Policy Research Working Paper 11095 Women and Climate Adaptation in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa Constraints and Research Priorities Clara Delavallade Mélanie Gittard Julia Vaillant Africa Region Gender Innovation Lab April 2025 Policy Research Working Paper 11095 Abstract Sub-Saharan Africa is highly vulnerable to climate change, social capital, and limited access to climate and technology with rural women dis- proportionately affected due to information. Substantial gaps remain in understanding how pre-existing gender inequalities that both increase their women’s financial literacy, institutional trust, risk and cli- need for adaptation and constrain their ability to adopt mate perception, and social networks affect their adaptation. strategies. This paper reviews empirical evidence on key Evidence-supported interventions include information barriers to women’s climate adaptation, identifies critical provision on climate-smart agricultural technologies and knowledge gaps, and outlines a gender-informed policy social protection, while emerging but less established inter- and research agenda. Focusing on on-farm and off-farm ventions include socio-emotional skills programs, childcare, adaptation strategies‒including climate-smart agriculture, and land titling. Underexplored yet promising interven- weather insurance, income diversification, and migration‒ tions involve expanding women’s access to digital climate the paper highlights key constraints limiting women’s services, strengthening social networks, and engaging men adaptive capacity: financial limitations, restricted asset con- in shifting intra-household roles. Significant knowledge trol and ownership, gender norms positioning women as gaps persist regarding the main constraints women face in primary caregivers and shock absorbers, lower human and adopting migration as an adaptation strategy. This paper is a product of the Office of the Gender Innovation Lab, Africa Region. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at jvaillant@worldbank.org and cdelavallade@worldbank.org. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team Women and Climate Adaptation in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa: Constraints and Research Priorities ∗ † Clara Delavallade, M´ elanie Gittard, and Julia Vaillant‡ Keywords: Gender, climate change, adaptation, agricultural practices, migration JEL codes: Q54, J16, O13, D63, Q15 ∗ Africa Gender Innovation Lab, World Bank. cdelavallade@worldbank.org † Stanford University, Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). mgittard@stanford.edu ‡ Africa Gender Innovation Lab, World Bank. jvaillant@worldbank.org. We are grateful to Cicero Braga and Laurel Morrison for excellent research assistance, Kathleen Beegle, Steve Commins, Franziska Deininger, Menaal Ebrahim, Joao Montalvao, Rachael Pierotti, Pieter Serneels, Carly Trachtman, Diego Ubfal and colleagues at the Africa Gender Innovation Lab for insightful comments on earlier versions of the paper. This work was funded by the World Bank Umbrella Fund for Gender Equality (UFGE). The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Introduction Sub-Saharan Africa has experienced increasing climate variability, with extreme weather events and shifting agricultural seasons disrupting livelihoods and forcing farmers to adapt (Nicholson, 2018; Panthou et al., 2018). While adaptation is critical, rigorous evidence on both the adoption and effectiveness of adaptation strategies remains limited, particularly in low-income contexts (Feriga et al., 2025). A robust evidence base on the effectiveness of various adaptation policies appears necessary, as market failures and resource constraints can limit individuals’ ability to make optimal adaptation investments (Carleton et al., 2024). Climate change impacts are not evenly distributed. Pre-existing gender inequalities heighten women’s vulnerability while restricting their ability to adopt adaptive strategies, exacerbat- ing poverty and widening disparities (see Box 1). Addressing these constraints is essential for equitable adaptation and resilience-building. This paper synthesizes empirical evidence on gender-specific constraints in climate adap- tation, identifying policy-relevant interventions and research gaps. It examines four key adaptation strategies: on-farm adaptation, including climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and weather insurance, and off-farm adaptation, including income diversification and migration. Additionally, it assesses the role of adaptive social protection in improving access to these strategies for vulnerable women. Given the immediate and severe effects of climate change in low-income countries, this paper focuses on adaptation strategies rather than mitigation (see Box 2). The review highlights three key findings. First, women face greater barriers than men in adopting climate change adaptation strate- gies, both on-farm and off-farm. While much of the literature is correlational, emerging experimental evidence suggests that structural constraints, rather than intrinsic preferences, explain lower female adoption rates of CSA and weather insurance. Women also encounter greater challenges in income diversification and migration, which remain male-dominated. Second, this paper identifies gender-specific constraints to climate adaptation that go beyond those faced by men. Women’s on-farm adaptation, particularly investment in CSA technologies, is hindered by land tenure insecurity, limited access to climate information, and lower household bargaining power, making riskier investments even more challenging. Their higher risk aversion, driven by economic and structural factors, further reduces CSA adoption. Male dominance in agricultural networks also restricts women’s access to knowl- edge and decision-making opportunities. Limited information contributes to women’s low uptake of weather insurance, compounded by their greater idiosyncratic risks — including health shocks linked to fertility and childcare — and their role as ’shock absorbers’, which lead them to prioritize emergency savings. Household responsibilities further constrain their engagement in off-farm activities, reducing opportunities for income diversification and mi- gration in response to climate shocks. These challenges are exacerbated by low expected returns, limited resources, and restricted bargaining power. The effectiveness of adaptive social protection in supporting women’s climate resilience depends on how well programs address gendered constraints, including mobility restrictions, bargaining power imbalances, and domestic responsibilities. Third, an evidence map categorizes adaptation interventions by the strength of empir- ical support. Credible interventions — supported by substantial evidence of effectiveness — include CSA information programs targeting women or both spouses and social protec- 2 tion initiatives like cash transfers and economic inclusion programs. Emerging interventions — such as socio-emotional skills training, childcare services, and land titling programs — show promise but require further validation. Frontier interventions — where rigorous evi- dence is currently lacking — include digital climate information services, gender-responsive weather insurance, and norm-changing initiatives challenging gender roles and enhancing women’s decision-making power. Further research is needed to assess the most effective gender-sensitive provisions in adaptive social protection programs, and the ones that trans- late most into adoption of individual adaptation strategies. Significant knowledge gaps remain for a comprehensive understanding of gender dynam- ics in climate change adaptation. Household-level agricultural data often obscure intra- household inequalities, limiting understanding of women’s constraints in CSA adoption on the plots they manage.1 The causal effects of climate information on women’s risk prefer- ences and adaptation decisions are still under-examined. Further research is also needed on how time constraints, household structure and intra-household dynamics influence women’s participation in off-farm employment, and on the role of gender norms and land tenure in- security in shaping women’s migration decisions. Additionally, little is known about the adaptive capacity of women left behind when men migrate. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We present our methodological framework in Section 1. We review the evidence on gender gaps in the adoption of four adaptive strategies: CSA (Section 2), weather insurance (Section 3), income diversification (Section 4) and migration (Section 5). Section 6 highlights the key challenges adaptive social protection must overcome to ensure greater access to these adaptive strategies for more vulnerable women. We present in Section 7 an evidence map reviewing experimental evidence on interventions seeking to address the key constraints previously identified for each adaptation strategy. We outline priority research questions in Section 8 before concluding. 1 Methodological Note This targeted review of the recent literature synthesizes qualitative, empirical, and experi- mental studies on gender differences in climate adaptation. We distinguish between descrip- tive analyses, which document adaptation disparities, and causal analyses, further distin- guishing between quasi-experimental and experimental studies. The review is divided into three main sections. The first section tackles evidence on gender differences and constraints faced by women and includes both qualitative and causal studies, as well as interventions that shed light on gender-specific barriers. The second section reviews interventions that address these constraints in an evidence map, citing experimental evidence showing proof of effectiveness and highlighting promising but untested approaches for future research. The third section presents key research gaps identified in the first two sections. We define climate adaptation at the micro level, focusing on on-farm and off-farm adap- tation among rural and agricultural populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Broader macro 1 The LSMS-ISA surveys are a notable exception. They collect plot-level data which provide gender- disaggregated indicators at the plot-manager level, critical for identifying barriers to women’s agricultural productivity. 3 Box 1. Gender gaps in vulnerability to climate change Climate change disproportionately affects women, exacerbating pre-existing gender in- equalities in health, safety, livelihoods, and agricultural productivity. In Sub-Saharan Africa, women contribute significantly to agricultural labor yet face lower productivity due to limited access to inputs, land, and market opportunities (Kilic et al., 2015; Aguilar et al., 2015; Alik-Lagrange et al., 2025), while experiencing higher food insecurity follow- ing climate shocks (Kakota et al., 2011; Zakari et al., 2014) and increased maternal and infant health risks from rising temperatures (Grace et al., 2015).a Climate shocks also heighten gender-based violence risks (Brown, 2008). Droughts and floods increase intimate partner violence (Cools et al., 2020; Abiona and Koppensteiner, 2016), sexual exploitation (UNHCR, 2022), and feminicide (Miguel, 2005). Drought- induced income shocks raise child marriage rates (Corno et al., 2020; Hotte and Marazyan, 2020), reinforcing fertility and adverse health outcomes and undermining women’s edu- cation, labor force participation and agency. Economically, climate shocks increase women’s unpaid domestic and care work and re- strict their education and labor market participation (Kakota et al., 2011; Moshoeshoe et al., 2021). Women’s responsibilities, such as fetching water, expand in response to climate stressors and they are more likely than men to exit employment and struggle to re-enter the workforce post-shock (Erman et al., 2021). Furthermore, girls are more likely than boys to be withdrawn from school to contribute to domestic duties, exacerbating gender disparities in education (Bj¨ orkman-Nyqvist, 2013; Babugura, 2008). a Gender-sensitive adaptation strengthens household resilience, as constraints faced by women in rural couples can weaken the entire family’s ability to cope with climate shocks. Since household decisions are often joint endeavors, addressing women’s adaptation barriers not only empowers them but also promotes inclusive decision-making and efficient resource allocation across the household. policies, such as green jobs and sustainability initiatives, are excluded, as are downstream consumers of agricultural products. The review includes both studies explicitly examining gender differences and those re- vealing gendered heterogeneity. While the primary focus is Sub-Saharan Africa, studies from other low-income regions are included when Sub-Saharan African evidence is insufficient. We also distinguish between gender differences within households (male vs. female household members) and between households (male- vs. female-headed households), specifying these distinctions throughout. 2 Climate-Smart Agriculture The adoption of CSA is critical for reducing food insecurity among smallholder farmers facing unpredictable rainfall. The World Bank defines CSA as “an integrated approach to managing landscapes, cropland, livestock, forest and fisheries that address the interlinked challenges of food security and climate change” (World Bank, 2023). 