What are the key socio-economic and demographic factors (e.g., income, gender, age, education) that contribute to increased climate vulnerability in marginalized populations?
Short answer
Key finding
Approximately 25% of the stressors contributing to climate vulnerability are biophysical, mainly linked to natural resource degradation, pollution, and climate-related events such as floods and droughts. In contrast, 75% of the stressors are social, including poverty, unemployment, inadequate healthcare, weak agricultural markets, governance challenges, and globalization.
Women are the most affected, experiencing higher food insecurity, malnutrition, and lower access to land, financial resources, and climate adaptation tools. Gender disparities in decision-making, mobility, and education further restrict their ability to respond effectively to climate-induced challenges. Socio-economic patterns also lead to disproportionately higher mortality rates among women following climate-induced disasters.
Short Summary
Various stressors contribute to human vulnerability, with women being disproportionately affected by climate change. Many women experience malnutrition as they often prioritize feeding their families over themselves during food shortages. Women also have limited access to land, financial credit, training, and climate adaptation technology. Due to gendered labor roles, they face greater difficulties in decision-making and resource control, reducing their adaptive capacity compared to men. These inequalities stem from unequal power dynamics, social norms, and restricted access to critical resources, making women among the most vulnerable groups in marginalized communities.
Long answer
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.
Review summaries
Climate Change and Gender in Africa: A Review of Impact and Gender-Responsive Solutions
Review
Geography
Year
Citation
Number of included studies
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
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
- Population: Studies focusing on gender or women in the context of climate change or drought in Africa.
- Intervention: Assessment of the impact of climate change or drought on women, including social, economic, and environmental effects.
- Outcome: Findings on gender-specific vulnerabilities, adaptation strategies, resilience, and socio-economic consequences of climate change or drought in Africa.
- Study design: Eligible study designs include modeling studies, narrative and systematic reviews, case studies, case series, and qualitative research.
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 |
Included Studies
A review of gender inclusivity in agriculture and natural resources management under the changing climate in sub-Saharan Africa
Review
Geography
Year
Citation
Number of included studies
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
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
- Population: Studies focusing on gender roles, particularly in agriculture, climate change, and natural resource management in sub-Saharan Africa.
- Intervention: Assessment of gender-specific implications of climate change, including access to resources, adaptation strategies, and resilience measures.
- Outcome: Identification of gender-based barriers to adaptation and the development of gender-responsive strategies for mitigating climate change impacts.
- Study design: Eligible studies included systematic reviews, case studies, qualitative and quantitative research, and policy analysis.
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 |
Climate change, multiple stressors and human vulnerability: a systematic review
Review
Geography
Review type
Critical appraisal of included studies
Assessment review
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
- Population: Studies examining human vulnerability in the context of climate change and multiple stressors.
- Intervention: Assessment of biophysical (e.g., natural disasters, climate change) and social stressors (e.g., poverty, governance, globalization) impacting human populations.
- Outcome: Identification of primary drivers of vulnerability, interactions between stressors, and adaptation measures.
- Study design: Systematic reviews, qualitative and quantitative research, case studies, and policy analyses.
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 |