854/erde-2020-479

Cheng KKY, Ghajarieh ABB (2011) Rethinking the concept of masculinity and femininity: focusing on Iran’s female students. Asian J Soc Sci 39(3):365–371. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853111X577613

Chindarkar N (2012) Gender and climate change-induced migration: proposing a framework for analysis. Environ Res Lett 7(2):025601. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/025601

Clark WC (ed) (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738

Clark W, Harley A (2019) Sustainability science: towards a synthesis. Sustainability Science Program Working Papers. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42574531 .

Cohn C, Duncanson C (2020) Women, Peace and security in a changing climate. Int Fem J Polit 22(5):742–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1843364

Collyer FM (2018) Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: global North, global South. Curr Sociol 66(1):56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020

Combahee River Collective (2018) A black feminist statement. In: Feminist Manifestos. NYU Press, pp 269–277. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvf3w44b.63 ( Original work published 1977 )

Conference of the Swiss Scientific Academies, Forum for Climate and Global Change, & Swiss Academy of Science (1997) Research on sustainability and global change—visions in science policy by Swiss researchers. http://www.proclim.unibe.ch/visions.html

Cortina R (2010) Gender equality in education: GTZ and indigenous communities in Peru. Development 53(4):529–534. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2010.71

Crenshaw KW (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. In: University of Chicago legal forum, vol 1, no 8. pp 138–167

Crockett C, Cooper B (2016) Gender norms as health harms: reclaiming a life course perspective on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Reprod Health Matters 24(48):6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhm.2016.11.003

Curth J, Evans S (2011) Monitoring and evaluation in police capacity building operations: ‘women as uniform?’ Police Pract Res 12(6):492–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2011.581440

Dankelman I (ed) (2010) Gender and climate change: an introduction. Earthscan, London

Denton F (2002) Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: why does gender matter? Gend Dev 10(2):10–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070215903

Drafor I, Kunze D, Al Hassan R (2005) Gender roles in farming systems: an overview using cases from Ghana. Ann Arid Zone 44(3&4):421–439

Dyer M (2018) Transforming communicative spaces: the rhythm of gender in meetings in rural Solomon Islands. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09866-230117

Eger C, Munar AM, Hsu C (2022) Gender and tourism sustainability. J Sustain Tour 30(7):1459–1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1963975

Elmagrhi MH, Ntim CG, Elamer AA, Zhang Q (2018) A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: the role of female directors. Bus Strateg Environ 28(1):206–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2250

Elsevier B.V. (2020) Scopus. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic#basic

Enarson EP, Chakrabarti PG (eds) (2009) Women, gender and disaster: global issues and initiatives. ebrary, Inc. SAGE, Los Angeles

Ennaji M (2016) Women, gender, and politics in Morocco. Soc Sci 5(4):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5040075

Ergas C (2014) Barriers to sustainability: gendered divisions of labor in Cuban urban agriculture. From sustainable to resilient cities: global concerns and urban efforts. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1047-004220140000014011

Fenstermaker S (2013) Doing gender, doing difference. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203615683

Book   Google Scholar  

Fischer G, Gramzow A, Laizer A (2017) Gender, vegetable value chains, income distribution and access to resources: insights from surveys in Tanzania. Eur J Hortic Sci 82(6):319–327. https://doi.org/10.17660/eJHS.2017/82.6.7

Friedman R, Hirons MA, Boyd E (2019) Vulnerability of Ghanaian women cocoa farmers to climate change: a typology. Clim Dev 11(5):446–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1442806

Friedson-Ridenour S, Dutcher TV, Calderon C, Brown LD, Olsen CW (2019) Gender analysis for one health: theoretical perspectives and recommendations for practice. EcoHealth 16:306–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-019-01410-w

Garai J (2016) Gender specific vulnerability in climate change and possible sustainable livelihoods of coastal people. A case from Bangladesh. Revista De Gestão Costeira Integrada-J Integr Coast Zone Manag 16(1):79–88. https://doi.org/10.5894/rgci656

García Martín CJ, Herrero B (2020) Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(1):74–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1775

Garutsa TC, Nekhwevha FH (2016) Labour-burdened women utilising their marginalised indigenous knowledge in food production processes: the case of Khambashe rural households, Eastern Cape, South Africa. South Afr Rev Sociol 47(4):106–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2016.1204243

Gaybor J (2022) Of apps and the menstrual cycle: a journey into self-tracking. Feminist methodologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82654-3_4

Glazebrook T, Noll S, Opoku E (2020) Gender matters: climate change, gender bias, and women’s farming in the global South and North. Agriculture 10(7):267. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10070267

Gómez CA (2011) Preventing HIV in US women and girls: a call for social action. Womens Health Issues 21(6):S287–S294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2011.07.012

Gottschlich D, Hackfort S, Katz C (2022) Feministische Politische Ökologie. In: Gottschlich D, Hackfort S, Schmitt T, von Winterfeld U (eds) Handbuch Politische Ökologie: Theorien, Begriffe, Konflikte, Methoden. transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, pp 91–106

Green KR (2019) Social return on investment: a women’s cooperative critique. Soc Enterp J 15(3):320–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-12-2018-0084

Grunwald A (2007) Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. J Environ Plan Policy Manag 9(3–4):245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701622774

Gudjonsson S, Kristinsson K, Gylfason HF, Minelgaite I (2020) Female advantage? Management and financial performance in microfinance. Bus Theory Pract 21(1):83–91. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.11354

Hackfort S (2015) Klimawandel und Geschlecht: Zur politischen Ökologie der Anpassung in Mexico. Studien zu Lateinamerika (29), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden Baden. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845261652-1

Haig D (2004) The inexorable rise of gender and the decline of sex: social change in academic titles, 1945–2001. Arch Sex Behav 33(2):87–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014323.56281.0d

Harcourt W, Argüello Calle X (2022) Embodying cyberspace: making the personal political in digital places. Feminist methodologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 83–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82654-3_5

Hardy B-J, Lesperance A, Foote I, Firestone M, Smylie J (2020) Meeting Indigenous youth where they are at: knowing and doing with 2SLGBTTQQIA and gender non-conforming Indigenous youth: a qualitative case study. BMC Public Health 20(1):1871. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09863-3

Häusler S (1997) Gender and the environment: recent initiatives to improve sustainable development policy, planning and practice. Gend Technol Dev 1(3):327–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.1997.11909863

Hennebry J, Hari KC, Piper N (2019) Not without them: realising the sustainable development goals for women migrant workers. J Ethn Migr Stud 45(14):2621–2637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1456775

Hofmeister S, Katz C, Mölders T (2012) Geschlechterverhältnisse und Nachhaltigkeit: Die Kategorie Geschlecht in den Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. Verlag Barbara Budrich, Leverkusen-Opladen

Holden ST, Tilahun M (2020) Farm size and gender distribution of land: evidence from Ethiopian land registry data. World Dev 130:104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104926

Ihalainen M, Schure J, Sola P (2020) Where are the women? A review and conceptual framework for addressing gender equity in charcoal value chains in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain Dev 55:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2019.11.003

Imburgia L (2019) Irrigation and equality: an integrative gender-analytical approach to water governance with examples from Ethiopia and Argentina. Water Altern 12(2):571–587

Islam MS, Siddiqui L (2020) A geographical analysis of gender inequality in literacy among Muslims of West Bengal, India (2001–2011). GeoJournal 85(5):1325–1354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10025-1