4 Box 2. Why focus on climate adaptation (rather than mitigation)? Climate change and poverty are deeply interconnected, as climate shocks threaten to push millions into extreme poverty, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where agriculture re- mains highly climate-sensitive (Rozenberg and Hallegatte, 2015). Despite contributing minimally to global CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2022), the region faces disproportionate vul- nerability due to its reliance on rain-fed agriculture, limited economic diversification, and constrained adaptive capacity. While global mitigation efforts are critical for limiting long-term climate change, adap- tation is the more immediate and pressing priority for low-income countries that already experience severe climate shocks. Unlike mitigation, which focuses on reducing emissions, adaptation directly enhances resilience by enabling households and communities to adjust to climate change’s inevitable consequences. Strengthening adaptive capacity is particu- larly urgent for women who are disproportionately affected by climate shocks, not only as a matter of equity but also as a necessary condition for both poverty reduction and sustainable development in climate-vulnerable regions. a a Estimates indicate that Sub-Saharan Africa will require $15 billion annually for agriculture and food system adaptation, while the cost of inaction could be more than 10 times higher, surpassing $200 billion annually (Ijjasz-Vasquez et al., 2021). Farmers employ various CSA strategies including crop diversification (Mertz et al., 2009), drought-resistant crops (Emerick et al., 2016), diversification between crops and livestock (Seo, 2010), tree planting (Tambo, 2013), agro-forestry, land fragmentation (Veljanoska, 2018), adjusted crop choices (Below et al., 2010) and planting dates (Adzawla et al., 2019), water management (Fishman, 2013), improved seed varieties, modern inputs (Dercon and Christiaensen, 2011; Tambet and Stopnitzky, 2021), irrigation, soil conservation (Di Falco and Veronesi, 2013), and conservation agriculture (Beaman et al., 2021). However, costly on-farm adaptation strategies can trap smallholder farmers in cycles of poverty (Dercon and Christiaensen, 2011). In Malawi, climate-induced poverty traps confine poorer households to low-value maize cultivation, restricting their ability to adopt CSA practices, such as improved seed varieties and fertilizers (Sesmero et al., 2018). Barriers to CSA adoption include resource constraints; small farm sizes; limited access to credit, markets and knowledge; as well as land tenure insecurity (Descheemaeker et al., 2016; Mersha and Duguma, 2019). Gender disparities in adoption rates Qualitative and correlational evidence on gender differences in CSA adoption yields mixed findings. Some studies report higher adoption rates of water conservation and crop diversifi- cation among female-headed households in South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe (Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007) and greater intercropping among households with more female members (Benin et al., 2005). Others find no significant gender differences, as shown in a large-scale survey across 11 African countries (Maddison, 2007) and a study of agro-pastoralists in 5 Kenya (Silvestri et al., 2012). However, most research — including recent experimental evidence — finds that men adopt CSA strategies at higher rates than women. Male-headed households are more likely to invest in new agricultural technologies and irrigation in Uganda (Nabikolo et al., 2012) and Ghana (Adzawla et al., 2019). In Ethiopia, male-headed households are more likely to conserve soil, change crop varieties, plant trees (Deressa et al., 2009), and use irrigation (Gebrehiwot and Veen, 2013). In Ghana, men are also more likely to plant early-maturing and drought-tolerant seed varieties (Adzawla et al., 2019), while in Nigeria, women adopt improved rice production technologies at lower rates than men (Arimi and Olajide, 2016). A comprehensive review similarly finds that women lag behind men in adopting high-yielding crop varieties and agricultural technologies (Doss, 2001). Experimental evidence from Niger suggests that women adopt CSA strategies at lower rates due to structural barriers such as limited land ownership and restricted financial access (Aker and Jack, 2023).2 Emerging evidence suggests that when women have access to reliable information and resources, they favor long-term, conservative adaptation strategies over short-term coping mechanisms. In East Africa, women perceive conservation agriculture as more beneficial than men do (Murage et al., 2015). In Uganda, women are more inclined to transition from subsistence to cash crops, facilitating income smoothing over time (see Box 3 for more details on gendered crop specialization). During climatic shocks, women reallocate land to market- oriented crops, while men prioritize off-farm employment (Agamile et al., 2021). While these findings remain suggestive, they underscore the need for further causal analysis of women’s perceptions and preferences for CSA practices. Existing evidence suggests that external constraints, rather than intrinsic preferences, primarily drive women’s lower adoption rates and reliance on short-term coping strategies. The next section examines these constraints in detail. Box 3. Gendered crop specialization Across Africa, agricultural labor is gendered, with men primarily cultivating cash and export crops while women grow subsistence crops (Croppenstedt et al., 2013). Women’s focus on lower-risk, lower-return crops supports household food security during climate shocks (Duflo, 2003; Lovo and Veronesi, 2019) but limits their market access, reinforc- ing poverty traps and constraining investments in adaptation strategies such as CSA, weather insurance, income diversification, and migration. In Uganda, Agamile et al. (2021) find that drought-induced labor shifts alter household crop allocation. As men seek off-farm work, women increase farm labor and reallocate land from subsistence to cash crops. However, restrictive gender norms continue to limit women’s engagement in income-generating agriculture, constraining long-term adaptation despite their potential preference for commercial crops. 2 The review of gender disparities in adoption rates departs from the unitary household model, recognizing that in many Sub-Saharan African contexts, husbands and wives manage separate plots and make individual farming decisions. 6 Women’s constraints to adoption of CSA Risk aversion Extensive evidence indicates that women exhibit greater risk aversion than men (Nelson, 2015; Sarin and Wieland, 2016), which can hinder their adoption of climate adaptation strate- gies.3 Risk preferences shape land use decisions (Chavas et al., 2010), agricultural choices (Adger et al., 2008; Charness et al., 2013), and adaptation strategies (Tam and McDaniels, 2013). More risk-averse farmers tend to use fewer inputs, invest less in new technologies, and prioritize lower-risk, lower-return strategies (Molua, 2011). Empirical evidence supports this pattern. Risk aversion reduces women’s adoption of productivity-enhancing agricultural in- puts, as seen in lower fertilizer use among female farmers in Ethiopia and Kenya and limited technology adoption in Cameroon (Kebede, 2022; Sheremenko and Magnan, 2015; Molua, 2011). Information on climate change and weather forecasts Unequal access to information is a major barrier to women’s adoption of CSA (Quisumb- ing and Pandolfelli, 2010). Reliable information helps correct misperceptions about climate change (Box 4), update farmers’ beliefs (Burlig et al., 2024), and reduce uncertainty sur- rounding CSA investments. Given that economic and structural factors induce women tend to be more risk-averse than men, improving access to climate information is critical. Climate Information Services (CIS), which provide timely weather updates, have been shown to enhance CSA adaptation capacity (Autio et al., 2021; Maggio et al., 2019; McKune et al., 2018; Ngigi and Muange, 2022; Yegbemey et al., 2023). A framed field experiment in Zambia shows that CIS enabled both men and women to invest in higher-return technologies, demonstrating the potential of information to reduce risk aversion and promote CSA adoption (Kramer et al., 2023a). Women face additional barriers to CIS, especially in rainfed agricultural systems (Roudier et al., 2014; Tall et al., 2018; Autio et al., 2021). In Kenya, men have greater access to early warning systems, while women rely on weather forecasts, which have less impact on CSA adoption (Ngigi and Muange, 2022). Limited smartphone ownership further restricts women’s access to mobile-based services, leaving them dependent on radio broadcasts (Partey et al., 2020; Ngigi and Muange, 2022). Cultural beliefs may also undermine trust in weather forecasts, reducing CIS use in some regions (Diouf et al., 2019). Even when women access CIS, household power dynamics may constrain their ability to act on the information. In Zambia, providing forecast information to both spouses improved joint decision-making, highlighting how intra-household dynamics shape CSA adoption (Kramer et al., 2023a). In sum, women’s limited access to and benefit from climate information stems from digital exclusion, climate misperceptions, and household decision-making constraints, but little is known of interventions that enhance women’s access to CIS and ability to act upon this 3 Women’s greater risk aversion is due to a combination of economic dependence, social roles, limited access to resources, and structural inequalities. Their primary caregiving responsibilities, lower access to information and networks, increased vulnerability to economic and environmental shocks and cultural norms contribute to more cautious decision-making. 7 information. The interaction between women’s risk aversion, CIS access, and CSA adoption also remains an open question (see Section 8 for a detailed research agenda). Box 4. Climate change perception and adaptation Accurate climate change perception is crucial for adopting long-term adaptation strate- gies, as perception is the first step in the adaptation process and may affect access to climate information, as seen in Ghana (Partey et al., 2020) and in Kenya (Ngigi and Muange, 2022). The literature suggests that education and experience shape climate per- ception and adaptation (Maddison, 2007; Tambo, 2013; Silvestri et al., 2012; Komowski et al., 2015; Atchikpa et al., 2017; Gittard, 2024b), with experienced farmers more likely to perceive climate impacts and those with higher education more inclined to adopt adap- tation strategies (Ishaya and Abaje, 2008; Maddison, 2007). Few studies examine gender differences. In Senegal, while women have less access to CIS than men, a key reason explaining both women’s and men’s reduced access to CIS may be limited perceptions of climate-related risks and usefulness of climate information. (Diouf et al., 2019). There is currently a lack of rigorous evidence on how perception of climate change influence access to CIS and whether these perceptions are gendered. Information on climate-smart agricultural technologies Unequal access to information on technologies is a significant barrier to women’s adoption of CSA technologies, particularly for costly innovations. While numerous studies examine the impact of information interventions on agricultural technology adoption (Hanna et al., 2014; Emerick and Dar, 2020; Glennerster and Suri, 2018; Aker and Jack, 2023; Barrett et al., 2022), few assess gender-specific effects. Experimental evidence from Niger suggests that information is a stronger constraint on technology adoption than liquidity or credit (Aker and Jack, 2023). Training on demi-lunes, an agricultural technique that mitigates land degradation, significantly increased adoption rates, with women adopting significantly less demi-lunes than men. However, despite constraints such as lack of private land owner- ship and limited financial access, the training still led to substantial adoption gains among female farmers. Similarly, in Mozambique, a program training both women and men in dairy farming techniques increased milk production more than training men (Johnson et al., 2015). Joint training likely improved women’s understanding of new technologies, increased their participation in dairy activities, enhanced their role in household decision-making, and strengthened their contributions to profitable agricultural enterprises. In Cˆote d’Ivoire, joint household training for rubber farmers enhances task allocation, increases wives’ responsibil- ities, and leads to better farm management, boosting tree planting and crop harvest values two years post-training (Donald et al., 2022). In Uganda, the effects of video trainings have higher effect on women’s adoption of recommended practices and inputs when the women received the information alone than with their husband (Lecoutere et al., 2023). In summary, findings from these experimental studies highlight that information gaps on agricultural technologies, rather than financial constraints alone, limit women’s adoption of 8 CSA technologies, and that targeted information and training leads to higher adoption rates among women. Social networks Limited access to social networks is a significant barrier to women’s adoption of CSA in Africa. Social networks facilitate the diffusion of information and foster social learning, as farmers observe and learn from peers about the effectiveness and profitability of agri- cultural practices (Conley and Udry, 2010; Krishnan and Patnam, 2014; Emerick and Dar, 2020). However, women’s social learning is constrained by restricted access to these networks (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014). Studies indicate a gender gap in group membership and infor- mal network participation, with men more likely to join agricultural cooperatives and hold leadership positions, while women are more frequently members of religious groups (World Bank, 2010). Unequal access to these networks limits women’s ability to obtain reliable climate information (Gumucio et al., 2020), thereby