Invited perspective: “Natural hazard management, professional 1 development and gender equity: let’s get down to business.”

Women constitute a minority in the geoscience professional environment (around 30%, e.g., UNESCO, 2015; 15 Gonzales, 2019; Handley et al., 2020), and as a consequence, they are underrepresented in disaster risk reduction 16 (DRR) planning. After examining the Sendai framework documents and data outputs, Zaidi and Fordham (2021) 17 pointed out that the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) has failed to promote women 18 and girls’ inclusion in disaster policy effectively. In addition, it represents a missed opportunity to tackle gender-based 19 issues in DRR (even beyond the female-male dichotomy). Nevertheless, practical actions have been promoted and 20 applied in several contexts with promising results, but often they only remain lessons learned in localised environments 21 (Zaidi and Fordham, 2021). Instead, the global gender gap index, which includes political empowerment, economic 22 participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health, and survival, reveals that the average distance completed 23 to parity is only 68% in 2019. Although the gap closing rate has constantly improved, it will take about 135.6 years 24 to close it completely (WEF, 2021). These numbers do not yet account for 2020-2021 data, where the global pandemic 25 has more strongly impacted women, their career, their opportunities, and their health in comparison with men (e.g., 26 Alon et al., 2020; Chandler et al., 2021; Yildirim and Eslen-Ziya, 2021). 27

Gender recognition and representation do not affect the sole career sphere or the policy an d DRR agenda. They even 29 impact our vision about gender and gender equity in the actions, behaviours, and intentions before, during and after 30 natural hazards. One example is the number and the location (referred to the journal and journal's focus) of gender 31 and disaster publications (it is easy to recognizse after a quick search on the most common academic web engines and 32 on the few literatures review published). Based on our literature search and on available review papersAmong the few 33 literatures consulted, it was easy towe recognizse that in-depth gender papers wasere critically considered in most 34 non-technical (related to natural hazards, disasters and risk) journals. Not only,. Without going into much detail, ffor 35 most disaster-related papers, gender is was only merely used as a dichotomous variable (usually together with a set of 36 other socio-demographics variables) to test assessments and some model results, which are the maincentral core of 37 the papers. When gender results in a significant variable, it is rarely contextualised with the vulnerability of women 38 and men in the socio-cultural and political environment of the study site (exceptions are an e.g., exception is Finucane 39 et al., (2000); Cvetkovic et al., (2018); and, Mondino et al., (2021) in a minimum amongpart, among very few others 40 in literature). Instead, stereotypical biological sex motivations are more often considered (e.g., women are more fragile 41 during disaster occurrences because they are physically weakervulnerable due to housekeeping and child-bearing 42 responsibilities (Paradise, 2005; De Silva and Jayathilaka, 2014)). Gender as a social structure has a complex 43 interaction both at the individual and communal levels (Risman, 2018), able to influence the capacity of communities 44 to actively withstand the negative occurrence of natural hazardswithstand the negative occurrence of natural hazards 45 actively. In our opinion, if we fail failing to understand that, we fail in risk reduction strategies and effective planning. 46 To this point, we recognise that gender is poorly investigated in DRR papers. It is much more considered in "non-47 technical"social sciences articles, which are more oriented to history, societies, and social behaviours in general. 48 ThusMoreover, gender diversity is scarcepoorly represented in the professional realm of opportunitiessphere of natural 49 hazards, reflecting not only in recognising andwith consequences for managing vulnerabilities and career opportunities 50 in but also in academic research. 51 Thus, despite the global gender gap index decreasing over the years, challenges to gender equity (e.g. reaching equal 52 political power, economic participation, educational attainment) are still strongly perceived. Therefore, practical 53 actions, solutionssolutions, and strategies to close the gender gap must continue to be tested and researched, the 54 actions' efficacy assessed, and their effects adequately monitored. In this 'invited perspective', we have put individuals 55 identifying themselves with genders usually consideredthat are a minority in the field of natural hazards, i.e. female 56 and non-binary genders, women at the centre of the discussion. We aim to concretely contribute to understanding the 57 standpoint of women these minorities who are often underrepresented, unheard and poorly considered professionally 58 and in DDR policy and practice. Thus, this perspective qualitatively explores a collection of 12 21 opinions of 59 individuals identifying themselves as female and one opinion of an individual identifying themselves asor non-binary 60 working in the broad field of natural hazards (in academia, in the industry, as practitioners or policymakers). The 61 respondents are disproportionate towards the female gender; as a result, most of the issues and solutions proposed and 62 discussed in the present paper revolve around the female gender. We have collected their views in April 2021 with an 63 online self-administered survey via EU Survey. 64 The questionnaire was short and explorative, examining opinions on the challenges (Q1) related to natural hazards in 65 general and those concerning (Q2) natural hazards and gender equity, plus (Q3) on the most urgent solutions to 66 withstand gender inequities. The last question (Q4) asked for the respondent's gender-related challenges experienced 67 during their career (or studies). Questions have been purposely developed following a general -to-local scale, 68 narrowing down their general perspectives in natural hazards research and concluding with one's own experience. We 69 have chosen open questions to let the professionals personally provide the most critical priority for action, related 70 challenges, and solutions. We have categorised all the answers through qualitative text analysis and . Eeach question 71 answer to the four questions has been analysed independently by the three authors, and a. Each response to the four 72 questions has been analysed independently by the three authors. A final discussion allowed to assign all responses to 73 definitive categories to the key concepts expressed. All categories are shown in Figure 1. The survey included some 74 socio-demographic variables (profession, educational level, and country of residence) characterising the respondents. 75 The data collection used a random approach, where only interested participants offered their time participating in the 76 survey; we found a heterogeneous (and disproportionate) representation of those demographic categories. The survey 77 was conducted in April 2021 online on EUSurvey, a service created and managed by the European Commission. The 78 survey was fully anonymised, and no user-related data have beenwere saved. No respondent's sensitive information 79 (e.g., name, and surname or age) was asked. The survey, i.e. link to the questionnaire with a short explanatory and 80 motivational text, was advertised via email to the EGU NHESS author list and to a list of female professionals that 81 the authors had collected in their networks. Moreover, the survey was advertised on social media, particularly on 82 Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook, through the personal accounts of the first two authors. 83 Among 122 people who filled the questionnaire, 121 recognised themselves as female and 1 one as non-binary. Since 84 also non-binary people are underrepresented voices, we decided to include their answers in the analysis. The responses to each of the four questions have been categorised into two groups: related to (i) natural hazards (dark 92 grey in Figure 1) and (ii) professional development (light grey in Figure 1). This division is because respondents 93 oriented their answers based on personal judgment, progressed professional experience, and cognitive and emotional 94 background. In the following chapters, direct quotes of responses received are identified with ID and a sequential 95