Jeffery R (2014) Authorship in multi-disciplinary, multi-national North-South research projects: issues of equity, capacity and accountability. Compare J Comp Int Educ 44(2):208–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.829300

Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E, Persson J (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x

Johnson DE, Fisher K, Parsons M (2022) Diversifying indigenous vulnerability and adaptation: an intersectional reading of Māori women’s experiences of health, wellbeing, and climate change. Sustainability 14(9):5452. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095452

Kaijser A, Kronsell A (2014) Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environ Polit 23(3):417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203

Kalpazidou Schmidt E, Ovseiko PV, Henderson LR, Kiparoglou V (2020) Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective. Health Res Policy Syst 18(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0527-x

Kamberidou I (2020) “Distinguished” women entrepreneurs in the digital economy and the multitasking whirlpool. J Innov Entrep 9(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-0114-y

Karlsson S, Srebotnjak T, Gonzales P (2007) Understanding the North–South knowledge divide and its implications for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental … https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1462901107000470

Kawgan-Kagan I (2020) Are women greener than men? A preference analysis of women and men from major German cities over sustainable urban mobility. Transp Res Interdiscipl Perspect 8:100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100236

Kennedy E, Binder G, Humphries-Waa K, Tidhar T, Cini K, Comrie-Thomson L et al (2020) Gender inequalities in health and wellbeing across the first two decades of life: an analysis of 40 low-income and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Lancet Glob Health 8(12):e1473–e1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30354-5

Khalikova VR, Jin M, Chopra SS (2021) Gender in sustainability research: inclusion, intersectionality, and patterns of knowledge production. J Ind Ecol 25(4):900–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13095

Kim DJ (2020) Beyond identity lines: women building peace in Northern Ireland and the Korean peninsula. Asia Europe J 18(4):463–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-019-00551-5

Klugman J, Li L, Barker KM, Parsons J, Dale K (2019) How are the domains of women’s inclusion, justice, and security associated with maternal and infant mortality across countries? Insights from the Women, Peace, and Security Index. SSM-Popul Health 9:100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100486

Kravets O, Preece C, Maclaran P (2020) The uniform entrepreneur: making gender visible in social enterprise. J Macromark 40(4):445–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146720930331

Kreile R (2005) Liberation through war? Women’s rights in Afghanistan between global order and identity politics. Internationale Politik Und Gesellschaft 1:102–120

Kronsell A, Smidfelt Rosqvist L, Winslott Hiselius L (2016) Achieving climate objectives in transport policy by including women and challenging gender norms: the Swedish case. Int J Sustain Transp 10(8):703–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2015.1129653

Kronsell A, Dymén C, Rosqvist LS, Hiselius LW (2020) Masculinities and femininities in sustainable transport policy: a focus on Swedish municipalities. NORMA 15(2):128–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2020.1714315

Lama AS, Kharel S, Ghale T (2017) When the men are away: migration and women’s participation in Nepal’s community forestry. Mt Res Dev 37(3):263–270. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00092.1

Lama P, Hamza M, Wester M (2021) Gendered dimensions of migration in relation to climate change. Clim Dev 13(4):326–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1772708

Larasatie P, Barnett T, Hansen E (2020) The “Catch-22” of representation of women in the forest sector: the perspective of student leaders in top global forestry universities. Forests 11(4):419. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11040419

Lau JD, Kleiber D, Lawless S, Cohen PJ (2021) Gender equality in climate policy and practice hindered by assumptions. Nat Clim Change 11(3):186–192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00999-7

Le HT, Quinn F, West A, Hankey S (2019) Advancing cycling among women. J Transp Land Use 12(1):355–374. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26911273

Levy C (1992) Gender and the environment: the challenge of cross-cutting issues in development policy and planning. Environ Urban 4(1):134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400114

Lieu J, Sorman AH, Johnson OW, Virla LD, Resurrección BP (2020) Three sides to every story: gender perspectives in energy transition pathways in Canada, Kenya and Spain. Energy Res Soc Sci 68:101550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101550

Limuwa MM, Synnevåg G (2018) Gendered perspective on the fish value chain, livelihood patterns and coping strategies under climate change-insights from Malawi’s small-scale fisheries. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 18(2):13521–13540. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.82.17580

Lince-Deroche N, Berry KM, Hendrickson C, Sineke T, Kgowedi S, Mulongo M (2019) Women’s costs for accessing comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services: findings from an observational study in Johannesburg, South Africa. Reprod Health 16:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0842-2

Littig B (2002) The case for gender-sensitive socio-ecological research. Work Employ Soc 16(1):111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170222119272

Loganathan T, Chan ZX, de Smalen AW, Pocock NS (2020) Migrant women’s access to sexual and reproductive health services in Malaysia: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(15):5376. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155376

Loukil N, Yousfi O, Yerbanga R (2019) Does gender diversity on boards influence stock market liquidity? Empirical evidence from the French market. Corp Govern Int J Bus Soc 19(4):669–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2018-0291

Lozano R (2008) Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J Clean Prod 16(17):1838–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008

Lutz H (2002) The long shadows of the past. The new Europe at a crossroad. Crossing borders and shifting boundaries. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-09527-9_4

MacGregor S (2010) Gender and climate change: from impacts to discourses. J Indian Ocean Reg 6(2):223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/19480881.2010.536669

MacGregor S (2020) Making matter great again? Ecofeminism, new materialism and the everyday turn in environmental politics. Environ Polit. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1846954

Mahadevia D, Lathia S (2019) Women’s safety and public spaces: lessons from the Sabarmati riverfront, India. Urban Plan 4(2):154–168. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i2.2049

Maina-Okori NM, Koushik JR, Wilson A (2018) Reimagining intersectionality in environmental and sustainability education: a critical literature review. J Environ Educ 49(4):286–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1364215

Majumdar A (2019) Beyond essentialism: Ecofeminism and the ‘friction’ between gender and ecology. In: Aneja A (ed) Women’s and gender studies in India. Routledge India, New Delhi, pp 66–78. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429025167

Malik BZ, ur Rehman Z, Khan AH, Akram W (2020) Women’s mobility via bus rapid transit: experiential patterns and challenges in Lahore. J Transp Health 17:100834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.10083

Malin SA, Ryder SS (2018) Developing deeply intersectional environmental justice scholarship. Environ Sociol 4(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.144671

Maluka S, Japhet P, Fitzgerald S, Begum K, Alexander M, Kamuzora P (2020) Leaving no one behind: using action research to promote male involvement in maternal and child health in Iringa region, Tanzania. BMJ Open 10(11):e038823. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038823

Manandhar M, Hawkes S, Buse K, Nosrati E, Magar V (2018) Gender, health and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Bull World Health Organ 96(9):644. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.211607

Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2006.11907976

Martins A (2020) Reimagining equity: redressing power imbalances between the global North and the global South. Gend Dev 28(1):135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2020.1717172

Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18(6):493–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5

Mechlenborg M, Gram-Hanssen K (2020) Gendered homes in theories of practice: a framework for research in residential energy consumption. Energy Res Soc Sci 67:101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101538

Mehta L (2016) Dianne Rocheleau: the feminist political ecology legacy and beyond. In: Harcourt W (ed) The Palgrave handbook of gender and development. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-38273-3_18

