Long summary
What is this summary about?
This summary presents evidence regarding how pre-existing inequalities in access to resources increased the vulnerability of marginalized groups to climate-induced disasters.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2018.1527739
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
Wekesah, F. M., Mutua, E. N., & Izugbara, C. O. (2019). Gender and Conservation Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/14735903.2019.1567245?needAccess=true
What are the main findings?
Pre-existing inequalities in access to resources and infrastructure significantly heighten the vulnerability of marginalized groups to climate-induced disasters. Women face structural barriers in land ownership, financial credit, and agricultural technology, limiting their ability to implement adaptive farming practices. Inadequate access to clean water and energy sources disproportionately affects women and girls, increasing their workload and exposure to health risks. The migration of men for employment exacerbates economic insecurity for women, leaving them without rights to land and financial support. Disaster response efforts often fail to consider gender-specific vulnerabilities, leading to inequitable aid distribution and challenges in property rights. Furthermore, women’s exclusion from decision-making processes in conservation agriculture and climate adaptation strategies restricts their ability to benefit from extension services and farming innovations. Addressing these systemic barriers through inclusive policies and equitable resource distribution is critical to enhancing climate resilience for vulnerable communities.
1. Key finding
Overall
Extreme weather events disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals, the elderly, disabled persons, children, prisoners, and substance abusers. Exposure to natural disasters significantly exacerbates mental, emotional, and physical health challenges, particularly in marginalized communities. The lack of effective disaster response mechanisms further amplifies these adverse effects.
Women and girls related
Pregnant women are at heightened risk due to stress, inadequate social support, and resource shortages, leading to adverse birth outcomes such as depression, preterm birth, low birth weight, and pre-eclampsia.
2. Short summary
This systematic review examines the impact of climate change and natural disasters on vulnerable populations, emphasizing the heightened challenges faced by marginalized groups. The study categorizes these impacts into two key domains: mental, emotional, and psychological health effects, and physical health consequences.
Vulnerable individuals, including low-income populations, the elderly, prisoners, and individuals with substance use disorders, experience significant stress, discrimination, and health deterioration due to disaster exposure. Women, particularly pregnant women, face increased risks of adverse birth outcomes due to stress and lack of social support. Children also suffer from post-disaster trauma, experiencing PTSD, anxiety, and behavioral disruptions.
The review highlights the importance of equitable disaster response strategies to mitigate these disparities. It emphasizes the need for policies that prioritize mental health support, economic assistance, and inclusive disaster relief programs tailored to the needs of vulnerable populations.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Mental, emotional, and psychological health impacts
Displacement due to disasters disrupts social support systems, leading to increased psychological distress. Low-income single mothers affected by hurricane Katrina experienced heightened stress and anxiety due to unstable housing and economic insecurity. The breakdown of social networks exacerbated feelings of isolation and hopelessness.
Individuals with substance use disorders faced unique disaster-related stressors, including loss of access to medical support, increased exposure to post-disaster stressors, and a heightened risk of relapse.
Children were among the most vulnerable groups post-disaster, suffering from PTSD, depression, increased bullying, and externalized behaviors such as aggression and social withdrawal.
Physical health impacts
Housing instability, poor sanitation, and food insecurity following disasters increase the risk of communicable diseases, malnutrition, and chronic illnesses among vulnerable populations. Pregnant women face additional risks, including preterm birth and low birth weight due to high stress levels.
Unequal distribution of resources, limited healthcare access, and structural discrimination exacerbate these disparities, making it harder for marginalized communities to recover post-disaster.
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? | 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
Conservation Agriculture (CA) promotes sustainable farming through minimal tillage, permanent soil cover, and crop rotation, improving productivity, reducing labor demands, and enhancing soil quality. However, women face constraints in adopting CA, including limited access to resources and increased workloads.
Women and girls-related
CA positively influences women’s incomes and decision-making roles in households but also exposes them to risks such as land dispossession when agriculture becomes more profitable for men. It increases employment opportunities yet adds to women’s labor burdens. Strategies to support women’s participation in CA include direct agricultural input distribution to women and sensitization programs for men on gender needs in farming.
2. Short summary
This review examines the intersection of gender and CA in sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting the limited research on how gender dynamics influence CA adoption and implementation. The review identifies barriers women face in adopting CA, such as labor-intensive practices, restricted access to resources, and limited decision-making authority. Despite these challenges, CA has provided economic benefits to women by improving household food security, increasing their incomes, and enhancing their roles in agricultural decision-making.
However, CA also has adverse effects, including increased workloads and potential land displacement when commercial opportunities arise. Gender-responsive strategies, such as direct agricultural support to women and engaging men in gender-sensitive training, are crucial for equitable CA adoption. Overall, the findings emphasize the need for gender-inclusive agricultural policies that address structural inequalities and enhance women’s participation in sustainable farming practices.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Conservation agriculture (CA) brought both opportunities and challenges for women, reshaping their roles, incomes, and well-being in complex ways. In many cases, CA increased women’s earnings, offering them a more prominent role in farm management and decision-making, especially in female-headed households. As crop managers, women began to challenge traditional gender roles that had long limited them to labor-only positions. However, this shift was not without consequences. In places like Zambia, when groundnuts—historically cultivated by women—became a profitable cash crop, men began to assert control over the land, pushing women to the margins. Although CA generated income, the benefits were often reinvested into inputs and livestock rather than household food security. The discouragement of intercropping further reduced dietary diversity, prompting some women to abandon CA altogether and return to conventional farming.
The transition to CA also changed the labor landscape. Women were burdened with physically demanding tasks, often using heavy tools like the ‘chaka’ hoe that led to back injuries. Mechanized tools such as the Magoye ripper, intended to ease labor, sometimes had the opposite effect—shifting more responsibilities to women and increasing their workload. Herbicide use, while reducing manual weeding, also eliminated a key source of income for women and poor men. Tasks like transporting manure for fertilization fell to women and children, further compounding their daily burdens.
Health risks added another layer of complexity. The physical strain of CA practices and exposure to chemical herbicides and fertilizers created serious health concerns for both women and men. Despite these challenges, CA did open up space for women’s empowerment in some contexts—but the trade-offs in labor, health, and food security reveal that its impacts are deeply gendered and far from uniform.
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) | 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? | No | |
| 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 | 5 |
| Women | 3 |
| Intra-household | 0 |
1. Key finding
Overall
Climate change has negatively impacted livelihoods across Africa, with women disproportionately affected due to social, economic, and structural inequalities. Key vulnerabilities include agricultural production, food security, health, water and energy, and climate-related disasters. Women also have limited access to climate information services, restricting their ability to adapt effectively.
Women and girls related
Women face greater climate-related challenges, particularly in agriculture, food security, health, water access, and migration. Limited access to resources and decision-making power hampers adaptation. Food insecurity often leads women to reduce their food intake for male family members. Climate disasters result in higher mortality rates among women, while water scarcity increases their workload and limits economic and educational opportunities. Migration of men for employment further exacerbates women’s struggles with land tenure and economic instability, reinforcing gender inequalities.
2. Short summary
This review explores the gendered impacts of climate change on both men and women. It highlights the barriers that prevent women from adapting to climate-resilient practices and identifies gender-based disparities in coping mechanisms.
The findings reveal that climate change-induced vulnerabilities impact livelihoods and well-being differently for men and women. Women, in particular, face challenges due to limited access to decision-making power, resources, education, and skills necessary for effective adaptation. Furthermore, structural and institutional biases exacerbate these inequalities, making women more susceptible to adverse climate conditions.
By examining the existing literature, this review underscores the need for gender-responsive climate policies and interventions. Addressing these gender disparities is crucial to enhancing the resilience of African communities in the face of climate change.
3. Long summary
3.1 PICOS
3.2 Risk of bias Not assessed
3.3 Publication bias Not assessed
3.4 Findings
Across multiple sectors, women encounter persistent barriers to adapting to climate change, stemming from limited access to training, extension services, and essential technologies. Structural and institutional biases worsen food and nutrition insecurity, especially in female-headed households, where women often forgo their own meals to feed others, as seen in northeastern Kenya. Health risks are also greater for women, with higher mortality rates during climate disasters linked to inadequate healthcare access and broader socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Water and energy shortages, particularly during dry seasons, place additional burdens on women due to culturally assigned labor roles, leading to increased illness, reduced quality of life, and fewer opportunities for education and income. Gender norms also shape vulnerability to migration-related challenges, as women left behind face legal and societal obstacles in accessing land and resources. These gender-based disparities in power, knowledge, and resource control deepen climate vulnerability and highlight the need for inclusive, gender-sensitive climate adaptation policies.
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 |