reducing CSA adoption. In Uganda, for example, social networks are key to information diffusion, yet men have greater access than women (Katungi et al., 2008). Beyond network access, the depth and quality of women’s participation in social groups may also shape their ability to adopt CSA. A descriptive analysis shows that the presence of other women in agricultural groups enhances women’s confidence in speaking publicly in Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique, which is positively associated with adopting soil conser- vation practices (Gotschi et al., 2008). When women feel empowered to participate actively in group discussions, CSA adoption increases. However, male dominance in agricultural networks and leadership roles often discourages women’s engagement. Women may avoid participation if they believe their voices will not be heard, viewing attendance as an ineffi- cient use of time and energy (Dikito-Wachtmeister, 2001). Evidence from an RCT in rural Kenya supports this, showing that women’s attendance at community meetings increases when NGOs emphasize their participation and schedule meetings at convenient times (Leino, 2007). Despite these insights, evidence on the extent to which gender inequalities in social networks hinder women’s CSA adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa remains limited. Education Low literacy rates and limited education significantly hinder women’s adoption of CSA tech- nologies (Kwauk and Braga, 2017), particularly when compounded by limited access to information. Effective adaptation to climate change requires the ability to interpret climate data, assess risks, and implement appropriate strategies using available resources (Striessnig et al., 2013; Cinner et al., 2018). Education and traditional knowledge both play crucial roles in individuals’ adaptive capacity (Weir and Knight, 2004; Aswani et al., 2018; Mc- Carter, 2011).4 In Sub-Saharan Africa, women generally have lower educational attainment than men (Shapiro, 2012; Shapiro and Tenikue, 2017), which constrains their ability to adopt 4 In rural Ethiopia, household education levels influence the timing of technology adoption, with educated farmers acting as early adopters who benefit from knowledge diffusion (Weir and Knight, 2004). 9 on-farm adaptation strategies. Evidence from Kenya highlights the complex relationship be- tween formal education and risk perception. Following participation in drought awareness programs, pastoral women with formal education exhibit greater risk aversion, as education enhances their ability to process and respond to climate risks (Walker et al., 2022). In summary, while low education levels are recognized as a key barrier to CSA adop- tion, few studies examine gender differences, despite women’s generally lower educational attainment. Access to financial services Research consistently shows that women are more excluded from the financial sector than men (Morsy, 2020), limiting their access to credit, savings, and insurance — key financial instruments for investing in climate-resilient agricultural practices and technologies. Insur- ance protects valuable assets against risk, savings and remittances smooth consumption, and access to credit is crucial to invest in costly CSA. In Zimbabwe, men’s preference for high-yielding maize varieties is driven by their greater access to financial assets and for- mal marketing institutions, whereas women’s tendency to choose open-pollinated varieties is driven by the fact that they do not require loans for fertilizer and seeds (Bourdillon et al., 2003). While the literature on the extent to which credit or cash flow limitations hinder the adoption of agricultural technologies remains scarce, recent RCTs suggest these constraints might only affect a small portion of farmers (Karlan et al., 2014; Beaman et al., 2023; Cr´epon et al., 2015). Financial limitations seem to be a less significant barrier compared to other factors that limit adoption (Akresh et al., 2016; Benhassine et al., 2015; Baird et al., 2011), such as the spread of information about technology (Aker and Jack, 2023). Land ownership Women’s limited property and contractual rights over land, water, and natural resources restrict their ability to implement on-farm adaptations. Secure land tenure encourages long-term agricultural investments, including CSA (Holden and Ghebru, 2016; Murken and Gornott, 2022), with studies showing that tenure interventions increase both agricultural investments (Higgins et al., 2018) and productivity (Lawry et al., 2017). However, in Sub- Saharan Africa, women have significantly lower access to land ownership and formal tenure security than men (Doss, 2018), partly due to discriminatory statutory laws favoring male ownership (Mutangadura, 2007). A World Bank study finds that only 13% of women claim sole ownership, compared to 36% of men, while 38% of women own land jointly versus 51% of men (Gaddis et al., 2018). Customary laws further restrict women’s land ownership, grant- ing access only through male relatives, as mentioned for example by Aker and Jack (2023) in Niger. Land insecurity reduces women’s agricultural investments (Murken and Gornott, 2022; Higgins et al., 2018) and can discourage CSA adoption, as they may hesitate to invest time, effort, and resources into initiatives when fearing potential land disputes or loss of access to their agricultural assets. In Ghana, tenure insecurity leads women to shorten fallow periods to avoid displacement, reducing soil fertility and productivity (Goldstein and Udry, 2008). Experimental evidence from multiple interventions indicates that addressing these barriers 10 significantly improves investment incentives. In Uganda, incentivizing co-titling of land for spouses increased the use of improved seeds and greener maize cultivation (Cherchi et al., 2019). A land formalization program in Rwanda boosted soil conservation investments, particularly among female-headed households, highlighting the role of tenure security in conservation agriculture (Ali et al., 2014). Similarly, a large-scale RCT in Benin found that strengthening women’s tenure security increased fallowing (Goldstein et al., 2015), a critical practice for soil health, sustainable land management and long-term climate resilience. 3 Weather Insurance Weather insurance is a risk management tool that can help rural households manage the eco- nomic consequences of climate extremes by providing payouts based on measurable weather indices. In Sub-Saharan Africa, various types — such as rainfall, index-based, livestock, crop, parametric, and catastrophic insurance — address specific risks, including agricultural losses, extreme weather events and livestock mortality, thereby enhancing resilience and adaptation (Platteau et al., 2017; Koloma, 2014). These products offer financial protection, encourage agricultural investment (Sundar and Ramakrishnan, 2013; Hill and Robles, 2011), promote risk-taking (Mobarak and Rosenzweig, 2012; Dercon et al., 2014; Karlan et al., 2014), and improve welfare (de Nicola, 2015a). Farmers benefit from reduced contract disputes through exogenous weather station data (Devereux and Guenther, 2009) and faster payouts (Greatrex et al., 2015). Experimental evidence shows that weather insurance increases yields and im- proves food security management during climate shocks (Delavallade et al., 2015; Dercon et al., 2014; Barnett, 2014; Karlan et al., 2012). Despite its benefits, adoption of weather insurance products remains extremely low in Africa (Cole et al., 2013; Hill and Viceisza, 2012). Key barriers include basis risk — the im- perfect correlation between payouts and actual losses due to rainfall variability (de Nicola, 2015b; Tadesse et al., 2015; Dicko et al., 2014) — as well as cost-protection trade-offs (Berg et al., 2009; Koloma, 2014), poor understanding of insurance concepts (Tadesse et al., 2015), financial constraints (Belissa et al., 2019), risk preferences (Mude and Barrett, 2012), sub- jective expectations (Mude et al., 2010), trust issues, and liquidity limitations (Cole et al., 2013). Demand increases with payout experience, adverse conditions, and training (Dercon et al., 2014; Karlan et al., 2014; Mobarak and Rosenzweig, 2012), while insufficient stake- holder cooperation and farmer involvement in product design further hinder uptake (Muller, 2012; William et al., 2018). Gender disparities in adoption rates The consensus from the experimental literature points to women in low-income countries adopting weather insurance at lower rates than men (Delavallade et al., 2015; William et al., 2018; Gine and Yang, 2009; Akter et al., 2016; Jordan et al., 2021; Aheeyar et al., 2019; Timu and Kramer, 2023). Most studies focus on willingness to pay (WTP) rather than actual adoption. In Burkina Faso, male-headed households have higher WTP amounts than female- headed households (William et al., 2018). Choice experiments show significant aversion to insurance among female farmers (Akter et al., 2016), while randomized trials in Senegal and 11 Burkina Faso reveal lower adoption rates among women, who prioritize emergency savings due to higher exposure to life cycle risks (Delavallade et al., 2015). A literature review by Timu and Kramer (2023) shows that agricultural insurance products are rarely designed with gender-specific needs in mind, limiting their accessibility and benefits for women. Addressing these barriers is essential to increasing women’s insurance uptake and coverage. Women’s constraints to adoption of insurance Basis risk Delavallade et al. (2015) find lower adoption rates of index-based agricultural insurance in Senegal and Burkina Faso among female farmers. They hypothesize that this is due to their higher exposure to basis risk — the portion of income risk that remains uninsured in weather contracts. Women may face greater basis risk due to heightened vulnerability to health shocks from pregnancy and childbirth, as well as caregiving responsibilities for chil- dren. Despite equal exposure to yield risk, these additional life cycle risks remain uninsured, potentially discouraging women from purchasing standard weather insurance. However, there is a dearth of experimental evidence on how differential basis risk affects women’s insurance decisions in Sub-Saharan Africa or whether integrating life cycle risks into insurance design could improve uptake. Control over land and assets Inequality in land tenure security constrains women’s bargaining power (Doss and Meinzen- Dick, 2020), agricultural investment (Murken and Gornott, 2022; Higgins et al., 2018), and thus uptake of weather insurance (Behr, 2023). Secure land rights may enhance the value of insurance by reducing uncertainties related to land loss relative to climate-related risk. In Ghana, this constraint is particularly binding, as formal land titles are required for insur- ance access (Otsuki and Jasaw, 2017). A WTP experiment in Kenya found higher demand when payouts were deposited directly into beneficiaries’ mobile money accounts, suggesting that lack of direct financial control may hinder women’s adoption of agricultural insurance (Kramer et al., 2023b). However, there is limited causal evidence on how restricted asset ownership directly and indirectly affects women’s uptake of weather insurance. Trust in financial institutions Women’s lower trust in financial institutions may pose substantial constraints for their adop- tion of weather insurance in Sub-Saharan Africa. This constraint is supported by quantitative evidence from a study by Akter et al. (2016) conducted in Bangladesh, which utilized a choice experiment to assess WTP for hypothetical insurance products. The research found that fe- male farmers displayed significant aversion towards insurance products, and this aversion was primarily attributed to gender disparities in the level of trust in insurance institutions. Importantly, this reluctance was not explained by differences in risk and time preferences, decision-making power, or specific attributes of the insurance product. Suggestive evidence from Kenya indicates that women may be more likely to take up insurance when insurance agents are also women, potentially overcoming the lack of trust constraint (Cecchi et al., 12 2021). However, there is a lack of both descriptive and causal evidence on how women’s dis- trust in financial institutions might hinder their uptake of weather insurance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Information and financial literacy Limited financial literacy and information gaps — driven by lower education, restricted networks, and limited agency — may significantly constrain women’s adoption of weather insurance in Africa. In Ethiopia, Tadesse et al. (2015) find that most rural households mis- understand crop insurance, with 64% viewing it as a financial tool primarily designed for wealthier individuals, akin to motor insurance. However, evidence on the role gender dispar- ities in financial literacy play in the uptake of weather insurance remains scarce. In Burkina Faso, a study based on a participatory design shows that information and income are key determinants of weather insurance demand, with male-headed households exhibiting higher WTP than female-headed households (William et al., 2018). An experiment by Arteaga et al. (2023) finds that reframing insurance benefits in more relatable terms increases women’s up- take, further supporting the information constraint. Qualitative evidence from South Asia underpins the crucial role played by intertwined factors, including gender norms on mobility, social exclusion, and male-dominated decision-making, in limiting women’s financial literacy and confidence, and ultimately low female adoption rates of weather insurance (Aheeyar et al., 2019). Whether similar mechanisms prevail in Sub-Saharan Africa as well requires further rigorous testing. 