Meinzen-Dick RS, Brown LR, Feldstein HS, Quisumbing AR (1997) Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Dev 25(8):1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00027-2

Meinzen-Dick R, Kovarik C, Quisumbing AR (2014) Gender and sustainability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39(1):29–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013240

Mello D, Schmink M (2017) Amazon entrepreneurs: Women’s economic empowerment and the potential for more sustainable land use practices. Women’s Stud Int Forum 65:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2016.11.008

Michelsen G, Adomßent M (2014) Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Hintergründe und Zusammenhänge. Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. Springer Spektrum, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 3–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25112-2_1

Mies M, Shiva V (1995) Ökofeminismus: Beiträge zur Praxis und Theorie. Rotpunkt Verlag, Zürich

Minckas N, Shannon G, Mannell J (2020) The role of participation and community mobilisation in preventing violence against women and girls: a programme review and critique. Glob Health Action 13(1):1775061. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2020.1775061

Mitra R, Nash S (2019) Can the built environment explain gender gap in cycling? An exploration of university students’ travel behavior in Toronto, Canada. Int J Sustain Transp 13(2):138–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1449919

Montoya-Robledo V, Calero LM, Carvajal VB, Molina DCG, Pipicano W, Peña AJ et al (2020) Gender stereotypes affecting active mobility of care in Bogotá. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 86:102470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102470

Morgan R, Tetui M, Muhumuza Kananura R, Ekirapa-Kiracho E, George AS (2017) Gender dynamics affecting maternal health and health care access and use in Uganda. Health Policy Plan 32(suppl 5):v13–v21. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czx011

Mortimer-Sandilands C, Erickson B (eds) (2010) Queer ecologies: sex, nature, politics, desire. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

Moyo T, Dhliwayo R (2019) Achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment in Sub-Saharan Africa: lessons from the experience of selected countries. J Dev Soc 35(2):256–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X19845957

Muehlenhard CL, Peterson ZD (2011) Distinguishing between sex and gender: history, current conceptualizations, and implications. Sex Roles 64(11–12):791–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9932-5

Mulema AA, Jogo W, Damtew E, Mekonnen K, Thorne P (2019) Women farmers’ participation in the agricultural research process: implications for agricultural sustainability in Ethiopia. Int J Agric Sustain 17(2):127–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1569578

Mungai EM, Ndiritu SW, Rajwani T (2020) Raising the bar? Top management teams, gender diversity, and environmental sustainability. Afr J Manag 6(4):269–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2020.1830688

Nash JC (2008) Re-thinking intersectionality. Fem Rev 89(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.4

Neumayer E, Plümper T (2007) The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 97(3):551–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00563.x

Nhem S, Lee YJ (2019) Women’s participation and the gender perspective in sustainable forestry in Cambodia: local perceptions and the context of forestry research. For Sci Technol 15(3):93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2019.1595174

O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Nygaard LP, Schjolden A (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim Policy 7:73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685639

Odeh LE (2010) A comparative analysis of global north and global south economies. J Sustain Dev Afr 12(3):338–348. https://jsd-africa.com/jsda/v12no3_summer2010_a/pdf/a%20comparative%20analysis%20of%20global%20north%20and%20global%20south%20economies%20(odeh).pdf

Odrowaz-Coates A (2021) Definitions of sustainability in the context of gender. Sustainability 13(12):6862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126862

Ong F, Vorobjovas-Pinta O, Lewis C (2020) LGBTIQ + identities in tourism and leisure research: a systematic qualitative literature review. J Sustain Tour 30(7):1476–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1828430

Orazalin N, Baydauletov M (2020) Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: the moderating role of board gender diversity. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(4):1664–1676. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1915

Ozordi E, Eluyela FD, Uwuigbe U, Uwuigbe OR, Nwaze CE (2020) Gender diversity and sustainability responsiveness: evidence from Nigerian fixed money deposit banks. Probl Perspect Manag 18(1):119–129. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(1).2020.11

Pandya MN, Shukla PS (2018) Role of women led sanitation in community development. J Content Community Commun 7(4):71–77. https://doi.org/10.31620/jccc.06.18/09

Pehou C, Djoudi H, Vinceti B, Elias M (2020) Intersecting and dynamic gender rights to néré, a food tree species in Burkina Faso. J Rural Stud 76:230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.02.011

Pena M, McConney P, Simmons B, Selliah N (2020) How has organization benefited women in the Barbados flyingfish fishery? A look from within. Gend Technol Dev 24(1):28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718524.2020.1729538

Plouffe V, Bicaba F, Bicaba A, Druetz T (2020) User fee policies and women’s empowerment: a systematic scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 20:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05835-w

Poku NK, Esom K, Armstrong R (2017) Sustainable development and the struggle for LGBTI social inclusion in Africa: opportunities for accelerating change. Dev Pract 27(4):432–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1304894

Polk M (2003) Are women potentially more accommodating than men to a sustainable transportation system in Sweden? Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 8(2):75–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(02)00034-2

Prego-Meleiro P, Montalvo G, Quintela-Jorge Ó, Garcia-Ruiz C (2020) An ecological working framework as a new model for understanding and preventing the victimization of women by drug-facilitated sexual assault. Forensic Sci Int 315:110438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110438

Purwanti A, Ispriyarso B, Wijaningsih D (2018) Strategizing local regulation on women representation in village policy-making as a realization of sustainable development goals: a study in Semarang regency. J Soc Stud Educ Res 9(4):319–333. https://doi.org/10.17499/jsser.63125

R Core Team (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/

Rakib MA, Islam S, Nikolaos I, Bodrud-Doza M, Bhuiyan MA (2017) Flood vulnerability, local perception and gender role judgment using multivariate analysis: a problem-based “participatory action to Future Skill Management” to cope with flood impacts. Weather Clim Extremes 18:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.10.002

Rao N, Singh C, Solomon D, Camfield L, Sidiki R, Angula M et al (2020) Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India. World Dev 125:104667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104667

Rice C, Harrison E, Friedman M (2019) Doing justice to intersectionality in research. Cult Stud Crit Methodol 19(6):409–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619829779

Richardson D (2015) Conceptualising gender. In: Richardson D, Robinson V (eds) Introducing gender and women’s studies. Macmillan Education, Noida, pp 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-31069-9_1

Rivillas JC, Devia Rodriguez R, Song G, Martel A (2018) How do we reach the girls and women who are the hardest to reach? Inequitable opportunities in reproductive and maternal health care services in armed conflict and forced displacement settings in Colombia. PLoS ONE 13(1):e0188654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188654

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E (1996) Gender and environment: a feminist political ecology perspective. In: Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B, Wangari E (eds) Feminist political ecology. Routledge, New York, NY, pp 3–23

Rodenberg B (2009) Climate change adaptation from a gender perspective: a cross-cutting analysis of development-policy instruments. https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/fub188/16126/1/internetfassung_discpaper_24.2009_rodenberg_engl.pdf

Rohe J, Schlüter A, Ferse SC (2018) A gender lens on women’s harvesting activities and interactions with local marine governance in a South Pacific fishing community. Marit Stud 17:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0106-8

Rokaya P, Sheikholeslami R, Kurkute S, Nazarbakhsh M, Zhang F, Reed MG (2017) Multiple factors that shaped sustainability science journal: a 10-year review. Sustain Sci 12(6):855–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0495-4

