1. Key finding

 

Overall

Climate adaptation actions show both synergies and trade-offs with gender equality. Adaptation efforts that prioritize gender considerations from the planning stage tend to advance gender equality, while those without such focus risk reinforcing inequalities.

 

Women and girls-related

Actions designed with explicit gender-sensitivity, such as participatory governance, capacity-building programs, and equitable resource distribution, promote empowerment. However, projects lacking this focus often increase workloads for women or exclude them from decision-making, particularly in male-dominated sectors.

 

2. Short summary

This analysis examines how climate adaptation actions impact gender equality across nine sectors globally, using the Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5) framework. Based on 319 studies, it identifies both synergies and trade-offs between adaptation initiatives and gender outcomes. Actions that incorporate gender considerations from the planning stage, such as involving women in decision-making and ensuring equitable access to resources, show positive results. For example, women-led conservation projects in terrestrial ecosystems have enhanced leadership roles and provided income opportunities.

Gender-blind adaptation measures that prioritize economic or ecological objectives over social outcomes can reinforce existing inequalities. For instance, payment-for-ecosystem services programs often disadvantage women with limited land ownership, while industrial adaptation projects may exclude women’s needs in workforce planning. Addressing these issues requires a gender-transformative approach that tackles systemic barriers like cultural norms and inequitable access to resources.

To improve outcomes, adaptation policies should include clear gender equity goals, participatory governance mechanisms, and targeted support such as training and resources for women. Current SDG 5 targets are noted to have limitations in capturing the full complexity of gender issues, highlighting the need for expanded frameworks that address intersecting factors such as ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

 

3. Long summary

 

3.1 PICOS
Population: Women, men, and marginalized communities globally, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.

Intervention: Climate adaptation actions categorized into ecosystem-based, behavioral/cultural, technological/infrastructural, and institutional measures.

Comparison: Adaptation actions with and without gender-responsive design.

Outcome: Synergies or trade-offs between adaptation actions and SDG 5 targets (e.g., economic empowerment, participation, reduced workload).

Study design: Rapid systematic review based on 319 publications, using qualitative and quantitative analyses.

 

3.2 Risk of bias – Not assessed

 

3.3 Publication bias – Not assessed

 

3.4 Findings

The analysis identifies synergies and trade-offs between climate adaptation actions and gender equality. Positive outcomes are associated with initiatives that incorporate gender considerations, such as women’s involvement in conservation efforts, which have been shown to enhance leadership roles and income generation. Examples include women-led aquaculture projects and agroecological farming initiatives, which have improved household food security and resilience in regions such as Bangladesh and Malawi.

Trade-offs arise when adaptation measures fail to account for gender dynamics. For instance, forest conservation programs linked to ecosystem services often disadvantage women due to unequal land ownership and increased labor demands. Industrial adaptation initiatives frequently exclude women from decision-making processes and overlook structural barriers such as wage disparities.

Gender-responsive policies, participatory governance, and targeted capacity-building are critical for promoting gender equality within adaptation actions. The SDG 5 framework is critiqued for its limited capacity to address intersectional dimensions of gender inequality, such as ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Expanding the framework to include additional targets (SDG 5+) is recommended to capture these complexities and improve outcomes.

 

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?	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?	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	45
Women	21
Intra-household	0