Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary presents evidence on how vulnerable populations in marginalized areas adapt to climate change and what external support is required to enhance their resilience.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on three systematic reviews:
Benevolenza, M. A., & DeRigne, L. (2019). The impact of climate change and natural disasters on vulnerable populations: A systematic review of literature.
Awiti, A. O. (2022). Climate Change and Gender in Africa: A Review of Impact and Gender-Responsive Solutions. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2022.895950/full
Haque, A. S., Kumar, L., & Bhullar, N. (2023). Gendered perceptions of climate change and agricultural adaptation practices: a systematic review. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17565529.2023.2176185?needAccess=true
What are the main findings?
Women and men employ different adaptation strategies in response to climate change. Women tend to focus on structural adaptations such as digging wells, constructing water tanks, and reinforcing pens, whereas men prioritize larger-scale modifications like micro-irrigation and land elevation. Women also resort to socio-cultural adaptations such as reducing meal intake and consuming wild plants to cope with food scarcity. Across marginalized communities, financial strategies like selling assets and taking credit are among the most common coping mechanisms. However, women have less access to financial resources and are often excluded from credit schemes, limiting their ability to adopt long-term adaptation measures. Both men and women diversify their income sources during climate crises. Women engage in non-agricultural work such as food processing, cleaning, and charcoal production, while men take up fishing, masonry, or carpentry. Seasonal migration is another adaptation strategy, with men relocating in search of work while women remain to manage household responsibilities. Vulnerable populations, particularly women, experience significant mental and physical health stress due to climate-induced hardships. Single mothers, children, and individuals with disabilities suffer from heightened psychological distress during extreme weather events. Climate-related displacement disrupts social support networks and contributes to increased anxiety, PTSD, and depression.
The systematic reviews by Haque (2023), Benevolenza (2018), and Awiti (2022) collectively illustrate how marginalized populations adapt to climate change and the external support they require. Haque (2023) highlights gendered adaptation strategies, showing how women rely on structural and livelihood adaptations, while men adopt land management and migration-based coping mechanisms. Benevolenza (2018) emphasizes the mental and physical health impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations, particularly single mothers and children, demonstrating the need for enhanced social support and mental health services. Awiti (2022) provides insight into gendered food insecurity and the political barriers that limit women’s adaptive capacity. Together, these reviews indicate that addressing gender disparities, improving access to financial resources, and strengthening institutional support are critical to building resilience among vulnerable populations.
1. Key finding
Overall
Climate change affects livelihoods and wellbeing. Women and men experienced
the impacts of climate change differently.
Women and girls-related
Climate change and its associated impacts affected women negatively. Compared to men, women often skipped meals to feed other family members in times of hunger and also reduced their food consumption so that the male members of the household could have enough to eat.
2. Short summary
This literature reviewed that climate change induced vulnerabilities and their impacts on livelihoods and wellbeing were gendered. Increased climate variability reduced agricultural productivity with unequal impacts on women’s and men’s human, natural, physical, social, and financial assets. Men and women adapted differently to climate change. Malnutrition was seen in women as they skipped their meals as a way of coping so that the male members could get adequate food. National policies are needed to support women’s access to other assets and services, such as education, land, finance services, and diverse income-earning opportunities.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Women and marginalized groups in Africa affected by climate change.
Intervention: Analysis of gendered climate impacts and adaptation strategies.
Outcome: Identification of gendered climate risks and policy solutions.
Study design: Literature review of studies from 1992 to 2022 on climate and gender.
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Coping and adapting
Malnutrition among women owing to the impact of climate change occurred because women: often skipped meals to feed other family members in times of hunger; traveled further for water and fuel.
When food shortage was prevalent among communities in northeastern Kenya, a common practice among women was to reduce their food consumption so that male members of the household could have enough to eat.
External support
There is a need to address the underlying inequalities and adopt proactive measures to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment. These include women’s rights to participate equally in lawmaking and governance, and equality in access to land and other productive resources, all of which contribute to women’s capacity to respond to and cope with climate-induced shocks.
Women’s participation in decision-making could be increased by adopting a range of supporting actions, including adopting flexible meeting timings that don’t conflict with women’s domestic obligations, and recognizing potential safety concerns when determining meeting venues, mobility, and duration of meetings.
There needs to be a deep and long-term commitment to women’s economic power by investing in training and capacity development to increase labor participation and institutional support to women-focused and women-led organizations.
More research is needed to understand how members of households, men and women, perceive climate risk, make decisions about how to respond, and the place of technology in adaptation.
National policies need to support women’s access to other assets and services, such as education, land, finance services, and diverse income-earning opportunities. Without these provisions, especially education and alternative livelihood options beyond subsistence farming, economic choices and off-farm work and income opportunities for women will remain limited.
3.5 Sensitivity analysis Not assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the 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
Individuals who were vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather, were namely the poor, the elderly/ disabled, children, prisoners, and substance abusers and they had experienced heightened levels of mental, emotional, and bodily stress due to natural disaster exposure. Mental and physical health of marginalized populations during and after a natural disaster were elevated and/or exacerbated by circumstances pertaining to the weather event and the lack of disaster-response actions.
Women and girls-related
For pregnant women in particular, exacerbated stress and minimal social support had long been found to result in adverse birth outcomes like depression, preterm birth, low birthweight, and pre-eclampsia.