Romano M, Cirillo A, Favino C, Netti A (2020) ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) performance and board gender diversity: the moderating role of CEO duality. Sustainability 12(21):9298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219298

Rothermel AK (2020) Gender in the United Nations’ agenda on preventing and countering violent extremism. Int Fem J Polit 22(5):720–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1827967

Sasaki N, Chopin F (2002) JICA 2001—a new approach to fisheries and marine environment. Fish Sci 68(sup2):1944–1947. https://doi.org/10.2331/fishsci.68.sup2_1944

Sasser J (2018) Introduction. Women as sexual stewards. In: Sasser J (ed) On infertile ground: population control and women’s rights in the era of climate change. New York University Press, New York, pp 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479873432.003.0001

Saviano M, Nenci L, Caputo F (2017) The financial gap for women in the MENA region: a systemic perspective. Gend Manag Int J 32(3):203–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2016-0138

Sawade O (2014) Lessons, challenges, and successes while working on the ‘Triangle’ of education, gender, and sexual and reproductive health. Gend Dev 22(1):127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2014.889339

Scheer VL, Stevens PE, Mkandawire-Valhmu L (2016) Raising questions about capitalist globalization and universalizing views on women. Adv Nurs Sci 39(2):96–107. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000120

Sciortino R (2020) Sexual and reproductive health and rights for all in Southeast Asia: more than SDGs aspirations. Cult Health Sex 22(7):744–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2020.1718213

Shanthi B, Mahalikshimi P, Chandrasekaran VS (2017) Assessing pre and post tsunami impacts on the livelihoods of coastal women using socio-economic and gender analysis (SEAGA). In: Gender in aquaculture and fisheries: engendering security in fisheries and aquaculture. p 199. https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.2017.30.S1.010

Shiva V (1988) Staying alive: women, ecology and development. Zed Books, London

Sindhuja P, Murugan KR (2018) A gender perspective on role performance of elected Panchayat leaders in India. J Int Women's Stud 19(3):199–214. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol19/iss3/15

Singh N (2006) Women, society and water technologies: lessons for bureaucracy. Gend Technol Dev 10(3):341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240601000303

Singh N (2008) Equitable gender participation in local water governance: an insight into institutional paradoxes. Water Resour Manag 22:925–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-007-9202-z

Singh N, Singh OP (2015) Climate change, water and gender: Impact and adaptation in North-Eastern Hills of India. Int Soc Work 58(3):375–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872814556826

Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000270

Ssewamala FM, Sensoy Bahar O, Tozan Y, Nabunya P, Mayo-Wilson LJ, Kiyingi J et al (2019) A combination intervention addressing sexual risk-taking behaviors among vulnerable women in Uganda: study protocol for a cluster randomized clinical trial. BMC Womens Health 19(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-019-0807-1

Stephens A, Lewis ED, Reddy S (2018) Towards an inclusive systemic evaluation for the SDGs: gender equality, environments and marginalized voices (GEMs). Evaluation 24(2):220–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389018766093

Stiem L, Krause T (2016) Exploring the impact of social norms and perceptions on women’s participation in customary forest and land governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo—implications for REDD+. Int for Rev 18(1):110–122. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206113

Stock R (2021) Bright as night: illuminating the antinomies of ‘gender positive’solar development. World Dev 138:105196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105196

Suciu MC, Noja GG, Cristea M (2020) Diversity, social inclusion and human capital development as fundamentals of financial performance and risk mitigation. Amfiteatru Econ 22(55):742–757. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2020/55/742

Suvarna T, Chandrachud S, Thangamayan S, Ramesh M (2019) Socio-economic development and gender inequality in India. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.03556.3

Sweileh WM (2020) Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Glob Health 16(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00602-2

Szymkowiak M, Rhodes-Reese M (2020) Addressing the gender gap: using quantitative and qualitative methods to illuminate women’s fisheries participation. Front Mar Sci 7:299. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00299

Tapver T, Laidroo L, Gurvitš-Suits NA (2020) Banks’ CSR reporting—do women have a say? Corp Govern Int J Bus Soc 20(4):639–651. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-11-2019-0338

Tejeda AG, Townsend JG (2006) Sustainable development and gender hierarchies: extension for semi-subsistence fish farming in Tabasco, Mexico. Gend Technol Dev 10(1):101–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240501000106

Theobald S, MacPherson EE, Dean L, Jacobson J, Ducker C, Gyapong M, Hawkins K, Elphick-Pooley T, Mackenzie C, Kelly-Hope LA, Fleming FM, Mbabazi PS (2017) 20 years of gender mainstreaming in health: lessons and reflections for the neglected tropical diseases community. BMJ Glob Health 2(4):e000512. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000512

Thompson-Hall M, Carr ER, Pascual U (2016) Enhancing and expanding intersectional research for climate change adaptation in agrarian settings. Ambio 45:373–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0827-0

Thresia CU (2018) Health inequalities in South Asia at the launch of sustainable development goals: exclusions in health in Kerala, India need political interventions. Int J Health Serv 48(1):57–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020731417738222

Torell E, Bilecki D, Owusu A, Crawford B, Beran K, Kent K (2019) Assessing the impacts of gender integration in Ghana’s fisheries sector. Coast Manag 47(6):507–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1669098

Toth W, Vacik H, Pülzl H, Carlsen H (2022) Deepening our understanding of which policy advice to expect from prioritizing SDG targets: introducing the analytic network process in a multi-method setting. Sustain Sci 17(4):1473–1488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01009-7

Turner C (2020) ‘Soft ways of doing hard things’: women mediators and the question of gender in mediation. Peacebuilding 8(4):383–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2019.1664369

United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development A/RES/70/1 (The General Assembly)

Valdivia C, Gilles J (2001) Gender and resource management: households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agric Hum Values 18:5–9. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007608717996

Valls Martínez MDC, Martin Cervantes PA, Cruz Rambaud S (2020) Women on corporate boards and sustainable development in the American and European markets: is there a limit to gender policies? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(6):2642–2656. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1989

Vershinina N, Rodgers P, Tarba S, Khan Z, Stokes P (2020) Gaining legitimacy through proactive stakeholder management: the experiences of high-tech women entrepreneurs in Russia. J Bus Res 119:111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.063

Von Dach SW (2002) Integrated mountain development: a question of gender mainstreaming. Mt Res Dev 22(3):236–239. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0236:IMDAQO]2.0.CO;2

Von Wehrden H, Luederitz C, Leventon J, Russell S (2017) Methodological challenges in sustainability science: a call for method plurality, procedural rigor and longitudinal research. Chall Sustain 5(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05010035

Wallhagen M, Eriksson O, Sörqvist P (2018) Gender differences in environmental perspectives among urban design professionals. Buildings 8(4):59. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8040059

Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58(301):236. https://doi.org/10.2307/2282967

Wekesah FM, Mutua EN, Izugbara CO (2019) Gender and conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Int J Agric Sustain 17(1):78–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1567245

West C, Zimmerman DH (1987) Doing gender. Gend Soc 1(2):125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

Wiek A, Lang DJ (2016) Transformational sustainability research methodology. In: Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A (eds) Sustainability science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3

Wiese K (2020) Energy 4 all? Investigating gendered energy justice implications of community-based micro-hydropower cooperatives in Ethiopia. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 33(2):194–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1745059

Williams R, Robertson S, Hewison A (2009) Men’s health, inequalities and policy: contradictions, masculinities and public health in England. Crit Public Health 19(3–4):475–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590802668457

