Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary evaluates how targeted policies and interventions are addressing gender-specific barriers in financial inclusion and climate resilience, with a focus on empowering women in agriculture and financial systems.
What evidence is this summary based on?
This summary is based on two systematic reviews:
Awiti, A. O. (2022). Climate Change and Gender in Africa: A Review of Impact and Gender-Responsive Solutions. Frontiers in Climate, 4, 895950. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.895950
Saluja, O. B., Singh, P., Kumar, H. (2023). Barriers and Interventions on the Way to Empower Women through Financial Inclusion: A Two-Decade Systematic Review (2000–2020). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10:148.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01640-y
Main findings
Barriers
Women face systemic barriers to financial inclusion and climate resilience, including restricted access to financial services, wage gaps, limited land tenure rights, and socio-cultural norms. These barriers disproportionately affect women in developing countries, limiting their participation in financial decision-making and adaptive capacity in agriculture.
Interventions in financial inclusion
Programs such as microfinance initiatives, self-help groups, and digital financial tools have shown success in improving women’s access to credit, savings, and financial literacy. These interventions address structural inequities by providing targeted support, fostering collective economic strength, and leveraging digital technologies to reach underserved areas. However, implementation gaps and cultural resistance often limit their scalability and impact.
Climate resilience strategies
Gender-responsive adaptation policies focus on empowering women through improved access to climate information, participation in governance structures, and targeted resource allocation. For example, equitable representation in decision-making and access to sustainable agricultural inputs, such as drought-resistant seeds, enhance women’s adaptive capacity. However, gaps in policy implementation and systemic inequalities undermine long-term effectiveness.
How barriers are being addressed through targeted policies and interventions
Both reviews highlight the importance of integrated and gender-responsive approaches to addressing barriers to financial inclusion and climate resilience. Saluja (2023) identifies self-help groups and digital inclusion as transformative interventions, enabling women to access credit and financial services while fostering collective agency. Government-led programs, such as cash transfer schemes and subsidized credit for women, also play a pivotal role in reducing economic disparities. Awiti (2022) emphasizes gender-sensitive adaptation policies, which prioritize equitable access to resources and decision-making processes. These include participatory governance frameworks and the integration of women into climate-focused policy design. Both reviews stress that addressing systemic barriers, such as restrictive socio-cultural norms and unequal resource distribution, requires multi-stakeholder collaboration and long-term investment. Despite notable advancements, further efforts are needed to ensure the scalability and sustainability of these interventions.
1. Key finding
Overall
The review identifies six major barriers to financial inclusion for women—patriarchal structures, psychological constraints, low income/wages, low financial literacy, limited financial accessibility, and ethnicity. It also highlights six key interventions—government and corporate programs, microfinance, formal savings accounts, cash/asset transfer programs, self-help groups, and digital inclusion.
Women and girls-related
Women are disproportionately excluded from financial systems due to societal norms, economic inequalities, and limited access to resources. Tailored interventions such as digital financial tools, microfinance schemes, and self-help groups can play a significant role in bridging gender gaps and advancing empowerment.
2. Short summary
This systematic review analyzes barriers and interventions related to women’s financial inclusion over two decades (2000–2020). It identifies six critical barriers—patriarchal structures, psychological constraints, low income, low financial literacy, limited accessibility to financial services, and ethnicity-related biases—that perpetuate gender disparities in financial systems, particularly in developing countries. The review also examines six prominent interventions: government and corporate programs, microfinance, formal savings accounts, cash and asset transfer programs, self-help groups, and digital inclusion strategies.
