Long Summary
What is this summary about?
This summary presents evidence on the key factors contributing to climate vulnerability, particularly among marginalized populations. It focuses on biophysical and social stressors, highlighting the disproportionate impact on women.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on three systematic reviews
Awiti AO (2022) Climate Change and Gender in Africa: A Review of Impact and Gender-Responsive Solutions. Front. Clim. 4:895950. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2022.895950/full
Phiri, A. T., Toure, H. M., Kipkogei, O., Traore, R., Afokpe, P. M., & Lamore, A. A. (2022). A review of gender inclusivity in agriculture and natural resources management under the changing climate in sub-Saharan Africa. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1), 2024674. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/23311886.2021.2024674?needAccess=true
Räsänen, A., Juhola, S., Nygren, A., Käkönen, M., Kallio, M., Monge Monge, A., & Kanninen, M. (2016). Climate change, multiple stressors and human vulnerability: a systematic review. Regional Environmental Change, 16, 2291-2302. https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/3073e219-26bc-4fe0-a01c-6ae7fd3c8767/content
Main findings
Climate vulnerability is shaped by a complex interplay of biophysical and social stressors. While biophysical stressors, such as droughts, floods, natural resource depletion, and pollution, account for 25% of the contributing factors, social stressors—including poverty, unemployment, governance failures, weak agricultural markets, and globalization—make up the remaining 75%. These social stressors have a disproportionate impact on women, severely limiting their ability to adapt and respond effectively to climate change.
Women, in particular, face higher food insecurity, often skipping meals to ensure their families are fed during times of scarcity. Their ability to invest in climate-resilient agriculture is further restricted by discriminatory land tenure systems that prevent them from owning land, discouraging long-term agricultural investments. Additionally, limited access to climate information, financial services, and decision-making power further weakens their capacity to respond to climate risks. When disasters strike, women’s caregiving responsibilities, restricted mobility, and lack of economic resources leave them with fewer options for resilience, increasing their overall vulnerability.
Beyond these immediate challenges, gendered socio-economic barriers create long-term obstacles to climate adaptation. Women’s restricted access to education, technical training, and modern agricultural technologies prevents them from adopting effective climate adaptation strategies. Financial disparities exacerbate these challenges, as women have fewer financial assets and struggle to access credit or agricultural extension services, which are essential for building resilience. Meanwhile, migration patterns further compound their hardships. Men are more likely to migrate in search of work, leaving women with increased household responsibilities yet no legal rights to land ownership or financial security, making it even harder for them to cope with climate-related challenges.
The climate crisis operates at multiple levels, with both local and global stressors exacerbating women’s vulnerabilities. Locally, food insecurity, poverty, and weak governance structures create persistent hardship, making everyday survival increasingly difficult. At a broader scale, global forces such as climate change and globalization intensify inequalities, further deteriorating the socio-economic status of women in marginalized areas.
The consequences of these disparities extend beyond economic hardships. Women experience higher mortality rates following climate-induced disasters due to their limited access to life-saving resources such as healthcare, clean water, and adequate nutrition. The cumulative effect of these factors makes it clear that climate vulnerability is not just an environmental issue—it is deeply embedded in social inequalities that disproportionately affect women. Addressing these disparities requires targeted, gender-responsive policies that ensure women have equal access to resources, education, and decision-making power, thereby strengthening their ability to withstand and adapt to climate change.
1. Key finding
Overall
Climate change has significantly affected the livelihoods and well-being of both men and women. However, men and women experience its effects differently.
Women and girls related
Women have been disproportionately impacted by climate change. Compared to men, women face greater challenges in accessing and utilizing weather and climate information services.
2. Short summary
This review highlights the differential impacts of climate change on men and women. It provides evidence on the barriers that restrict women from adopting climate-resilient practices. The literature demonstrates that climate-induced vulnerabilities are gendered, with men and women having unequal access to decision-making power, knowledge, skills, assets, and networks.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