Winslott Hiselius L, Kronsell A, Dymén C, Smidfelt Rosqvist L (2019) Investigating the link between transport sustainability and the representation of women in Swedish local committees. Sustainability 11(17):4728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174728

Woodroffe J (2015) Twenty years after Beijing: can promises be turned into progress? IDS Bull 46(4):92–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12162

Xie J, Nozawa W, Managi S (2020) The role of women on boards in corporate environmental strategy and financial performance: a global outlook. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27(5):2044–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1945

Yadav SS, Lal R (2018) Vulnerability of women to climate change in arid and semi-arid regions: the case of India and South Asia. J Arid Environ 149:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.08.001

Yadav B, Sharma A (2017) Gender roles analysis of ornamental fish enterprises in Maharashtra State, India. Asian Fish Sci Spec 30S:333–342. https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.2017.30.S1.020

Yarram SR, Adapa S (2021) Board gender diversity and corporate social responsibility: is there a case for critical mass? J Clean Prod 278:123319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123319

Ylipaa J, Gabrielsson S, Jerneck A (2019) Climate change adaptation and gender inequality: insights from rural Vietnam. Sustainability 11(10):2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102805

Yount KM, Cheong YF, Grose RG, Hayford SR (2020) Community gender systems and a daughter’s risk of female genital mutilation/cutting: multilevel findings from Egypt. PLoS ONE 15(3):e0229917. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229917

Zamora G, Koller TS, Thomas R, Manandhar M, Lustigova E, Diop A, Magar V (2018) Tools and approaches to operationalize the commitment to equity, gender and human rights: towards leaving no one behind in the sustainable development goals. Glob Health Action 11(sup1):1463657. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2018.1463657

Download references

Textbox definitions

Intersectionality.

The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality intersect, or interlock, to create unique dynamics and effects. Popularized by Crenshaw ( 1989 ), this idea was expressed one of the first times by the Combahee River Collective in 1977. The collective pinned down how their identity as queer, middle-class, Black women led to a specific and distinct experience of oppression and exclusion, resulting in the need to develop an “integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking” (Combahee River Collective 1977/ 2018 ). Even though the historical focus of intersectionality was on gender, race and class, the concept is not limited to these axes of social difference, but can and should include many more items such as, for example, disability or sexuality (Bührmann 2009 ; Butler 1990 ; Lutz 2002 ; Nash 2008 ).

We refer to gender as a historical construct consisting of attributes, norms, roles, opportunities, responsibilities and expectations that are socially, culturally and institutionally embedded and produce certain gender identities and social constructs (Arevalo 2020 ; Lieu et al. 2020 ; Mechlenborg and Gram-Hanssen 2020 ). Consequently, gender is not ‘given’ but learned and therefore dynamic and changing across a diverse and fluid spectrum (Curth and Evans 2011 ; Moyo and Dhliwayo 2019 ). In this paper, we focus on two important aspects, namely (i) the idea that gender is not biologically determined in a binary of man and woman but instead socially constructed and (ii) the acknowledgment of the ‘intersectional’ nature of gender, i.e., the idea that one’s gendered experience of life overlaps and interacts with other axes of identity and systems of oppression (Richardson 2015 ).

• Sustainability

We refer to sustainability based on the widely quoted definition by the Brundtland report from 1987 as meeting present needs without compromising the ability to compromise the needs of future generations (Brundtland 1987 ). Furthermore, our sustainability understanding includes an integrational perspective, also referred to as nested circles model, meaning that sustainability builds on economic, social and ecological dimensions that are interdependent and interconnected (Lozano 2008 ; Odrowaz-Coates 2021 ). In this framework, in opposition to others, the economic and social pillars are not independent from the environmental dimension, but instead depend on it (Mebratu 1998 ).

Global North/Global South

Since there is no agreed definition of these terms, we use the definition by Martins ( 2020 ) as well as Odeh ( 2010 ). The distinction between Global North and Global South is not a mere geographical one, but has its roots in colonialism and imperialism. It is important to mention that neither the North nor the South are homogeneous. The global South refers broadly to a grouping of countries that are agrarian based and experience economic and political marginalization within the global system. Global South countries often have a shared history of colonization and exploitation. The global North refers to regions traditionally referred to as ‘the West’ such as Europe, North America and Australia, among others. These countries are wealthy, technologically advanced, politically stable and aging as well as dominate the Global South in international trade (Martins 2020 ; Odeh 2010 ).

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Vienna, Universitätsring 1, 1010, Vienna, Austria

Elisabeth Frank

University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Rike Mühlhaus

Hamburg, Germany

Katinka Malena Mustelin

Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

Esther Lara Trilken

Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Noemi Katalin Kreuz

University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Linda Catharine Bowes

Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Lina Marie Backer

Center of Methods, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335, Lüneburg, Germany

Henrik von Wehrden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik von Wehrden .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Handled by So-Young Lee, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Frank, E., Mühlhaus, R., Mustelin, K.M. et al. A systematic review of peer-reviewed gender literature in sustainability science. Sustain Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01514-5

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2023

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 15 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01514-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable development goals
• Gender studies
• Womens studies

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Gender-based violence

Outcome area 4.

This page describes how UNHCR worked in 2023 to prevent, mitigate and respond to cases of gender-based violence, a threat to 60 million forcibly displaced women and girls especially.

Download data

Results in 2023

The risk of gender-based violence increases in conflict and displacement , a threat to over 60 million forcibly displaced and stateless women and girls . Conflict-related sexual violence made headlines in several emergencies in 2023 and can result in long-term traumatic impact on survivors. Other forms of gender-based violence (GBV), in particular intimate partner violence and sexual harassment, are prevalent worldwide and disproportionally threaten the safety of forcibly displaced women and girls long after they have fled conflict zones. Despite a decline in total contributions to UNHCR in 2023, many UNHCR operations prioritized life-saving gender-based violence prevention and response programmes, ensuring that survivors were not left behind. 

At the 2023 Global Refugee Forum, the gender equality and GBV multi-stakeholder pledges together mobilized 166 pledges, a more than threefold increase in commitments from 50 pledges in 2019. These were the multi-stakeholder pledge on gender equality and protection from GBV , co-led by Australia, Chile, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Action Network on Forced Displacement and women refugee-led organizations (117 pledges), Avec Elles , led by France (35 pledges), and the multi-stakeholder pledge on closing the digital gender gap  (14 pledges). 

UNHCR is leading inter-agency GBV coordination in 45 refugee and mixed settings, thus enhancing the effectiveness of GBV response. All Refugee Response Plans in 2023 highlighted GBV risks and response alongside dedicated funding needs, a major step to improve funding for GBV programmes.  

Data collected by UNHCR country operations in 2023 showed that 72% of countries (88 out of 122 reporting operations) had gender-based violence services available for survivors among forcibly displaced and stateless populations, roughly the same level as in recent years. UNHCR worked with over 200 GBV partners, including over 60 women-led organizations.  

UNHCR’s response to gender-based violence included the establishment of safe spaces, where women and girls can access psychosocial support services and be referred to medical and legal support, and – where appropriate – cash assistance. 56% of refugees and asylum-seekers were aware of available gender-based violence services, according to data from 59 country operations. The decline from an estimated 66% in 2022, when the data was collected by 54 operations, demonstrates the need for continuous investment in outreach and innovative information dissemination solutions.  