4 Income Diversification Why use income diversification as an adaptive strategy to weather shocks? Diversifying livelihoods helps rural households smooth income, manage risks (Macours, 2012; Macours et al., 2022; Banerjee et al., 2021; Ellis, 2005), and adapt to severe climatic changes, espe- cially in low-income countries (Howden et al., 2008). This is particularly crucial for poorer households with limited capacity for ex-post consumption smoothing, requiring ex-ante risk management to stabilize income. While on-farm diversification strategies focus on boosting agricultural output and minimizing crop losses (Di Falco and Chavas, 2008), non-farm di- versification generates income through wage labor and self-employment. Farmers frequently rely on non-farm wage jobs as an adaptive strategy to weather shocks and climate change (Chuang, 2019; Asfaw et al., 2014; Bertoni et al., 2016; Asravor, 2017). Income diversification is a key lever for women’s economic empowerment in Africa and a critical tool for limiting the impact of climate change on their well-being. By increasing income, reducing risk, and enhancing autonomy, diversification is particularly beneficial for rural women, who face lower agricultural productivity due to limited access to inputs (Croppenstedt et al., 2013; Quisumbing et al., 2014). In addition, transitioning to off-farm activities strengthens women’s bargaining power, as suggested by evidence of a positive correlation between diversification, commercialization, and household decision-making in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania (Tavenner and Crane, 2019). 13 Gender disparities in adoption rates Both qualitative and experimental evidence reveals gender differences in income diversifi- cation strategies. Women tend to favor long-term, ex-ante risk management approaches. In rural Nicaragua, women opted for income diversification when provided with productive transfers (Macours, 2012). In Ghana, experimental evidence shows women prefer long-term investment in non-farm activities over on-farm farming, a preference influenced by gender stereotypes around skills (Kramer and Lambrecht, 2019). Despite this preference, income diversification remains male-dominated, with women’s participation varying greatly across contexts (Van den Broeck and Kilic, 2019; Khan and Morrissey, 2020; Eriksen et al., 2005; Coulibaly et al., 2017; Kakota et al., 2011; Hesselberg and Yaro, 2006; Asravor, 2017). Men are more likely to engage in wage employment, while women rely on self-employment (Asravor, 2017). Marital status also plays a role; in Tanzania, divorced women diversify income sources more than married or widowed women but still less than men (Van Aelst and Holvoet, 2016). Women’s constraints to income diversification Time use The heavy workload of women, who are primarily responsible for specific agricultural tasks such as subsistence farming, and most, if not all, domestic chores and caregiving, consistently limits their ability to engage in income diversification across diverse contexts. Descriptive evidence suggests that female-headed households are indeed less inclined to engage in ca- sual labor due to competing household responsibilities (see also Box 3 on gendered crop specialization). In addition to subsistence farming, women are responsible for water and firewood collection, food preparation, childcare, and healthcare — tasks that often follow rigid schedules, unlike men’s more flexible routines (Kakota et al., 2011). Many of these responsibilities depend on natural resources, and climate change-induced resource depletion further increases women’s labor burden, reducing both the time and energy available for income-generating activities (Ribeiro and Chauque, 2010; Nelson et al., 2002). In Tanzania and Kenya, time constraints make it difficult for women to engage in sustained, intensive income diversification efforts (Eriksen et al., 2005). Experimental evidence highlights the impact of alleviating women’s time constraints on income diversification. In Burkina Faso, providing mobile childcare services through a public works program increases women’s abil- ity to engage in alternative income-generating activities (Ajayi et al., 2022). Similarly, an RCT in the Democratic Republic of Congo found that community-based childcare centers significantly boost women’s engagement in commercial agriculture, processing, and wage work (Donald et al., 2023). These two studies establish a causal link between alleviating women’s time constraints and engaging in income diversification. Intra-household dynamics, gender norms and occupational choice Underlying the time and labor constraints discussed in the previous section, gender norms shape acceptable economic activities for women and men, restricting women’s income diversi- fication opportunities. Gender norms around labor allocation dictate that women prioritize 14 subsistence farming to meet short-term household needs, restricting their participation in cash crop production, which would facilitate diversification (Coulibaly et al., 2017). In Tan- zania, social and cultural obligations discourage women from entrepreneurship and business expansion to avoid neglecting family duties (Isaga, 2018). In Niger, a large RCT testing psychosocial interventions (among others) — including community discussions on gender norms and support for women’s economic participation — significantly improved women’s outcomes and diversification (Bossuroy et al., 2022). The intervention increased household income by expanding women’s involvement in off-farm enterprises and raising the labor they allocated to these activities, highlighting the restrictive role of gender norms in off-farm diversification. Marital status and prevailing household structures further influence women’s agency and decision-making, and thus their ability to diversify income-generating activities. In Kenya, women need male household heads’ consent to undertake certain activities, such as tree felling (Eriksen, 1999). In Burkina Faso, polygamous women are more likely than monoga- mous women to engage in independent income-generating activities (Guirkinger et al., 2021). Household structure likely influences which constraints are most binding. Married women may have better access to information, while divorced, widowed, or polygamous women may have greater autonomy to diversify income, as observed in rural Tanzania and Burkina Faso (Guirkinger et al., 2021; Van Aelst and Holvoet, 2016). While gender inequalities in decision- making limit women’s control over resources and income sources, causal evidence on the role of household structure and intra-household dynamics in women’s income diversification re- mains scarce. Land and asset ownership Gender inequalities in asset ownership (Doss, 2001; Meinzen et al., 2013), particularly in land access, significantly hinder women’s ability to use income diversification as a climate adaptation strategy. Ownership of and control over assets play a crucial role in shaping livelihood opportunities available to women. For example, formal land ownership enhances tenure security and allows women to retain land and livestock while pursuing off-farm income (Goldstein and Udry, 2008). Experimental and quasi-experimental evidence supports this link: a land title registration program in Ghana increased women’s engagement in non- farm activities (Agyei-Holmes et al., 2020), while an RCT in Burkina Faso showed that strengthening women’s control over assets expanded their income-generating opportunities (van den Bold et al., 2015). Capital Limited land and asset ownership constrains women’s income diversification as part of a broader challenge: restricted access to capital. Women face significant barriers to financial services, including credit and insurance, which are essential for initiating and sustaining diverse income activities. In Niger, Bossuroy et al. (2022) find that capital is a binding con- straint, as a lump-sum cash grant, combined with other productive inclusion interventions, increased the number of income sources for women. Experimental evidence from Malawi and Zambia further supports this, showing that multi-faceted economic inclusion programs 15 that include a capital injection increase women’s likelihood of diversifying economic activities (Botea et al., 2023; Bedi et al., 2024). Taken together, these findings provide robust evidence that capital constraints significantly limit women’s ability to diversify income sources. Education and skills Unequal access to education can limit women’s ability to adopt new income-generating strate- gies, particularly those requiring specialized skills or knowledge. In Sub-Saharan Africa, women are, on average, less educated than men (Shapiro and Tenikue, 2017), and constraints such as time and resource limitations prevent them from acquiring training necessary to en- gage in non-agricultural livelihoods. Gaps in formal education restrict women’s opportunities to develop managerial, en- trepreneurial and technical skills (Gannon et al., 2022). Evidence highlights vocational and entrepreneurship training as critical for improving women’s skills and expanding livelihood options, suggesting that education and skills are a binding constraint to women’s income diversification in response to climate change. In Uganda, an entrepreneurship program in- creased women’s self-employment in rural settings (Gavigan et al., 2020). Experimental evidence from Malawi shows that women face higher drop-out rates from training due to family obligations and adverse shocks, whereas men’s participation remains stable and bene- fits from greater financial support from their family (Cho et al., 2013). In Niger, a large-scale RCT integrating microenterprise and life-skills training with community sensitization and business plan preparation increased household income and expanded women’s involvement in off-farm enterprises (Bossuroy et al., 2022). For vocational training to effectively increase women’s participation in off-farm activi- ties, barriers to accessing training must be addressed (Gannon et al., 2022). These include mobility restrictions (Perez et al., 2015; Singh and Belwal, 2008; Mersha and Sriram, 2019), time constraints due to household responsibilities (Arbache et al., 2010; Jost et al., 2015), and spousal permission often required to attend training programs (Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019; World Bank, 2014). 5 Migration Climate-induced migration varies in distance and duration, from international and rural- urban migration (Marchiori et al., 2012; Cattaneo and Peri, 2016; Cattaneo et al., 2019; Missirian and Schlenker, 2017) to shorter-distance rural-rural movements (Dillon et al., 2011; Henderson et al., 2017; Defrance et al., 2022; Mueller et al., 2014; Gittard, 2024a), and can be permanent, seasonal, voluntary, or imposed. It may serve as a planned household strategy, a last-resort survival mechanism, or a complement or substitute for on-farm and off-farm adaptation. Labor migration can be strategic or anticipatory, as remittances alleviate financial con- straints, facilitating local adaptation and innovation adoption, and thus complement other on- and off-farm adaptation strategies. However, when local adaptation strategies fail, migration becomes a last-resort strategy and high migration costs may restrict resource- constrained households to short-distance movement or prevent migration entirely, trapping 16 them in climate-affected areas. Gender disparities in adoption rates Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa suggests that rural-urban labor migration in response to weather extremes is predominantly male-driven. Men migrate strategically to diversify income and send back remittances, while women use migration as a short-term coping mech- anism and are typically more vulnerable when doing so (Henry et al., 2004; Mueller et al., 2014; Dillon et al., 2011; Houria et al., 2011; Gray and Mueller, 2012; Thiede and Gray, 2017; Morten, 2019). Migration patterns vary by context. In Burkina Faso, women migrate mainly for fam- ily reasons (e.g., marriage, separation), whereas men undertake long-distance moves for economic opportunities, such as agricultural expansion (Henry et al., 2004). In Ethiopia, droughts increase men’s labor migration — especially among land-poor households — but reduce women’s mobility (Gray and Mueller, 2012). In Mali, Findley (1994) observes that women and children relied on short-cycle circular migration to cope with the 1983–1985 drought, while long-distance, permanent migration was mainly undertaken by resource- connected young men. Household structure also influences female migration. In Nigeria, droughts typically lead to male migration, but the presence of girls in the household or a male household head increases the likelihood of female migration (Dillon et al., 2011). Women’s constraints to migration Liquidity and wealth Migration is costly, with fixed costs posing significant barriers, especially for low-income households (IOM, 2018). Women typically face greater liquidity constraints than men, lim- iting their ability to finance migration. Expenses include transportation, relocation, and higher urban living costs. In Bangladesh, subsidizing bus tickets increased rural-urban mi- gration (Bryan et al., 2014), but little is known about how liquidity and wealth constraints affect women’s migration decisions in Sub-Saharan Africa or the impact of easing these constraints. Expected returns Women’s underrepresentation in climate-induced migration may stem from lower expected returns. Since remittances drive migration decisions (Marchiori et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 2017), households may be reluctant to send women if their returns are lower or more uncertain than men’s. Across Sub-Saharan Africa, women’s