The findings emphasize the cyclical and interconnected nature of barriers to financial inclusion, where social, economic, and psychological factors compound each other to exclude women from meaningful economic participation. Interventions targeting these barriers, especially through technology and institutional support, have demonstrated success in promoting women’s financial empowerment. However, gaps remain in the implementation of these interventions, particularly in addressing deeply ingrained societal norms and systemic inequalities.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Women, with a focus on vulnerable groups in developing countries
Intervention: Financial inclusion programs and interventions aimed at reducing barriers and promoting women’s empowerment
Outcome: Enhanced financial inclusion and empowerment of women, leading to improved economic equity and societal development
Study design: Systematic review
3.2 Risk of bias – Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias – Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Financial inclusion is hindered by a range of structural and social barriers rooted in patriarchal systems, institutional gender biases, and restrictive norms that limit access to bank accounts, credit, and financial decision-making. Psychological factors like low confidence and heightened risk aversion, particularly among low-income groups, further discourage engagement with formal financial systems. Wage gaps and limited access to stable, well-paying employment reduce disposable income, restricting opportunities to save or invest. Low financial literacy compounds these challenges, making it difficult to navigate banking systems or digital finance tools. Geographic and institutional obstacles, including limited rural banking infrastructure and rigid requirements, further restrict access—especially in underserved areas. Ethnic minority women face layered discrimination, deepening financial exclusion. To counter these issues, interventions have included gender-responsive government and corporate programs, microfinance initiatives offering small loans, and formal savings accounts with simplified access. Direct cash and asset transfer programs support household stability and asset-building, while self-help groups (SHGs) enable women to pool resources, access credit, and develop leadership skills. Digital tools like mobile money platforms and digital wallets are also expanding access, reducing dependency on traditional financial infrastructure and opening up new pathways to financial empowerment.
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) | Yes | |
| 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? | Partially | |
| 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? | N.A | |
| 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? | N.A | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | N.A | |
| 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? | N.A | |
| 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) | High |
5. Count of references to the following words
| Sex | 1 |
| Gender | 11 |
| Women | 52 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
1. Key finding
Overall
Climate change disproportionately impacts women in five key areas: agricultural production, food and nutrition security, health, water and energy, and climate-related disasters, migration, and conflict. Women’s limited access to assets and decision-making power exacerbates their vulnerability.
Women and girls-related
Gendered socio-cultural norms and institutional barriers deepen women’s susceptibility to climate-induced shocks. Gender-responsive strategies are necessary to address these disparities and build adaptive capacities.
2. Short summary
This review analyzes the gender-differentiated impacts of climate change in Africa, focusing on its disproportionate effects on women. It identifies five key areas of impact: agricultural production, food and nutrition security, health, water and energy, and climate-related disasters, migration, and conflict. Systemic inequalities, such as restricted access to land, financial resources, and decision-making roles, increase women’s vulnerability to climate change.
Top-down climate adaptation policies are criticized for failing to address gender-specific needs. The review highlights recommendations for more inclusive and context-specific strategies, including the development of gender-sensitive legal and institutional frameworks, increasing women’s participation in decision-making, improving access to climate information and financial services, and using asset-based approaches to close gender gaps in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
Population: Women in Africa, with a focus on rural and resource-dependent communities.
Intervention: Gender-responsive adaptation and mitigation strategies to address climate-induced vulnerabilities.
Outcome: Improved understanding of gendered impacts and strategies to enhance women’s resilience and adaptive capacities.
Study design: Integrative systematic review using 98 peer-reviewed articles published between 1992 and 2022.
3.2 Risk of bias – Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias – Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Agricultural production
Climate variability disrupts agricultural productivity, increasing the workload for women who are often responsible for food production and household sustenance. Limited access to inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and tools restricts women’s ability to adapt to these changes. Women are frequently excluded from decision-making processes in agriculture, reducing their capacity to implement adaptive or sustainable farming practices.
Food and nutrition security
Women are more affected by food insecurity due to unequal access to resources and cultural practices that prioritize other family members during shortages. Women often eat less to ensure children and other household members have enough food, putting them at higher risk of malnutrition. Declining agricultural yields, rising food prices, and livestock losses further constrain their ability to maintain adequate nutrition for their families.
Health
Climate change increases health risks for women through malnutrition, limited access to clean water, and greater exposure to vector-borne diseases like malaria. Reproductive health issues are worsened by displacement and poor living conditions caused by extreme weather events. These health burdens often limit women’s ability to participate in productive or economic activities.
Water and energy
Women are disproportionately affected by water and energy shortages, as they often spend significant time collecting water and fuelwood. These tasks can lead to physical strain and reduce time available for other activities, such as education or earning income. Poor access to clean cooking energy also exposes women to indoor air pollution, increasing the risk of respiratory diseases.
Disasters, migration, and conflict
Climate-induced disasters and resource scarcity often result in migration, increasing the responsibilities of women left behind to manage households. Women frequently face heightened risks of gender-based violence and exploitation during such crises. They are also excluded from key decision-making roles in disaster management and resource allocation, limiting their ability to influence solutions to these challenges.
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? | ||
| 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? | N.A | |
| 11. | Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | N.A | |
| 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? | N.A | |
| 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 | 50 |
| Women | 25 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