UNHCR provided 1,013 hours of expert technical support to enhance quality and confidentiality of GBV case management services and information management through GBVIMS+ and ProGres, for example in Kenya, South Sudan, Sudan, Ukraine and the United Republic of Tanzania . At least 75% of refugee and asylum-seeking survivors of gender-based violence reported satisfaction with GBV case management services in 35 out of 47 countries where UNHCR operations reported such data. Countries demonstrating notable progress included Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ecuador, Iraq, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic .  

Global partnerships contributed to develop UNHCR workforce’s knowledge on GBV prevention , including on Engaging Men in Accountable Practices (EMAP) and Girl Shine with the International Rescue Committee, and on SASA! Together with Raising Voices. Evidence-based prevention programmes were implemented in 16 operations, contributing to preventing GBV against forcibly displaced women and girls from happening in the first place.  

Using the SASA! Together model, almost 2,000 trained community activists reached around 240,000 community members over a four-year period in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Uganda .​ Thousands of adolescent girls were empowered through the Girl Shine approach in Ethiopia, Kenya, Syria, the United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe . In Syria , 1,029 adolescent girls and their male and female caregivers benefited from the Girl Shine programme, empowering adolescent girls to achieve their full potential. In Iraq , thanks to the EMAP programme, men displayed increased empathy and cooperation with women; they expressed a desire to break old habits and recognized the need to address violence against women and girls. 

While levels of acceptance of violence against women remained largely unchanged from 2022, as change takes many years to achieve, UNHCR operations in over two thirds of countries hosting refugees reported that more than 75% of the population did not accept violence against women in 2023. Progress was noted in Chad, the DRC, Ethiopia, Iraq and South Sudan .  

Deployment of GBV specialists in 2023 (18 in total) accelerated the establishment of quality prevention and response services for survivors in emergencies in countries such as Chad, the DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Moldova, South Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic . In response to the Sudan emergency, UNHCR GBV prevention and response programming reached 291,285 people, primarily women and girls in Sudan, Chad, South Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Central African Republic . This included psychosocial support primarily through Women and Girls Safe Spaces, health and legal services, and safe accommodation options. In Sudan , 158 community-based protection networks operated across regions including Gedaref, Blue Nile, Wadi Halfa, and East Darfur, providing crucial basic psychological first aid to GBV survivors while playing a central role in awareness-raising within their communities. In Central African Republic , a Ma Mbi Si (“listen to me too” in Sango) centre was established in Korsi refugee camp for newly arrived Sudanese refugee women and girls, offering in-person and remote GBV services. In South Sudan , 22,395 refugee women and girls benefited from dignity kits.  

Core indicators

4.1 Proportion of people who know where to access available gender-based violence services

4.2 Proportion of people who do not accept violence against women

4.3 Proportion of Refugee and asylum-seeker survivors who are satisfied with gender-based violence case management services

After seeing the impact of gender-based violence in her native Rwanda and as a refugee in Uganda, Chantal Mukeshimana now works to address the issue in her community with support from a UN-led initiative.

“The training opened the doors for me because I was equipped with the knowledge and the skills to support women"

Read the story

Challenges to achieving outcomes

Conflict and insecurity exacerbated the risks of gender-based violence and hampered women and girls’ access to GBV prevention and response services. Intersecting forms of characteristics compound risks of GBV, including for women with disabilities or LGBTIQ+ persons.  

The impact of reduced humanitarian funding in 2023 meant that the urgent needs of a growing global population of forcibly displaced and stateless people were not fully met. Reductions in life-saving aid contributed to an increase in GBV risks, in particular sexual exploitation, sexual violence, child marriage and intimate partner violence. In Chad, for example, the lack of funding severely hampered humanitarian efforts to respond to the needs of Sudanese refugees. 33% of refugees surveyed said they did not feel safe from gender-based violence, especially when looking for firewood or fetching water.  

Working with local women-led organizations (WLOs) to address gender-based violence 

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), UNHCR worked with three women-led organizations, reaching over 85,412 persons people through their GBV prevention and response programmes, while 699 women at risk of GBV received business start-up grants.  

In the Republic of Moldova , 2,800 people, mostly Ukrainian refugee women and girls, received life-saving GBV prevention and response services through a leading Woman-led Organization supported by UNHCR.  

In Malaysia , 652 refugee women and girls at risk benefited from community-based psychosocial support services provided by a WLO.  

A Chadian WLO was supported to conduct a gender equality assessment in refugee-hosting areas to understand risks for Sudanese refugee women and girls and the capacities of communities, and to develop a multiyear GBV prevention strategy.  

In Dadaab refugee camp, Kenya , a refugee women-led organization implemented the Girl Shine model which helped develop a greater sense of agency among refugee adolescent girls while contributing to a reduction in incidents of violence within the community, including child marriage.  

Financial overview

Global expenditure and budget for gender-based violence.

$146 million spent against a budget of $339 million $193 million of unmet needs or 57% of the budget

Explore the Global Report 2023

Focus Areas

Funding UNHCR's programmes

Impact Areas

Regional overviews

UNESCO-IESALC

• The Institute
• Public Consultations CRES+5
• Equity and Inclusion
• Recognition of Academic Degrees
• New Regional Convention
• Practical information for recognition by country
• Quality and relevance
• Campus IESALC
• Change Management Program and Agile Methodologies
• ESD BOOTCAMP
• Leadership, Management and Training Program for Sustainable Higher Education 
• Quality Management Programme
• Strengthening Programme for Improvement Plan Projects
• Sustainable University Leadership and Governance. Towards the 2030 Agenda
• Teacher Competency Development Programme (TCDP)
• Technical Competency Development Programme
• Concerted advocacy
• Inclusion 360°: Redefining Higher Education
• Digital Transformations
• Futures of Higher Education
• Internationalization
• Response to COVID-19
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• The Right to Higher Education
• Transforming Education
• Sustainable Development
• Competence Development for Technicians
• Educational continuity in Peru (PMESUT)
• Itinerario Lab
• Pedagogical Design and Education for Sustainable Development Training Program
• Program for the Strengthening of Improvement Plan Projects
• Sustainable University Leadership and Governance Program
• Teacher competence development
• Training Program in Digital Competencies and Transformational Teaching-Learning Models
• CRES 2018 Collection
• ESS Open Journal System
• IESALC Publications

How does gender-based violence occur in higher education institutions?

UNESCO IESALC, the Section for Education for Inclusion and Gender Equality, the Higher Education Section, and the Health and Education Section at UNESCO Headquarters, together with the Gender, Health, and Justice Research Unit at the University of Cape Town (GHJRU – UCT), are developing a project to understand how gender-based violence takes place in higher education institutions globally. For this first global assessment, the study will cover four countries: Cuba, Mexico, Zambia and Zimbabwe. A pilot study phase was launched in January 2023 to assess the prevalecence of violence against in Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) higher education institutions (HEI). The initiative has now progressed to a broader phase, which includes a multi-country study on GBV.

In May and June, four online induction workshops were held with representatives from Cuba, Mexico, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. During the workshops, the research was outlined and discussed, partnerships with the HEIs were established, and collaboration for the implementation of the research was determined. Participants explored key aspects of the project, such as its background, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. The next steps of the project were also outlined, with a focus on the data collection process.