lower education and skills reduce their employability in destination areas, as supported by experimental evidence (Ashraf et al., 2020). Migration often requires adapting through skill acquisition, and education is a key driver of climate-induced migration (Defrance et al., 2022; Baez et al., 2017; Gittard, 2024a), yet no evidence exists on whether improving women’s education and technical skills increases their likelihood of engaging in climate-induced, strategic migration. In addition, female entrepreneurs often earn lower profits and returns to capital than men, making them 17 less viable candidates for strategic labor migration as a household-level income diversification strategy (de Mel et al., 2008; Berge et al., 2015; Bernhardt et al., 2018; Carranza et al., 2018). Evidence on the returns to rural-urban migration in response to climate change is mixed, with some studies finding minimal gains (Hamory et al., 2020; Alvarez, 2020) and others reporting significant benefits (Baysan et al., 2024; Pulido and Swiecki, 2019; Imbert and Papp, 2020; Lagakos et al., 2022). Migration can lead to uncertain outcomes, as migrants often face integration challenges due to skill mismatches and labor productivity gaps (Bryan and Morten, 2019; Harris and Todaro, 1970). Uncertainty in migration returns may be more restrictive for women, who experience higher unemployment and lower earnings than men. However, evidence on gender differences in migration-related uncertainty remains inconclusive. More research is needed to assess how lower returns to climate migration affect women’s ability and decision to migrate as an adaptation strategy. Gender roles Gender norms defining the expected roles and suitable activities for men and women may limit women’s access to migration as an adaptation strategy. As primary caregivers, women often cannot leave children behind or migrate with them. Following adverse climatic events, they typically take on the dual responsibilities of caregiver and shock absorber, managing subsistence crops (see Box 3), preparing meals and fetching water — tasks that become more orkman-Nyqvist, 2013; Ribeiro time-intensive due to rainfall deficits and resource scarcity (Bj¨ and Chauque, 2010; Babugura, 2008). These responsibilities limit women’s mobility, confin- ing them to the household. Male-dominated migration further increases women’s domestic workload when men leave, reinforcing their immobility (Houria et al., 2011). Women also have limited decision-making power in determining who migrates, when, and where, as seen in East Africa (Abebe, 2014). By contrast, men’s migration can, in some cases, empower women by increasing their control over household resources and decision-making, enabling them to engage in traditionally male-dominated activities (Agamile et al., 2021). However, there is no causal evidence on the relative importance of these mechanisms through which gender norms may limit women’s ability to migrate as a climate adaptation strategy. Social networks Women typically engage in small, community-based, informal groups, while men tend to have stronger ties to formal networks beyond their local communities (Perez et al., 2015; Westermann et al., 2005; Huyer, 2016). Migrant networks at destination play a crucial role in shaping migration patterns by reducing migration costs, such as in the Mexico- US migration channel (McKenzie and Rapoport, 2010), facilitating economic and social integration, expanding job opportunities (Patel and Vella, 2007; Drever and Hoffmeister, 2008), and providing material support, information and assistance (Mazzucato, 2009), such as in Senegal-France/Italy migration (Chort et al., 2012). However, the extent to which women’s limited formal networks constrain climate-induced migration in Sub-Saharan Africa remains unexplored. 18 Land tenure insecurity and mobility Women’s greater land tenure insecurity may discourage their migration, as remote plot monitoring increases the risk of expropriation. In Ghana, women shorten fallow periods to avoid losing uncultivated land (Goldstein and Udry, 2008), potentially limiting their ability to migrate. However, no causal link has been established between women’s fear of expropriation and restricted climate-induced migration (Goldstein and Udry, 2008). In Benin, a large-scale RCT found that land demarcation improved women’s mobility, enabling them to shift production from secure to less secure land outside the village (Goldstein et al., ote d’Ivoire, restrictive land tenure laws limit migrants’ land rights 2015). In addition, in Cˆ (Fenske, 2009; Colin and Ayouz, 2006), further constraining women’s mobility after climate shocks. These findings suggest that land tenure insecurity is a key barrier to women’s climate-induced migration, yet there remains a gap in the literature on the causal channels involved. Risks of violence Climate-induced migrants face numerous risks during their journey and at destination, par- ticularly in irregular migration, including physical and sexual violence, forced labor, finan- cial exploitation, trafficking, and even death (Reuveny and Moore, 2009; Tacoli, 2009; Black et al., 2013; McKenzie and Yang, 2015; IOM, 2018; Bah et al., 2023), and can be exposed to conflict due to tensions with host populations (Reuveny and Moore, 2009; Fr¨ ohlich and Brzoska, 2015; McGuirk and Nunn, 2024; Thoenig et al., 2020). Female migrants face height- ened risks of sexual and gender-based violence, often citing lack of safe shelter as a major concern following climatic events (Brown, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2007). Climate-induced mass migration frequently leads to resettlement in urban slums or camps, where women and chil- dren are particularly vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence and trafficking (Verma et al., 2011). Despite these risks, the extent to which migration dangers influence women’s decision to migrate as an adaptation strategy remains understudied. Information campaigns have expanded to raise awareness about the risks of irregular migration, particularly from Africa to Europe, where smuggling networks often misinform migrants (Geiger and P´ ecoud, 2019) but evidence on their effectiveness is limited. Peer-to- peer information has been shown to increase risk awareness and reduce irregular migration intentions in Senegal (Tjaden and Dunsch, 2021). However, the role of (mis)information in shaping women’s migration decisions remains largely unexplored. 6 Adaptive Social Protection Adaptive social protection programs — such as cash transfers, public works, and economic inclusion programs — are a key policy lever to help vulnerable households cope with climate shocks in the short term and facilitate individuals’ access to longer-term private adaptation strategies by alleviating financial constraints. Without these programs, extreme poverty and market failures often prevent households from investing in market-based interventions, such as improved farming techniques or weather insurance, or adopting individual strategies such as investing in off-farm businesses. 19 While women are often the primary beneficiaries of adaptive social protection programs in Sub-Saharan Africa — 72% of all Social Safety Nets included in a systematic review for low- and middle-income countries targeted women (Peterman et al., 2024) — they still face specific barriers that limit their ability to fully access and benefit from these programs, thereby constraining their uptake of adaptation strategies. Bargaining power and financial autonomy While the gender of cash transfer recipients does not significantly impact household well- being and resilience (Akresh et al., 2016; Benhassine et al., 2015; Bauchet et al., 2021), gender-targeted transfers have been effective in increasing women’s income and strengthen- ing their intra-household bargaining power (Bastagli et al., 2016). However, recent empirical evidence from a lab-in-the-field suggests that cash transfers to women increase their demand for agency but do not change the intra-household balance of power enough to allow them to express it publicly (Bakhtiar et al., 2024). Gains in women’s agency, if not in their bargain- ing power, have led to increased investments in traditionally female-dominated areas such as human capital, children’s nutrition, and clothing (Fafchamps et al., 2014). However, these programs have not consistently translated into productive capital accumulation or invest- ments in women’s entrepreneurial activities (Duflo, 2012; Duflo and Udry, 2004; Bernhardt et al., 2019; Friedson-Ridenour and Pierotti, 2019). In the context of climate adaptation, women may lack financial autonomy to invest in resilience-enhancing activities — such as climate-smart agriculture or diversified livelihoods — due to intra-household pressures and gendered financial obligations (e.g. the kin tax) that prioritize their partner’s or family’s needs over their own income-generating opportunities (Andrews et al., 2011; Peterman and Gilligan, 2019). For example, Liberia’s Cash for Work Temporary Employment Project showed that while women allocated a higher proportion of their public works income to farm investments, men diversified their investments more broadly, suggesting a limited impact on income diversification for women (Andrews et al., 2011). Safety and mobility Gender norms around mobility and safety concerns further hinder women’s participation in adaptive social protection programs. For instance, while the Central African Republic’s Londo public works program improved shock resilience for both men and women, its as- set transfer component — a bicycle given to beneficiaries — only increased men’s mobility, failing to address gender norms restricting women’s movement (Alik-Lagrange et al., 2023). Innovations such as mobile money transfers offer potential solutions. A program in Niger demonstrated that mobile transfers reduced travel distances and increased women’s bar- gaining power within households compared to traditional cash transfers (Aker and Ksoll, 2016). Gender norms and domestic responsibilities Gender norms around caregiving responsibilities intensify in the face of climate shocks, fur- ther restricting women’s ability to benefit from adaptive social protection (Kakota et al., 20 2011; Sorenson et al., 2011; Moshoeshoe et al., 2021). During crises, women’s caregiving and household management burdens increase, limiting their participation in public works programs, as observed in India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) (Chopra, 2019). Accommodating maternal needs is crucial for ensuring program accessi- bility. In Ghana, providing on-site childcare and sanitation facilities, along with flexible employment conditions, increased women’s participation in public works programs (Dadzie and Ofei-Aboagye, 2021). Similarly, in Burkina Faso, providing affordable childcare for pub- lic works beneficiaries significantly improved women’s well-being and resilience (Ajayi et al., 2022). Structural and institutional barriers Even when women access adaptive social protection, their benefits are often constrained by structural inefficiencies. Decision-making dynamics at the local level significantly impact the effectiveness of adaptive social protection programs for women. Local authorities — where women often have limited voice and influence — may prioritize projects that predominantly benefit men, reducing the overall impact of adaptive social protection on women (Jordan et al., 2021). Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires gender-sensitive program design, in- cluding adjustments in operational features to directly address the constraints faced by women in both economic and complementary programming components. Reviews suggest that targeting women and incorporating gender-sensitive operational features — such as literacy support, flexible program requirements, proximity-based service delivery, and child- care facilities — are essential for ensuring that adaptive social protection programs effectively benefit women (Bastagli et al., 2016; Gavrilovic et al., 2022; Peterman et al., 2024). However, there remains a notable gap in the causal evidence on such interventions in the African con- text and especially on their ability to foster women’s adoption of climate adaptive strategies. 