2. Short summary
Vulnerable populations underwent hardships and encountered prejudice, discrimination, and stigma due to their socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, gender, age, cognitive and/or physical ability, etc.
The findings on the impact of natural disasters on marginalized populations were summarized in two broad domains: impact on mental, emotional, and psychological health and secondly impact on physical health.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Vulnerable groups affected by climate change and natural disasters, including low-income individuals, the elderly, children, prisoners, and those with mental health conditions.
Intervention: Examination of the physical, mental, and social impacts of climate change and natural disasters on at-risk populations.
Outcome: Identification of key challenges in disaster response and recommendations for improving resilience among marginalized groups.
Study design: Systematic review of literature covering studies on climate change, natural disasters, and public health impacts from the past 12 years.
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Following Hurricane Katrina, single mothers who experienced housing instability and relocation reported significantly higher levels of psychological distress and perceived stress, reflecting emotional suffering caused by overwhelming, unmanageable stress. Displacement disrupted their social support systems, daily routines, employment, physical activity, and healthcare access, while crowded and isolating conditions in shelters or temporary housing further impacted their mental health. Children were particularly vulnerable, facing intense emotional stress from fears of death, the loss of loved ones or homes, and the trauma of displacement, often resulting in anxiety, nervousness, anger, depression, and in some cases, diagnosed PTSD.
3.5 Sensitivity analysisNot assessed
4. AMSTAR 2 assessment of the review
| 1. | Did the 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? | No | |
| Overall (lowest rating on any critical item) | Low |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 0 |
| Gender | 0 |
| Women | 0 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
1. Key finding
Overall
Climate change perceptions and adaptation were highly contextual and considerably varied by gender and different intersections. Women and men had different adoption strategies to climate change.
Women and girls-related
Women adapted differently to climate change as compared to men. Women were found adopting different structural adaptation strategies like water harvesting, pen reinforcement, digging wells and boreholes, building water tanks and construction of trenches to control bushfires. Women changed cropping techniques and also limited their consumption of food and substituted their meals with wild plants.
2. Short summary
This systematic review, gave an understanding as to how climate change perceptions and adaptations differed on the basis of gender in agriculture across the countries worldwide.
Existing gender roles, farmers’ age, education, knowledge, marital status, intra-household power structure, religion, social status and ethnicity intersected with gender and climate change perception and adaptation. Apart from gender and intersectionality, access to resources, social networks and local institutions were found to be important correlates of adaptation strategies by farmers. Among the financial adaptation strategies, selling assets and taking credit was the most preferred financial adaptation. Women were found adopting different structural adaptation strategies like water harvesting, pen reinforcement, digging wells and boreholes, building water tanks and construction of trenches to control bushfires. Managerial adaptation strategies included change in cropping, and use of fertilizers. Socio-cultural adaptation included reducing consumption of the number and amount of meals and using wild plants to make traditional food to fight against drought. Livelihood adaptation included diversifying income through temporary non-farm activities. Seasonal or temporary migration was another form of adaptation.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Farmers worldwide, particularly in Africa and Asia, with a focus on gendered perceptions of climate change.
Intervention: Analysis of gendered differences in climate change perception and adaptation strategies in agriculture.
Outcome: Identification of gendered climate risks, adaptation strategies, and policy recommendations for gender-transformative climate actions.
Study design: Systematic review of 41 studies using the PRISMA protocol, incorporating qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches from 2005 to 2019.
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Adaptation to climate change took various forms across technical, financial, structural, managerial, socio-cultural, and livelihood strategies, with distinct roles for men and women. Technically, both men and women adopted new crop varieties, diversified agriculture, and used improved technologies. Financially, the most common strategy was selling assets or taking credit. Structurally, men often handled flood-preventive measures like land elevation, house reinforcement, micro-irrigation, and drainage construction, while women focused on water harvesting, pen reinforcement, digging wells, building tanks, and creating fire-control trenches. In terms of management, women emphasized crop changes and fertilizer use as part of climate-smart agriculture (CSA), showing more conservative use of natural resources, while men leaned toward conservation agriculture, composting, and improved feed. For fishermen, fish rearing in ponds and lakes was key, while women highlighted seasonal forecasts and post-harvest technology. Livestock adaptation also varied—men reduced herd sizes and diversified feed, while women shifted toward raising small ruminants and non-ruminants. Both genders saw lending land to sharecroppers as a vital adaptation. Socio-culturally, women coped with drought by reducing meal sizes and relying on wild plants, while their agricultural roles expanded to include small-scale livestock rearing as men migrated or pursued sharecropping. In livelihood adaptation, women engaged in non-farm activities like domestic work, food processing, and charcoal production, while men diversified into fishing, crab-fattening, herding, collecting forest products, carpentry, masonry, and informal labor. Migration, especially seasonal or temporary, was a common adaptation, with men in pastoralist communities following traditional patterns of relocation during droughts.
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) | Yes | |
| 3. | Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | |
| 4. | Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 5. | Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | Yes | |
| 6. | Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | Yes | |
| 7. | Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (Yes if table of included studies, partially if other descriptive overview) | Yes | |
| 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 | 1 |
| Gender | 24 |
| Women | 3 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