As these sessions conclude, the project now advances to its next phases, including a comprehensive data collection effort. Readers can expect the results of this global survey to be published at the beginning of 2025.

Other recent press releases

CRES+5 Declaration: commitment to democratisation and universalisation of higher education as an engine of development

Towards CRES+5: Call for the constitution of working groups 

Higher education leaders forged a consensus on the topics and participatory methodology for CRES + 5

The United States of America announces its intention to rejoin UNESCO in July

UNESCO Prize for Girls’ and Women’s Education now open for 2023 nominations

The VIII REALCUP Meeting comes to an end

IESALC: quality, equity, inclusion and lifelong learning are keywords

Recognition process colombia.

The right to higher education approached through a social justice lens

• © UNESCO IESALC 2023
• Disclaimer of use
• Website Privacy Notice
• Opportunities

Facts and figures: Ending violence against women 

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to E-mail

The availability of data on violence against women and girls has improved considerably in recent years and data on the prevalence of intimate partner violence is now available for at least 161 countries. Please visit our research and data page to better understand how data is crucial to UN Women’s work on preventing and responding to violence against women and girls. 

Technology-facilitated violence against women and girls

Climate change and violence against women and girls, femicides/feminicides, prevalence of violence against women and girls, impact of covid-19 on violence against women and girls, reporting of violence against women, laws on violence against women and girls, risk factors of violence against women and girls, economic costs of violence against women and girls, sexual violence against women and girls, trafficking in women, violence against girls, female genital mutilation, violence against women in public life.

• The lack of a common definition of technology-facilitated violence against women and girls impacts on the lack of comparable data at a global level. But available evidence collected at country and regional levels confirms high prevalence rates.
• One in 10 women in the European Union has experienced cyber-harassment since the age of 15, including having received unwanted and/or offensive sexually explicit emails or SMS messages, or offensive and/or inappropriate advances on social networking sites [1] .
• In the Arab States, a regional study found that 60 per cent of women internet users in the region had been exposed to online violence in the past year [2] .
• In Uganda, in 2021, about half of women (49 per cent) reported being involved in online harassment at some point in their lifetime [3] .
• According to a 2016 survey by the Korean National Human Rights Commission, 85 per cent of women experienced hate speech online [4] .
• Climate change and slow environmental degradation exacerbate the risks of violence against women and girls due to displacement, resource scarcity and food insecurity and disruption to service provision for survivors.
• Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the rate of rape among women displaced to trailer parks rose 53.6 times the baseline rate in Mississippi, USA, for that year [5] .
• In Ethiopia there was an increase in girls sold into early marriage in exchange for livestock to help families cope with the impacts of prolonged droughts [6] .
• Nepal witnessed an increase in trafficking from an estimated 3,000–5,000 annually in 1990 to 12,000–20,000 per year after the 2015 earthquake [7] .
• In 2022, around 48,800 women and girls worldwide were killed by their intimate partners or other family members. This means that, on average, more than five women or girls are killed every hour by someone in their own family.
• While 55 per cent of all female homicides are committed by intimate partners or other family members, only 12 per cent of all male homicides are perpetrated in the private sphere [8] .
• Globally, an estimated 736 million women—almost one in three—have been subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both at least once in their life (30 per cent of women aged 15 and older). This figure does not include sexual harassment. The rates of depression, anxiety disorders, unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and HIV are higher in women who have experienced violence compared to women who have not, as well as many other health problems that can last after the violence has ended.
• Most violence against women is perpetrated by current or former husbands or intimate partners. More than 640 million or 26 per cent of women aged 15 and older have been subjected to intimate partner violence.
• Of those who have been in a relationship, almost one in four adolescent girls aged 15–19 (24 per cent) has experienced physical and/or sexual violence from an intimate partner or husband. Sixteen per cent of young women aged 15 to 24 experienced this violence in the past 12 months [9] .
• The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified violence against women and girls (VAWG) and has also exposed and exacerbated deep structural inequalities, reversed decades of progress on women’s participation in the labour market, raised the number of women living in extreme poverty, and increased the burden of unpaid care and domestic work, all of which exacerbates the risk factors and drivers of VAWG.
• In 2021, since the pandemic began, 45 per cent of women reported that they or a woman they know has experienced a form of VAWG. Seven in 10 women said they think that verbal or physical abuse by a partner has become more common. And six in 10 felt that sexual harassment in public spaces has worsened [10] .
• Less than 40 per cent of the women who experience violence seek help of any sort. In the majority of countries with available data on this issue, among women who do seek help, most look to family and friends and very few look to formal institutions, such as police and health services. Fewer than 10 per cent of those seeking help reported to the police [11] .
• At least 162 countries have passed laws on domestic violence, and 147 have laws on sexual harassment in the workplace. However, even when laws exist, this does not mean they are always compliant with international standards and recommendations or are implemented and enforced.
• In 2022, the Republic of Congo and Côte d’Ivoire enacted legislation protecting women from various forms of domestic violence, while the Republic of Congo, Indonesia, and Jamaica enacted legislation on sexual harassment in the workplace, including criminal penalties and civil remedies [12] .
• A regional analysis of Women’s Health Surveys conducted from 2016 to 2019 in five CARICOM Member States—Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago—found that ever-partnered women aged 15–64, who were in relationships with men who had attitudes and behaviours that reinforce men’s dominant position over women and perpetuate gender inequality, were more likely to have experienced lifetime and current intimate partner violence. Behaviours intended to control women’s bodies, autonomy, and contact with others are also strongly correlated with an increased risk of intimate partner violence [13] .
• Violence against women can result in significant costs to the state, victims/survivors, and communities. Costs are both direct and indirect, and tangible and intangible. For example, the costs of the salaries of individuals working at shelters are direct tangible costs. Costs are borne by everyone, including individual victims/survivors, perpetrators, the government, and society in general.
• In Viet Nam, both out-of-pocket expenditures and lost earnings represent nearly 1.41 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). More importantly, regression results for estimating productivity loss due to violence indicate that women experiencing violence earn 35 per cent less than those who are not abused, pointing to another significant drain on the national economy [14] .
• In Egypt, some 500,000 working days are lost each year due to marital violence, and the health sector bears more than USD 14 million in costs to serve just one quarter (600,000) of survivors [15] .
• In Morocco, the total cost of physical and/or sexual violence against women was estimated at MAD 2.85 billion (around USD 308 million) a year [16] .
• In 2021, gender-based violence across the European Union was estimated to cost around EUR 366 billion a year. Violence against women makes up 79 per cent of this cost, amounting to EUR 289 billion [17] .
• Globally, 6 per cent of women report that they have been subjected to sexual violence from someone other than their husband or partner. However, the true prevalence of non-partner sexual violence is likely to be much higher, considering the stigma related to this form of violence [18] .
• Fifteen million adolescent girls worldwide, aged 15–19 years, have experienced forced sex. In the vast majority of countries, adolescent girls are most at risk of forced sex (forced sexual intercourse or other sexual acts) by a current or former husband, partner, or boyfriend. Based on data from 30 countries, only 1 per cent have ever sought professional help [19] .
• In 2020, for every 10 victims of human trafficking detected globally, about four were adult women and about two were girls. Most of the detected victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation (91 per cent) are women. Analysis of court cases shows that female victims are subjected to physical or extreme violence at the hands of traffickers at a rate three times higher than males [20] .
• During the past decade, the global rate of child marriage has declined, with the global proportion of young women aged 20–24 years old who were married before the age of 18 decreasing from nearly one in four in 2010 to almost one in five (19 per cent) in 2022. However, the profound effects of the pandemic are threatening this progress, with up to 10 million additional girls at risk of child marriage in the next decade due to the pandemic [21] .
• School-related gender-based violence is a major obstacle to universal schooling and the right to education for girls. Globally, one in three students, aged 11–15, have been bullied by their peers at school at least once in the past month, with girls and boys equally likely to experience bullying.
• While boys are more likely to experience physical bullying than girls, girls are more likely to experience psychological bullying, and they report being made fun of because of how their face or body looks more frequently than boys [22] .
• At least 200 million women and girls aged 15–49 have undergone female genital mutilation in 31 countries where the practice is concentrated.
• In sub-Saharan Africa, one in four women and girls has undergone female genital mutilation. But levels vary widely across countries.
• There are still countries where female genital mutilation is almost universal, where at least nine in 10 girls and women, aged 15–49 years, have been cut, while it affects no more than 1 per cent of girls and women in Cameroon and Uganda [23] .
• Across five regions, 82 per cent of women parliamentarians reported having experienced some form of psychological violence while serving their terms. This included remarks, gestures, and images of a sexist or humiliating sexual nature, threats, and mobbing. Women cited social media as the main channel of this type of violence, and nearly half (44 per cent) reported receiving death, rape, assault, or abduction threats towards them or their families. Sixty-five per cent had been subjected to sexist remarks, primarily by male colleagues in parliament ©
• A global survey showed that 73 per cent of women journalists have experienced online violence. Twenty per cent said they had been attacked or abused offline in connection with online violence they had experienced. The reporting theme most often identified in association with heightened attacks was gender (49 per cent), followed by politics and elections (44 per cent), and human rights and social policy (31 per cent) [25] .

