Evaluating the international economic evidence of proactive disaster management strategies for extreme weather events: A global systematic review protocol.

Background Economic losses from extreme weather events (EWEs) are rising and are increasingly reported in settings with limited historical exposure to such hazards. Proactive disaster risk management is widely promoted to reduce impacts and improve value for investment, yet the economic evidence is dispersed across hazards, strategy types, and evaluation methods. As a result, decision-makers often struggle for a clear basis for comparing options across contexts. In addition, economic results are frequently reported without a structured synthesis of the barriers and facilitators that influence adoption and implementation. This review aims to synthesise and compare global evidence on proactive disaster risk management strategies for extreme weather events, alongside the barriers and facilitators associated with their adoption. Methods This protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251023343) and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA guidance. Peer-reviewed primary studies published from 2015 onwards will be eligible if they evaluate proactive strategies addressing extreme weather events and report at least one economic outcome. Eligible hazards must be extreme weather events. Interventions will be categorised as technology-based, infrastructure-based, community-based, nature-based, risk-financing, or hybrid strategies. Searches will be conducted in six electronic databases, with screening and data extraction managed in Covidence. Two reviewers will complete screening, extraction, and quality appraisal, with disagreements resolved through discussion or adjudication by a third reviewer. Data items will include study setting (Global North or South and World Bank income group), hazard type, intervention characteristics and scale, economic methods, and economic results. Economic outcomes will be collected. The study quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Given anticipated heterogeneity, findings will be narratively synthesised alongside subgroup comparisons and a framework-based thematic synthesis of adoption barriers and facilitators.