7 Intervention Evidence Map Despite the critical role that women can play in adapting to climate change and the signifi- cant opportunities that their inclusion in adaptation strategies presents, this paper highlights numerous constraints that still hinder women’s ability to implement adaptation strategies both on and off the farm. This section presents an evidence map of interventions that may increase the adoption of each of the four strategies identified in the paper as well as enhance the reach and impact of adaptive social protection. For each strategy, policy options are proposed or identified along with the current strength of the evidence in support of that intervention. The categories referenced in the “State of the evidence” column are defined as follows: credible indicates that more than one impact evaluation from Sub-Saharan Africa demonstrates consistent, positive impacts of an intervention; emerging indicates that just one impact evaluation (from Sub-Saharan Africa) shows positive impacts or multiple impact evaluations show mixed or not exclusively positive results; frontier indicates that there are no impact evaluations showing strong positive impacts, but other nonexperimental evidence suggests that the intervention could address the given constraint. Papers cited in the ta- 21 ble are exclusively those with experimental or quasi-experimental evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa. Table 1: Evidence Map Policy Objective Policy Options Main Conclusion State of Evidence Climate-Smart Agriculture Promoting women’s access Providing digital devices to Digital devices facilitate access to information, Frontier to information on climate women5 especially for women whose access to Climate change Information Services (CIS) is restricted due to reliance on traditional media such as radio. Delivering CIS to both Providing forecast information to the couple helps Emerging spouses together them agree on investment decisions and increases women’s voice in agricultural decision-making within the household (Kramer et al., 2023a). Increasing women’s access Formal and informal training Training sessions, by providing technical advice Emerging to information on new on CSA, new technologies, and filling knowledge gaps and skills increase technologies water management women’s adoption of new agricultural technologies (Aker and Jack, 2023; Johnson et al., 2015). Information and Farmer-to-farmer videos, participatory videos, Credible Communication and phone-based extension trainings have been Technology-based extension shown to increase agricultural outputs more than programs traditional training (Aker, 2011; Aker and Ksoll, 2016).6 Providing women with Providing subsidized inputs increases women Credible subsidized inputs along with farmers’ fertilizer use and boosts their essential information on their agricultural production, consequently increasing use their adoption of CSA strategies (Diagne, 2006; Agboh-Noameshie et al., 2008; Dibba et al., 2012). In particular, improving access to agricultural extension services for women increases their use of these inputs (Buehren et al., 2019).7 Training programs targeting Targeting women or including both spouses in Credible both spouses agricultural extension training increases women’s empowerment, agricultural productivity, and investments. Including both spouses in training increases women’s participation in decision-making and improves planning by reducing frictions (Lecoutere et al., 2023; Donald et al., 2022). Training programs led by Women farmers are more likely to adopt new Credible female extension agents practices and make decisions in the household when trainings are delivered by female extension agents (Kondylis et al., 2016; Lecoutere et al., 2023; BenYishay and Mobarak, 2019). 5 Digital devices include smartphones and tablets. 6 For a review on the impact of mobile phone-enabled services on smallholder farmers, see Baum¨ uller (2018). 7 For a review of impact evaluations of agricultural input subsidies including subsidies for seeds or fertilizers in Africa, refer to Hemming et al. (2018). 22 Policy Objective Policy Options Main Conclusion State of Evidence Increasing women’s Structuring social groups to Women’s participation in community meetings Frontier participation in fit women’s time constraints, increases when facilitated by NGOs that agricultural social e.g. female-friendly scheduling prioritize women’s participation and when networks meetings are scheduled at times convenient for them. Gender quotas in leadership Gender quotas in leadership positions within Frontier within agricultural social agricultural social groups can address the barriers groups created by male dominance, strengthen women’s voices and increase their active participation in these groups. All-women social groups All-women social groups, such as micro-credit Frontier groups, savings groups, self-help groups, health groups or innovation platforms, could significantly boost women’s participation in CSA by offering a space for peer learning and collective action. Increasing long term Land titling formalization The formalization and strengthening of women’s Credible investment incentives land tenure leads to increased investments in conservation agricultural practices (Ali et al., 2014; Goldstein et al., 2015). Weather Insurance Increasing women’s Training sessions on weather Increasing women’s knowledge and understanding Frontier knowledge and insurance and financial of insurance institutions could reduce their understanding of literacy distrust and enhance adoption rates. insurance products Women insurance agents Involving women as actors of the insurance value Frontier chain, for example by having female extension workers enroll farmers in insurance schemes, could increase women’s take-up of the products by improving trust and accessibility. Framing insurance products in Changing the way insurance products are framed Emerging terms of benefits to women to emphasize the benefits for women, for example by changing units of insurance sold in terms of number of household members at risk can boost demand for insurance (?). Tailoring products to Designing insurance products Designing insurance products that address Frontier women’s needs that include women’s life cycle women’s higher basis risks, such as vulnerabilities risks. related to their life cycle risks, could increase their adoption of weather insurance. Designing insurance products Developing insurance products that take into Frontier that account for women’s lack account women’s land tenure insecurity could of land tenure security increase their uptake of weather insurance as land tenure is often a prerequisite for insurance enrollment. Combining insurance with Paying insurance payouts directly on women’s Emerging mobile money personal mobile money accounts increases their willingness to pay for agricultural insurance (Kramer et al., 2023b). Income Diversification Unlocking women’s access Cash transfers and public Consumption support increases income Credible to capital and ownership work programs diversification, especially among women of assets (Alik-Lagrange et al., 2023; Natali et al., 2016). 23 Policy Objective Policy Options Main Conclusion State of Evidence Economic inclusion packages Multifaceted packages with capital injection Credible with capital injection increase women’s income diversification. (Bossuroy et al., 2022; Botea et al., 2023; Bedi et al., 2024) Land titling formalization Strengthening women’s control over assets such Emerging as land can expand their income-generating opportunities by increasing women’s decision-making power (van den Bold et al., 2015). Alleviating women’s skills Socio-emotional skills training Socio-emotional skills trainings increase women Emerging and social norms farmers’ participation in non-farm activities constraints (Bossuroy et al., 2022; Boxho et al., 2025). Information and The provision of mobile phones, and learning how Emerging Communication Technology to use them, increases women’s crop provision diversification (Aker and Ksoll, 2016). Community norm-changing Community level norm-changing interventions, Frontier interventions such as edutainment interventions and facilitated community discussions, could promote women’s involvement in off-farm and non-farm activities. Trainings and interventions Female role models and mentors can challenge Frontier led by female mentors gender norms regarding sectoral choices, while also expanding women’s networks and boosting their confidence to enter higher-return, male-dominated sectors. Relaxing women’s time Engaging men to increase Gender-transformative trainings that engage men Frontier constraints participation in house and to participate more in domestic chores can help care work alleviate women’s time constraints and increase their ability to diversify income sources. Childcare services Childcare access can allow mothers to move from Credible lower-wage jobs with flexible schedules to higher-paying jobs, and facilitate greater income diversification (Ajayi et al., 2022; Donald et al., 2023). Migration Promoting women’s labor Information session on Migrants’ networks lower migration costs and Frontier relocation women’s integration in ease integration. Information sessions on migrant migrant networks networks for women could facilitate both social and economic integration. Land titling formalization Insecurity in women’s land tenure can discourage Emerging migration due to the heightened expropriation risks. Strengthening women’s land tenure security encourages them to shift production from secure land to less secure areas outside the village and could enhance their ability to migrate (Goldstein et al., 2015). Relaxing women’s capital Subsidized transportation for Subsidizing transportation costs for women could Frontier constraints seasonal migration or cash lower their financial barriers to migration by transfers reducing expenses. Reducing women’s risk of Information campaigns Information campaigns that outline the dangers Frontier violence of climate-induced migration, compare risky versus safer pathways, and specifically address the risks faced by women could reduce their insecurity and reluctance to migrate. 24 Policy Objective Policy Options Main Conclusion State of Evidence Peer-to-peer transmission and Peer-to-peer information campaigns reduce Frontier role models intentions to migrate irregularly. Adaptive Social Protection Making adaptive social Gender-sensitive provisions in Accompanying public works programs with Emerging protection work better for public works programs gender-sensitive provisions, such as flexible hours, women childcare support, and safe transportation, could improve women’s participation and adoption of on- and off-farm diversification (Ajayi et al., 2022). Female quotas in public Strengthening women’s voice and leadership in Frontier welfare decision-making designing and allocating public welfare programs, such as implementing female quotas in decision-making bodies, could enhance gender-inclusive policymaking. Leveraging adaptive social Climate adaptive interventions Adding climate-adaptive interventions to Frontier protection for women’s in economic inclusion economic inclusion packages and cash transfers climate adaptation packages and/or cash transfers could enhance women’s climate resilience. Cash transfers framed for Framing cash transfers as part of climate Frontier climate adaptation adaptation strategies could enhance their effectiveness in building resilience for women. 8 Priority Research Questions This section identifies key under-researched areas critical to understanding and addressing barriers to women’s climate adaptation. While not exhaustive, these questions are derived from the preceding analysis and are organized by adaptation strategy. Climate-Smart Agriculture How do risk aversion, preferences, and climate information interact? Little is known on the interaction between women’s preferences for long-term strategies, their typically higher risk aversion, and their access and exposure to information about climate change and agricul- tural technologies. In particular, more causal evidence is needed on women’s preferences for long-term agricultural conservation strategies over short-term coping mechanisms. Further causal analysis is needed to better understand women’s perceptions and preferences regarding sustainable agricultural practices. Lack of information on climate change and sustainable technologies, combined with higher risk aversion, limits their adoption of CSA. However, risk aversion also potentially translates into a higher preference for long-term strategies that are protective against the effects of climate change and extreme climatic events. Providing accurate information on the benefits of sustainable strategies could therefore represent an opportunity for increased adoption among women. However, little is known on how these constraints interact with each other. Key questions that should be explored in priority to better understand how to increase women’s adoption of CSAs include: Does women’s higher risk aversion represent an opportunity, rather than just a barrier, for increasing their adop- tion of CSA practices? If so, can delivering accurate information on climate change and 25 technologies leverage this opportunity? How best to address women’s limited knowledge of climate change and its effects? There is currently little evidence on the extent to which women perceive the climate change phe- nomenon as a long-term trend to which they need to adapt, especially in particularly exposed regions of Sub-Saharan Africa. More research is needed to understand the causal effects of climate perception on adaptation and whether access to accurate information can change those perceptions. What are effective interventions that address women’s limited access to climate information services? What role do social networks play in adopting climate-smart agriculture? Improving women’s adoption of sustainable agricultural practices depends on a comprehensive under- standing of knowledge diffusion within social networks and strategies to overcome barriers to learning and training. This includes elucidating the impact of male dominance in agri- cultural social structures on women’s engagement and accessibility within these networks. What are effective approaches to social groups organization that overcome gender barriers and time constraints, thereby facilitating women’s long-term adoption of sustainable agri- cultural practices? To what extent does land tenure insecurity limit women’s investment in CSA practices? How does land tenure insecurity influence women farmers’ risk perceptions and decisions re- garding investment in CSA practices, particularly those requiring long-term land use changes like fallowing? Weather Insurance Which insurance products work for women? There is currently little evidence on alternative insurance products that are designed to work for women and to increase women’s take-up. Do weather insurance products that also cover women’s life cycle risks, such as pregnancy and their children’s health events, increase women’s uptake and use of such products? Do insurance products that also address women’s lack of land tenure security, such as offering coverage for crops grown on leased or borrowed land, increase their uptake compared to traditional insurance options? More empirical evidence is also needed on the design of insurance parameters, such as how benefits are paid out. What are effective ways to deliver information on insurance products to women? What types of trainings and communication products can alleviate women’s information and liter- acy constraint? Does subsidizing access to training sessions on insurance products, through covering transportation costs for example, increase women’s participation and ultimate take- up of products? Would increasing access to information on weather insurance and its effi- ciency increase women’s uptake by increasing their trust in financial institutions and products and reducing inaccurate beliefs? More evidence is needed on the effect of “women-friendly” framing of insurance products and on the extent to which feminizing insurance institutions might alleviate women’s reluctance to enroll in insurance schemes. How does improving women’s access to climate adaptation information increase their take-up of weather insur- ance by increasing the relevance of the product to their needs, given their typically higher risk aversion? 