Methods for assessing climate vulnerability in Africa across two decades: a scoping review.

Background: Climate change and extreme weather events (EWEs) have an adverse impact on both populations and their surrounding environment. These effects span regions and sectors, with varying impacts, some of which are irreversible. The changing climate, accompanied by an increasing frequency of EWEs, necessitates assessment of climate vulnerability as an important applied instrument to identify populations and systems at risk and guide decision-makers in prioritising targeted interventions. Africa exhibits considerable climatic variability and is particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change. This review aims to identify key concepts and metrics previously used to define climate vulnerability in Africa facilitating a regional understanding of approaches across various sectors that can be adopted to understand the gaps and limitations as a basis to improve future methods. Methods: We searched literature from 1st January 2003 to 31st December 2023, restricted to publications in English. We analysed the extracted data using both descriptive and thematic approaches, consistent with established scoping review frameworks (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Specifically, we used descriptive statistics to summarise study characteristics (e.g., year, location, and type of method) and thematic analysis to identify approaches and frameworks used to assess climate vulnerability in Africa. Results: We retrieved 94 articles in the review. Most studies were conducted in South Africa (14/94, 15%) and Ethiopia (16/94, 17%). Vulnerability assessments were predominantly conducted in the agriculture (29/94, 31%) and environmental science (30/94, 32%) sectors. Thirteen vulnerability frameworks emerged, with the majority associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report four framework. The primary vulnerability methods were the use of linear aggregation (66/94, 70%) and unbalanced weighting (39/94, 41%). Flooding and rainfall were the most studied climatic hazard and EWEs in Africa. Few studies assessed climate vulnerability in health science, despite its critical importance. Conclusion: Existing frameworks demonstrate growing innovation; however, their methodological rigour varies, with inadequate contextual validation of indices and models. The methodological robustness enhances the selection of models that align with the specific dynamics and context of the system being evaluated. These methods guide policymaking and resource prioritization, by quantifying climatic vulnerability. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44329-025-00041-7.