3.2 Risk of bias: Not assessed.
3.3 Publication bias: Not assessed.
3.4 Findings
Women encounter a range of systemic barriers across various areas due to climate change, with limited access to training, extension services, and technologies hindering their ability to adapt in agriculture. Social, institutional, and structural biases worsen food and nutrition insecurity, particularly in female-headed households, where women often reduce their own food intake to feed others, as seen in northeastern Kenya. Health impacts are also severe, with higher mortality rates among women during climate-related disasters driven by socioeconomic inequalities. Water and energy scarcity, especially during dry seasons, disproportionately affects women due to gendered labor norms, leading to increased disease, lost opportunities, and reduced quality of life. Migration further exposes women to vulnerability, as those left behind often lack property rights and face discrimination in resource access and control. Overall, gender disparities in decision-making, resources, and opportunities amplify women’s risks and deepen existing inequalities in the face of climate change.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis: Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | No | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | No | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | No | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | No | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | No | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | No | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | Na | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | No | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | No | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Low |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 30 |
| Women | 19 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
1. Key finding
Overall impact
This review provides insights into the status of gender inclusivity among smallholder farmers, particularly women, in sub-Saharan Africa. It serves as a critical reference for developing effective mitigation and adaptation strategies in agriculture and natural resource management in response to climate change.
Women and girls related
Predefined gender roles in both rural and urban areas, along with sociocultural constraints, make children, women, and young people especially vulnerable to climate change. Women face significant challenges in accessing agricultural resources, inputs, finances, and credit facilities compared to men.
Short summary
Agriculture remains the most affected sector in sub-Saharan Africa due to the integral role climate plays in the biophysical and socio-economic environments of the region. Addressing climate change impacts requires gender inclusivity in agriculture and natural resource management. Sociocultural constraints and predefined gender roles particularly expose children, women, and young people to climate-related risks.
Long summary
3.1 PICOS
3.2 Risk of bias: Not assessed.
3.3 Publication bias: Not assessed.
3.4 Findings
In sub-Saharan Africa, women face persistent barriers to land ownership and inheritance due to traditional land tenure systems, limiting their ability to invest in climate-resilient agriculture. Without secure land rights, women are less likely to adopt adaptive practices and often rely on small livestock like chickens and goats, which are vulnerable to malnutrition from poor pastures and water scarcity, deepening poverty. Access to weather and climate information is also unequal, as men typically benefit from higher education, mobility, and ownership of communication tools like mobile phones, radios, and TVs—giving them greater control over agricultural and environmental planning. Gender disparities rooted in traditional roles and unequal access to land, credit, extension services, and technology restrict women’s ability to support household and community livelihoods. These imbalances in resources and decision-making power weaken women’s adaptive capacity and increase their exposure to climate-related risks.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis: Not assessed.
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | No | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | No | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | No | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | No | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | No | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | NA | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | No | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | No | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Medium |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 73 |
| Women | 38 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
1. Key finding
Overall
This study identifies the key stressors contributing to human vulnerability. Approximately 25% of these stressors are biophysical, while 75% are social.
Women and girls related
Certain stressors, such as poor health and lack of financial resources, exacerbate social vulnerability at the individual, household, and community levels. Women, in particular, are disproportionately affected by income insecurity and health challenges in their daily lives.
Short summary
This systematic review examines the multiple stressors influencing human vulnerability, distinguishing between biophysical and social stressors. Biophysical factors include climate-related events like droughts, floods, and natural resource degradation, while social stressors are associated with poverty, unemployment, governance, agricultural market fluctuations, and globalization. The review emphasizes that stressors often interact at multiple scales, amplifying human vulnerability.
Long summary
3.1 PICOS
3.2 Risk of bias: Not assessed.
3.3 Publication bias: Not assessed.
3.4 Findings
The majority of studies (79%) examined livelihood vulnerability, with the rest focusing on vulnerabilities within industrial agriculture and broader societal systems. Stressors were categorized as biophysical (25%), including climate-related events like floods, droughts, pollution, and resource degradation, and social (75%), involving poverty, unemployment, governance failures, market instability, and globalization. Many of these stressors—such as environmental degradation and poverty—operate across multiple scales, compounding human vulnerability. Women are especially affected by economic and health-related stressors, which limit their ability to adapt to climate risks. While some stressors, like income loss or poor health, are experienced locally, global forces such as climate change and economic globalization further intensify these vulnerabilities on a broader scale.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis: Not assessed.
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the review state clearly the components of PICOS (or appropriate equivalent)? | Yes | |
| 2. | Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (i.e. was there a protocol) | No | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | No | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | No | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | No | |
| 8. | Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? | No | |
| 9. | Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes | |
| 10. | If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | Na | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | Yes | |
| 12. | If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? | No | |
| 13. | Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Medium |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 0 |
| Women | 0 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