26 Income Diversification Which gender norms hinder women’s participation in income diversification? To what extent does lack of time hinder women’s engagement in off-farm activities? Can engaging men to increase their share of housework be effective in increasing women’s income diversification? To what extent does women’s lack of decision-making power within the household affect their decisions to diversify income sources for climate change adaptation? There is a need to better understand in which contexts different constraints are more binding for women. For instance, married women may access more information and resources through their husbands, while divorced, widowed, or women in polygamous marriages might have greater decision- making autonomy. How do intra-household dynamics within various household structures influence women’s agency and ability to diversify their income in response to climate change, considering both their time and labor constraints and their decision-making power? Migration Which interventions can improve women’s returns to migration? Can interventions that address gender disparities in migration outcomes, such as skills training or economic inclusion programs designed for women, help them overcome lower returns and limited decision-making power, ultimately increasing their participation in labor migration? How best to overcome the liquidity constraint? Migration is a costly adaptation strategy, and women, who often experience greater liquidity constraints than men, encounter higher barriers to pursuing this option. Does easing women’s financial constraints, such as subsidiz- ing transportation costs, increase their likelihood of migrating in response to climate shocks, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa? What role do social networks play? There is limited understanding of how restricted access to social networks deters women’s climate-induced migration. Migrants’ networks lower migration costs and aid integration, while limited networks discourage women from migrating. Can interventions such as information sessions that facilitate the social and economic integration of female migrants who lack social networks at their destination improve their migration outcomes? To what extent does women’s land tenure insecurity reduce their willingness to migrate after climate shocks? While there are established causal links between women’s fear of expropriation and their reduced ability to monitor their plots remotely, the link has not been formally established with limited climate-induced migration. What is the role of gender norms in limiting women’s climate-induced migration? There is a lack of causal estimation to comprehensively understand how factors such as women’s role as caregivers and shock absorbers, and their limited participation in intra-household decision-making, influence and restrict women’s migration following adverse climate events. Experimental designs are needed to assess whether economic inclusion programs that take into account women’s time allocation and household roles can improve their opportunities in climate-induced migration. Empirical studies are needed to assess whether addressing gender imbalances in bargaining power through joint training for wives and husbands can improve decision-making around who in the household migrates, and potentially increase women’s migratory prospects. 27 What is the impact of male migration on women’s adaptive capacity? The male domi- nance in climate-induced migration restricts women’s ability to migrate and increases their household tasks and responsibilities. However, this shift can also empower women by giving them greater control over household resources, enabling them to take on leadership roles and engage in traditionally male-dominated activities. Further empirical and causal analysis is therefore needed to understand whether and how male migration in response to adverse weather events may mitigate or exacerbate gender inequalities in climate change adaptation. To what extent does male migration create a burden on women’s labor load, relative to the increase in empowerment afforded by men’s absence? Adaptive Social Protection How to enhance women’s participation and decision-making in adaptive social protection? Which program design elements enhance women’s participation and retention in adaptive social protection schemes? Empirical evidence is needed to assess the impact of gender- sensitive provisions—such as flexible work hours, childcare support, and safe transporta- tion—on women’s ability to engage in public works programs and other adaptive social protection interventions. To what extent do mobility constraints and domestic responsi- bilities limit women’s ability to benefit from adaptive social protection? Further research should examine the role of gender norms and intra-household decision-making in shaping women’s uptake and use of adaptive social protection, as well as potential interventions to relax these constraints. What mechanisms can strengthen women’s leadership and decision- making power in adaptive social protection programs? Investigating the impact of female representation in welfare decision-making bodies and participatory governance mechanisms could help ensure that social protection programs are designed to effectively address women’s needs. What are the most effective complements to economic inclusion packages for supporting women’s climate resilience? Research should explore which additional components—such as financial training, access to savings mechanisms, or bundled climate-adaptive interven- tions—are most cost-effective in promoting women’s investments in sustainable adaptation strategies. How can adaptive social protection prevent maladaptive coping strategies among women and girls? Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of social protection in reducing harmful climate-induced responses—such as child marriage, school dropout, or reduced labor market participation—and promoting sustainable adaptation pathways. How can adaptive social protection facilitate women’s access to climate risk management tools? More evidence is needed on how linking cash transfers and economic inclusion pro- grams to early warning systems, weather insurance, and anticipatory action can enhance women’s resilience to climate shocks. How can digital payment systems and financial train- ing improve the long-term resilience benefits of cash transfers for women? More research is required to determine whether and how innovations such as mobile money, early payment options, and financial literacy training influence women’s ability to allocate transfers toward adaptation investments rather than short-term consumption. 28 9 Summary and Discussion This paper reviews the evidence on the constraints women face in adopting climate adap- tation strategies, outlines interventions that effectively address these constraints, identifies critical knowledge gaps, and proposes priority research questions. The review focuses on four key adaptation strategies available to women in rural settings in Sub-Saharan Africa: climate-smart agriculture (CSA), weather insurance, income diversification, and migration. It also discusses gender differences and constraints in access to adaptive social protection, which serve as a policy lever to support short-term coping with climate shocks while enabling long-term adaptation investments. Women face greater barriers than men when adapting to climate change, both on-farm and off-farm. While some constraints are common across genders and adaptation strategies, others are gender- and strategy-specific. Constraints for which there is robust evidence that they are binding on the adoption of several strategies include women’s financial limitations and restricted control over assets, gender norms that position them as primary caregivers and shock absorbers, and women’s limitations in human and social capital. Limited access to financial resources significantly hinders women’s ability to invest in CSA and other adaptation strategies. Restricted access to credit, savings, and insurance products prevents women from making critical investments in adaptation measures, safe- guarding assets, and using savings or remittances to reduce food insecurity and smooth consumption. Women’s limited control over assets, particularly land, diminishes their capacity to adapt to climate change. Insecure land tenure reduces women’s ability to invest in agriculture, diversify livelihoods, or migrate. While the impact of land tenure insecurity on women’s adoption of adaptive strategies remains underexplored, it represents a key area for further empirical investigation, especially in relation to long-term investments in CSA and other climate adaptation strategies. Gendered societal expectations significantly restrict women’s adaptation options. Societal norms that designate women as caregivers, shock absorbers and primary providers of subsis- tence crops limit their time and flexibility for crop selection, migration, and income diver- sification. These gendered responsibilities, combined with time constraints, hinder women’s ability to fully engage in CSA. Engaging men in household tasks, improving childcare ac- cess, and promoting gender-equitable norms and behaviors will be important to facilitating women’s adaptation. Research on norm-changing interventions targeting restrictive gender roles is needed. Access to accurate information on climate and new technologies is crucial for effective adaptation. Lack of access to such information increases uncertainty about the returns and effectiveness of CSA. Further research is needed on how women’s higher risk aversion could represent an opportunity for increased adoption of CSA practices, particularly with the delivery of accurate information on long-term strategies. Lack of information about weather insurance products is also a constraint limiting the use of those products. Research on how women perceive climate change and whether targeted information interventions can address this perception gap should be prioritized, as it can directly affect adoption rates, particularly for on-farm adaptation strategies. Women’s limited access to education and skills training reduces their ability to adopt 29 CSA and other adaptive measures. Their limited social capital further restricts their access to information, which impedes their ability to migrate or engage in more sustainable on-farm and off-farm activities. There is a significant gap in the literature on how social networks and gendered barriers to information diffusion impact women’s access to agricultural and climate adaptation knowledge. The empirical literature on interventions that address women’s constraints to adaptation is still scant, especially for Sub-Saharan Africa. We categorize existing interventions into three groups: (i) credible — with substantial evidence of impact on adaptation, (ii) emerging — with one piece of rigorous evidence identifying impact, and (iii) frontier — for which there is currently no rigorous evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa. Two intervention types have credible evidence supporting their effectiveness in facilitating women’s adaptation: CSA information delivery and social protection programs. Programs that provide information on CSA through female extension agents or that target both spouses for agricultural decision-making have proven successful. Similarly, social protection initia- tives, such as cash transfers and multi-faceted economic inclusion programs have demon- strated positive impacts by relaxing financial, skills, and network constraints, thus enabling women’s on-farm adaptation, income diversification and possibly migration. Emerging in- terventions for which the evidence base is thin but growing include those targeting women’s socio-emotional skills, addressing time constraints, and improving their access to assets and land ownership. Socioemotional skills training is a growing area of policy interest and has been shown to have an impact on women’s ability to diversify off-farm. Childcare is also emerging as an intervention that can support women’s off-farm and non-farm activities, by lifting their time constraint. Land titling programs also show promise, though more evi- dence is needed to confirm their direct impacts on climate adaptation. Several intervention areas, classified as frontier, lack robust evidence and remain underexplored. These include initiatives aimed at improving women’s access to climate information, especially through digital platforms or climate information services. Research on increasing women’s access to weather insurance products is another critical frontier. Additionally, interventions focused on enhancing women’s social networks, such as structured groups with gender-responsive features, are promising but require further study. Norm-changing interventions that address restrictive gender norms and improve women’s intra-household bargaining power are another critical area for future research. Community-level norms interventions and engaging men to shift societal norms around women’s roles in decision-making, housework, and caregiving could play an important role in supporting women’s climate adaptation. By its multifaceted nature, adaptive social protection plays a crucial role in alleviating si- multaneous constraints that hinder the most vulnerable women’s ability to access sustainable adaptation strategies. However, despite being the primary recipients of many social protec- tion programs, women face persistent barriers — including limited financial autonomy, mo- bility constraints, and caregiving responsibilities — that restrict their ability to fully leverage these programs for climate adaptation. Addressing these gender-specific constraints through targeted program design, such as mobile transfers, childcare support, and gender-sensitive operational adjustments, is essential to enhancing women’s adaptive capacity. Further re- search is needed to establish which operational features are the most cost-effective in making adaptive social protection work for women, and causal links between social protection and women’s adoption of adaptive strategies, particularly in the African context. 