[1] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey , p. 104.

[2] UN Women (2021). Violence against women in the online space: Insights from a multi-country study in the Arab States .

[3] Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2021). National survey on violence in Uganda. Module I: violence against women and girls .

[4] National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Sung Soo Hong, and others (2017). The situation of hate speech and regulatory measures to combat hate speech.

[5] GBV AoR Helpdesk (2021). Climate change and gender-based violence: What are the links?

[6] UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2017). Horn of Africa: A call for action .

[7] UN Women (2020). Climate change, gender equality and human rights in Asia: Regional review and promising practices .

[8] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and UN Women (2023). Gender-related killings of women and girls: Global estimates of female intimate partner/family-related homicides in 2022 .

[9] World Health Organization (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018 .

[10] UN Women (2021). Measuring the shadow pandemic: Violence against women during COVID-19 .

[11] United Nations Economic and Social Affairs (2015). The world’s women 2015: Trends and statistics , p. 159.

[12] World Bank Group (2023). Women, business and the law 202 3 .

[13] UN Women (2021). Research brief: Intimate partner violence in five CARICOM countries: Findings from National Prevalence Surveys on violence against women .

[14] UN Women (2012). Estimating the cost of domestic violence against women in Viet Nam .

[15] Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics and the National Council for Women, Republic of Egypt, with UNFPA (2015). The Egypt economic cost of gender-based violence survey .

[16] Haut Commissariat au Plan Maroc (2019). Rapport sur les violences faites aux femmes et aux filles, Enquête Nationale sur la Violence à l’Encontre des Femmes et des Hommes .

[17] European Institute for Gender Equality (2021). The costs of gender-based violence in the European Union .

[18] World Health Organization (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018 .

[19] UNICEF (2017). A familiar face: Violence in the lives of children and adolescents , p. 73, 82.

[20] UNODC (2022).  Global report on trafficking in persons 2022 , p. 25, 33.

[21] Secretary-General of the United Nations (2023). Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards a rescue plan for people and planet. Report of the Secretary-General (special edition) .

[22] UNESCO (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying , p.25-26.

[23] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division (2020). Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls .

[24] Inter-Parliamentary Union (2016). Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians , p. 3.

[25] UNESCO (2022). The chilling: Global trends in online violence against women journalists .

[Page updated 21 September 2023.]

Related content

16 Days of Activism: Invest to prevent violence against women and girls

UNITE to End Violence against Women Campaign

16 Days of Activism

Related resources that drive our work.

Gender country profile - Afghanistan

Gender alert: Voices of strength: Contributions of Palestinian women-led organizations to the humanitarian response in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Supporting displaced adolescent boys and male youth in all their diversity who are survivors or at risk of sexual exploitation

Brochure: Strategic note 2021–2025: Côte d’Ivoire

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

How we’re implementing the National Plan to End Gender-Based Violence

The Women’s Bureau co-led the shaping of the Plan’s economic security and housing stability pillar, which aims to change harmful work cultures, address the root causes of gender-based violence in the world of work, and improve economic security for workers and survivors experiencing gender-based violence and harassment. Many of the actions outlined in this pillar drew inspiration from the International Labour Organization's (ILO) Convention on Violence and Harassment (Convention 190) . While the U.S. has not ratified Convention 190 and it is not binding on U.S. employers, it is the first international treaty to recognize the right to a world of work free of violence and harassment. 

Here are four key actions the Women’s Bureau has taken to implement the Plan:

In September 2023, the Women’s Bureau awarded the first Department of Labor grants exclusively focused on ending gender-based violence and harassment in the world of work . Over $1.5 million was awarded to five community organizations working across 14 states to build awareness of gender-based violence and harassment in the world of work, connect workers and survivors to their workplace rights and benefits, and implement worker- and survivor-driven strategies to shift workplace norms and culture. The grant program, Fostering Access, Rights and Equity (FARE), is now accepting Fiscal Year 2024 applications through May 28, 2024 .

Shortly after the Plan was released, the Women’s Bureau  signed a memorandum of understanding with the ILO Office for the U.S. and Canada to engage in joint events and activities concerning gender-based violence and harassment, including uplifting the principles of Convention 190 in U.S. policies, programs and practice. Together we are engaging stakeholders around the country and across sectors to discuss effective worker- and survivor-driven solutions to eliminate gender-based violence and harassment in the world of work. Since announcing our partnership, the Women’s Bureau has held about 40 regional convenings that have brought together workers, employers, unions, worker advocates, government representatives and others.

The Women’s Bureau also partnered with the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration on a webinar series that emphasized that gender-based violence and harassment is a workplace safety and health issue that has psychological and physical impacts on workers. The series featured discussions with workers, worker advocates, employers, and representatives from unions and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Finally, the Women's Bureau created a webpage on gender-based violence and harassment and published fact sheets, issue briefs and blogs throughout the year. Our fact sheet on gender-based violence and harassment in the world of work discusses key terminology, lists examples and outlines the key initiatives in this space. It is available in English and  Spanish . 

Carrying out the vision of the National Plan will take continued effort, action and coordination for many years to come. We all have an active role to play in making our world of work, and our society as a whole, safer and more equitable. The Women’s Bureau is committed to implementing this vision by engaging with survivors, workers, unions, employers and government agencies to address and prevent gender-based violence and harassment in the world of work. 

Amy Dalrymple and Kate Miceli are Policy Analysts at the Women’s Bureau. Katrin Schulz is the Branch Chief of Grants, Communications & Planning at the Women’s Bureau.

• Women's Bureau
• working families

SHARE THIS: