Articlenpj climate action2026
Mapping sexual and gender minority inclusion in national adaptation plans globally.
Article in npj climate action, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) experience disproportionate climate impacts, yet no empirical analysis exists on their inclusion in adaptation planning. We ask: (1) To what extent are SGM included in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs)? and (2) How do legal and social status of SGM differ between countries that include or exclude them? We systematically map all available NAPs (or related documents in their absence, n = 256), analyzing inclusion across transformative capacity and climate justice. Of 198 UNFCCC member states, 23 mention SGM: 65% are SGM-sensitive (acknowledging disproportionate impacts on SGM), 26% SGM-responsive (acting on impacts) and 9% SGM-transformative (addressing systemic drivers of impacts). Higher legal protections (p < 0.05) and positive public opinion (p < 0.01) are significantly correlated with inclusion of SGM in NAPs. Results highlight the need for collaborative, place-based SGM stakeholder engagement to inform adaptation planning, ensuring responses reflect local vulnerabilities and community priorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.