Natural hazards biggest challenges 102
Natural hazards and disaster reconnaissance have been widely investigated among professional, government, and 103 academic experts. Somewhat lesser is the state of the arts regarding the natural hazards community's grand challenges 104 to direct new approaches for investigation. For this reason, we asked women our respondents to express the most 105 critical challenge in natural hazards research (Q1) with no limiting context. The importance to start from global to 106 local (from natural hazards in general to gender equity and personal experience) aimed at help the interviewee to get 107 into the topic and toof starting from global to local (from natural hazards in general to gender equity and personal 108 experience) aimed at helping the interviewee to get into the topic and value theirits own professional knowledge and 109 experienctise about natural hazards. In addition, we wanted to check, despite the question being explorative in nature, 110 whether women would have connected the biggest challenges of natural hazards to broad concepts of vulnerability, 111 fragile communities, vulnerable groupsdespite the question being explorative, we wanted to check whether women 112 would have connected the biggest challenges of natural hazards to broad concepts of vulnerability, fragile 113 communities, vulnerable groups, and similar. This because it has been always the greatest stereotype associated tois 114 because it has always been one of the greatest stereotypes associated with women (i.e., the most dedicated to caring 115 activities and fragile and fragile part of the couple). Instead, tThe most perceived challenge (44.3%) is relateds to 116 climate change and extreme events, focusing on the difficulties of long-term forecasting and predictive models due to 117 the interchange of anthropogenic impacts on the environment. . Enhancing communication is on the top priorities for 1744 interviewees (13.936%), highlighting that "our biggest 139 challenge as scientists is to convince the general public and politicians about our scientific findings and to be able to 140 communicate them properly, in a language that they can understand" ID30. Problems with comprehension may also 141 derive from a "lack of consensus concerning basic definitions (hazard, risk, vulnerability, resilience), leading to 142 misunderstandings or misuse of these terms" ID52 that are able tocan affect authorities who can neglect the 143 information received. 27% of iInterviewees also pointed to a lack of proper political management and insufficient 144 resources and funding. In this regard, it is even more prominent the need for a " [...]  undertaking a STEM career (for study or work). Collaborative goals, such as translating theory into practice to help 159 communities advance and enhance development, traditionally appear to lack in the STEM fields. Inter-and 160 transdisciplinary research may therefore be a women's professional requirement to be able to consider the multifaceted 161 nature of the problem. However, although it is widely recognised, it is still very much concentrated within specific 162 disciplinary areas (Latour, 2004 we can expand the discourse to collaborative research knowledge that is culturally appropriate, respectful, honouring, 172 and careful of the local community promoting anti-racist, gender-inclusive theory and practice, cross-cultural research 173 methodology, critical perspectives on environmental justice, and land-based education. 174 The call for a more inclusive and ethical science that is useful, usable, and used (

is likely one of the field[s] that suffers least of gender un-equality. At least in the western countries. […]" ID86. 254
Interestingly, none of these nineeight respondents considered gender an important variable in the disaster assessment 255 or its vulnerability construction. We discuss more about positive changes experienced by the respondents in terms of 256 gender equity in the professional sphere in chapter 2.3. 257 All the above demonstrates a literature gap in identifying the ways to improve the role of women in disaster risk 258 governance derived by a gender data gap that still exists. 7% of the respondents found it a priority to collect more 259 disaggregated data to raise the visibility of the problem when assessing risks and adaptation options of natural hazards, 260 recognising gender differences without mainstreaming the stereotypes. That might give the idea of gender to be merely 261 connected to a vulnerable condition (Roder et al., 2017) and to be exclusively related to women, promoting 262 stereotypical notions of women as "victims" or the "weaker sex" (Zaidi and Fordham, 2021). This is because, often, 263 vulnerability assessments do not emphasise the fact that individuals simultaneously belong to multiple and 264 intersectional social groups -gender being just one of these -from which they draw their identities and which shape 265 their risk profile in the context of disasters (Zaidi and Fordham, 2021 Finally, the need to include gender-specific response and recovery measures is an utmost priority for 4.1% of 272 respondents, where 0.8% argue for a gendered and inclusive language and communication. So, by combining multiple 273 concepts aroused brought up by the interviewees: we need women, and we need to use appropriate language when 274 including them in the DRR policy and practice. However, which women should be involved? This is the interesting 275 We can conclude shortly that there is no 'silver bullet' to solve gender equity in natural hazards. However, there is a 278 need to know how useful and effective concrete examples, specific suggestions, action guides, and indicators are to 279 mainstream gender into DRR. 280

Professional development and gender equity 281
The questions related to natural hazards and gender equity (Q2 and Q3) had been received to be related to natural 282 hazards per se (see chapter 2.2) and for some others to professional development ( 43.9% of responses suggested enhancing selection transparency via providing equal support and access to resources 336 and information, recognising women's work, and changing the reward structure, ensuring an experience-based salary 337 to close the gender gap. Bell and co-authors advocated for such changes and actions almost 20 years ago (Bell et al., 338 2003). It is noteworthy and disappointing how slow the process to equity is if we still discuss the benefit these changes 339 would accomplish today. Indeed, many institutions have taken steps forward in these regards. However, the mission 340 is far from being complete, and possibly one reason is that the efficacy of actions undertaken is often not measured or 341 not publicly shared (Timmers et al., 2010;McKinnon, 2020). Promoting women's work reflected 31.8% of responses 342 calling for hiring more women, particularly in high profiles and relevant positions, as a so lution. To achieve that, 343 quotas are one of the actions commonly proposed. Quotas have been since long introduced in many institutes and 344 funding organisations and resulted in an effective reduction of the gender gap in leading roles in certain areas (Handley 345 et al., 2020;Pellegrino et al., 2020). However, as also some respondents noted, quotas rules may appear only on paper 346 at times. They may also be seen as controversial or counterproductive, reinforcing old stereotypes (Handley et al., 347 2020, Pellegrino et al., 2020. We believe that quotas can be a double-edged sword able to raise negative opinions 348 among women in the workplace, undermining their credibility. However, until more transparency is enacted, quotas 349 can be a valuable instrument to promote and normalize more gender balance environmentsquotas can be a valuable 350 instrument to promote and normalise more gender balance environments until more transparency in selection 351 procedures is enacted.  From the responses analysis and state of the art literature, we have understood that gender -based challenges at the 417 professional level and within the disaster cycle are very close. Moreover, because of their interrelation, the solutions 418 proposed may not be exclusive for a professional or a more technical sphere, but they can work simultaneously, with 419 mutual benefit. Early education is key to fostering a cultural revolution. If children attend classes related to social 420 norms, diversity, and inclusion, they might become adults able to go beyond individuals' gender. If so, women and 421 other gender minorities would be much more considered at the leading positions in DRR institutions or academia, thus 422 promoting a more comprehensive vision about vulnerabilities before, during, and after natural hazards occurrence. 423 But the cultural change must also be vertical in a top-down approach by organising specific compulsory training for 424 leaders and professionals to explain biases and stereotypes and fight them to promote a more effective and just natural 425 hazards management and, thus, a more inclusive society. In addition, the scale of the change should consider the 426 horizontal space in which role models are found within peer networks to promote and support positive imitative 427

behaviour. 428
For what concerns the guiding principles and institutions, several examples highlighted in this perspective showed 429 how the political agenda (e.g., SFDRR) lacks any gender-related practical guidance. So do all other local 430 administrations and institutions. Many gender-inclusive initiatives are short-term and aim primarily to spark interest 431 rather than build skills, with, m. Most of the time, they arebeing just a box 'ticked' rather than an effective action. 432 Therefore, we advocate for compulsory study, implementation, and application of methods to measure and monitor 433 over time the efficacy of actions and strategies put in place at institutional, national and international level s. 434 In addition, current gender-inclusive initiatives are excluding men despite literature demonstrating a disjunction 435 between the assumptions and lack of understanding of the reality of men's lived disaster experiences (e.g., Rushton et 436 al., 2020). What Fordham and Meyreles (2014) called a paradox, masculinity, which contributes to the structure of 437 power that privileges men, can also put men at risk (e.g. Jonkman and Kelman, 2005; Ashley and Ashley, 2008; 438 Fitzgerald et al., 2010 ). Similarly, we can observe how in the professional domain, specific jobs and disciplines are 439 still perceived as belonging to a (stereotyped) female world only and where men are seen as outliers. If the final goal 440 is a truly inclusive society, we must be aware of all the biases and stereotypes we are surrounded by and counteract 441 all of them appropriately. The future of research in natural hazards and disaster mitigation and our professional domain 442 needs to include all voices and find allies in the privileged categories of the specific domain of interest. We think that 443 lessons learnt within the context of women discrimination can serve as starting point to expand the discourse to other 444 gender minorities and that intersectional research should be advocated for to gain an all-inclusive approach and 445 understanding of disaster stories that foreground differences. 446

Authors' contributions 447
All authors have contributed to the Conceptualization and Data curation. VC and GR have equally contributed to the 448 analysis and preparation of the first draft. All authors have contributed to the revision and editing of the manuscript. 449

Competing interests 450
Author HK is executive editor of the journal NHESS. 451

Special issue statement 452
The manuscript is submitted as part of the Special Issue "Perspectives o n challenges and step changes for addressing 453 natural hazards." 454