30 Finally, a significant gap exists in the literature on women’s migration as a climate adaptation strategy. Further research is needed to explore the specific constraints women face in migration, the interventions that can facilitate their mobility, and whether migration serves as an effective adaptation strategy or simply reflects a coping mechanism. Empirical studies will be essential for understanding the dynamics of women’s migration, particularly in how social networks and gendered constraints impact mobility, and its potential as a long-term adaptive response to climate change. 31 References Abebe, M. A. (2014). Climate Change, Gender Inequality And Migration in East Africa. Abiona, O. and Koppensteiner, M. F. (2016). The Impact of Household Shocks on Domestic Violence: Evidence from Tanzania. Discussion Papers in Economics 16/14, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester. Adger, W., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D., Naess, L., Wolf, J., and Wreford, A. (2008). Are There Social Limits to Adaptation to Climate Change? Climatic Change, 93:335–354. Adzawla, W., Azumah, S. B., Anani, P. Y., and Donkoh, S. A. (2019). Gender perspectives of climate change adaptation in two selected districts of Ghana. Heliyon, 5(11):e02854. Agamile, P., Dimova, R., and Golan, J. (2021). Crop Choice, Drought and Gender: New Insights from Smallholders’ Response to Weather Shocks in Rural Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(3):829–856. Agboh-Noameshie, A., Kinkingninhoun Medagbe, F., and Diagne, A. (2008). Gendered impact of NERICA Adoption on Farmers’ Production and Income in Central Benin. Aguilar, A., Carranza, E., Goldstein, M., Kilic, T., and Oseni, G. (2015). Decomposition of gender differentials in agricultural productivity in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 46(3):311–334. Agyei-Holmes, A., Buehren, N., Goldstein, M. P., Osei, R. D., Osei-Akoto, I., and Udry, C. R. (2020). The Effects of Land Title Registration on Tenure Security, Investment and the Allocation of Productive Resources: Evidence from Ghana. Policy Research Working Paper Series 9376, The World Bank. Aheeyar, M., de Silva, S., Senaratna-Sellamuttu, S., and Arulingam, I. (2019). Unpack- ing Barriers to Socially Inclusive Weather Index Insurance: Towards a Framework for Inclusion. Water, 11(11). Ajayi, K. F., Dao, A., and Koussoube, M. E. J. (2022). The Effects of Childcare on Women and Children : Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Burkina Faso. Policy Research working paper WPS 10239, Impact Evaluation series Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. Aker, J. C. (2011). Dial “A” for Agriculture: A Review of Information and Communication Technologies for Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries. Agricultural Economics, 42:631 – 647. Aker, J. C. and Jack, B. K. (2023). Harvesting the Rain: The Adoption of Environmental Technologies in the Sahel. The Review of Economics and Statistics, pages 1–52. Aker, J. C. and Ksoll, C. (2016). Can mobile phones improve agricultural outcomes? Evi- dence from a randomized experiment in Niger. Food Policy, 60:44–51. 32 Akresh, R., De Walque, D., and Kazianga, H. (2016). Evidence from a randomized evaluation of the household welfare impacts of conditional and unconditional cash transfers given to mothers or fathers. Policy Research Working Paper Series 7730, The World Bank. Akter, S., Krupnik, T. J., Rossi, F., and Khanam, F. (2016). The influence of gender and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Global Environmental Change, 38:217–229. Ali, D. A., Deininger, K., and Goldstein, M. (2014). Environmental and gender impacts of land tenure regularization in Africa: Pilot evidence from Rwanda. Journal of Development Economics, 110:262–275. Alik-Lagrange, A., Buehren, N., Goldstein, M., and Hoogeveen, J. (2023). Welfare impacts o public works in the of public works in fragile and conflict affected economies: The Lond¨ Central African Republic. Labour Economics, 81:102293. Alik-Lagrange, A., Delavallade, C., Goldstein, M., and Gonzalez, P. (2025). Unveiling the Gender Divide in Nigerian Smallholder Farming: High-Frequency Data Insights on Labor Composition and Time Allocation. Technical report. Alvarez, J. A. (2020). The Agricultural Wage Gap: Evidence from Brazilian Micro-data. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 12(1):153–73. Andrews, C., Backiny-Yetna, P., Garin, E., Weedon, E., Wodon, Q., and Zampaglione, G. (2011). Liberia’s Cash for Work Temporary Employment Project. World Bank. Arbache, J., Kolev, A., and Filipiak, E. (2010). Gender Disparities in Africa’s Labor Market. The World Bank Group. Arimi, K. and Olajide, B. R. (2016). Comparative analysis of male and female adopters of improved rice production technology in Ogun and Ekiti states, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 12(3):246–261. Arteaga, J., Carter, M., and Hobbs, A. (2023). Insuring those who bear the risk: The impact of gender-inclusive insurance in Kenya. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research. Asfaw, S., Davis, B., Dewbre, Handa, S., and Winters, P. (2014). Cash Transfer Programme, Productive Activities and Labour Supply: Evidence from a Randomised Experiment in Kenya. Journal of Development Studies, 50. Ashraf, N., Bau, N., Low, C., and McGinn, K. (2020). Negotiating a Better Future: How Interpersonal Skills Facilitate Intergenerational Investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(2):1095–1151. Asravor, R. (2017). Livelihood Diversification Strategies to Climate Change among Small- holder Farmers in Northern Ghana: Diversification Strategies to Climate Change. Journal of International Development, 30. 33 Aswani, S., Lemahieu, A., and Sauer, W. H. (2018). Global trends of local ecological knowl- edge and future implications. PLoS ONE, 13. Atchikpa, M., Adzawla, W., Yegbemey, R., Diallo, M., and Aman, N. (2017). Determinants of Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change: The case of maize and sorghum farmers in Benin and Nigeria. Autio, A., Johansson, T., Motaroki, L., Minoia, P., and Pellikka, P. (2021). Constraints for adopting climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Southeast Kenya. Agricultural Systems, 194:103284. Babugura, A. (2008). Vulnerability of Children and Youth in Drought Disasters: A Case Study of Botswana. Children, Youth and Environments, 18:126–157. Baez, J., Caruso, G., Mueller, V., and Niu, C. (2017). Heat Exposure and Youth Migration in Central America and the Caribbean. American Economic Review, 107(5):446–50. Bah, T. L., Batista, C., Gubert, F., and McKenzie, D. (2023). Can information and alter- natives to irregular migration reduce “backway” migration from The Gambia? Journal of Development Economics, 165(C). ¨ Baird, S., Mcintosh, C., and Ozler, B. (2011). Cash or Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126:1709–1753. Bakhtiar, M. M., Fafchamps, M., Goldstein, M., Leonard, K. L., and Papineni, S. (2024). To defer or to differ: Experimental evidence on the role of cash transfers in Nigerian couples’ decision–making. The Economic Journal, page ueae117. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., and Sharma, G. (2021). Long-Term Effects of the Targeting the Ultra Poor Program. American Economic Review: Insights, 3(4):471–86. Barnett, B. (2014). Multiple-peril crop insurance: successes and challenges. Agricultural Finance Review. Barrett, C. B., Islam, A., Mohammad Malek, A., Pakrashi, D., and Ruthbah, U. (2022). Experimental Evidence on Adoption and Impact of the System of Rice Intensification. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104(1):4–32. Bastagli, F., Hagen-Zanker, J., Harman, L., Barca, V., Sturge, G., Schmidt, T., and Peller- ano, L. (2016). Cash transfers: What does the evidence say? A rigorous review of pro- gramme impact and of the role of design and implementation features. Bauchet, J., Undurraga, E., Zycherman, A., Behrman, J., Leonard, W., and Godoy, R. (2021). The effect of gender targeting of food transfers on child nutritional status: Ex- perimental evidence from the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 13:1–16. Baum¨ uller, H. (2018). The Little We Know: An Exploratory Literature Review on the Util- ity of Mobile Phone-Enabled Services for Smallholder Farmers. Journal of International Development, 30:134–154. 34 Baysan, C., Dar, M. H., Emerick, K., Li, Z., and Sadoulet, E. (2024). The agricultural wage gap within rural villages. Journal of Development Economics, 168(C). Beaman, L., BenYishay, A., Magruder, J., and Mobarak, A. M. (2021). Can Network Theory-Based Targeting Increase Technology Adoption? American Economic Review, 111(6):1918–43. Beaman, L., Karlan, D., Thuysbaert, B., and Udry, C. (2023). Selection Into Credit Markets: Evidence From Agriculture in Mali. Econometrica, 91(5):1595–1627. Bedi, T., King, M., and Vaillant, J. (2024). Gender targeting and household cooperation: Experimental evidence from a multifaceted anti-poverty program in Malawi. Technical report. Behr, Daniela Monika; Groussard, H. M. K. V. S. L. (2023). Women’s Land Rights in Sub- Saharan Africa : Where do we Stand in Practice? . Global indicators briefs, World Bank Group. Belissa, T., Bulte, E., Cecchi, F., Gangopadhyay, S., and Lensink, R. (2019). Liquidity constraints, informal institutions, and the adoption of weather insurance: A randomized controlled Trial in Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics, 140:269–278. Below, T., Artner-Nehls, A., Siebert, R., and Sieber, S. (2010). Micro-level practices to adapt to climate change for African small-scale farmers. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), IFPRI discussion papers. Benhassine, N., Devoto, F., Duflo, E., Dupas, P., and Pouliquen, V. (2015). Turning a Shove into a Nudge? A ”Labeled Cash Transfer” for Education. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(3):86–125. Benin, S., Smale, M., and Pender, J. (2005). Explaining the diversity of cereal crops and varieties grown on household farms in the highlands of Northern Ethiopia. Valuing Crop Biodiversity: On-Farm Genetic Resources and Economic Change, pages 78–96. BenYishay, A. and Mobarak, A. (2019). Social Learning and Incentives for Experimentation and Communication. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(3):976–1009. Berg, A., Quirion, P., and Sultan, B. (2009). Weather-Index Drought Insurance in Burkina- Faso: Assessment of Its Potential Interest to Farmers. Weather, Climate, and Society, 1(1):71 – 84. Berge, L. I. O., Bjorvatn, K., and Tungodden, B. (2015). Human and Financial Capital for Microenterprise Development: Evidence from a Field and Lab Experiment. Management Science, 61(4):707–722. Bernhardt, A., Field, E., Pande, R., and Rigol, N. (2019). Household matters: Revisiting the returns to capital among female microentrepreneurs. American Economic Review: Insights, 1(2):141–160. 35 Bernhardt, A., Rigol, N., Pande, and Field, E. (2018). What Happens when Investments Targeting Women’s Microbusinesses Go to Men? Technical report. Bertoni, E., Corral, P., Molini, V., and Oseni, G. (2016). Heterogeneous Returns to Income Diversification: Evidence from Nigeria. The World Bank. orkman-Nyqvist, M. (2013). Income shocks and gender gaps in education: Evidence from Bj¨ Uganda. Journal of Development Economics, 105(C):237–253. Black, R., Kniveton, D., and Schmidt-Verkerk, K. (2013). Migration and Climate Change: Toward an Integrated Assessment of Sensitivity, pages 29–53. Springer Netherlands, Dor- drecht. Bossuroy, T., Goldstein, M., Karimou, B., Karlan, D., Kazianga, H., Pariente, W., Premand, P., Thomas, C., Udry, C., Vaillant, J., and Wright, K. (2022). Tackling psychosocial and capital constraints to alleviate poverty. Nature, 605:1–7. Botea, I., Brudevold-Newman, A., Goldstein, M., Low, C., and Roberts, G. (2023). Support- ing Women’s Livelihoods at Scale: Evidence from a Nationwide Multi-Faceted Program. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research. Bourdillon, M., Hebinck, P., Hoddinott, J., Kinsey, B., Marondo, J., Mudege, N., and Owens, T. (2003). Assessing the impact of high-yielding varieties of maize in resettlement areas of Zimbabwe. Boxho, C., Campos, F., Carneiro, P., Frese, M., Gielnik, M., Goldstein, M., Montalvao, J., and Scharweit, B. (2025). Overcoming the Knowing-Doing Gap in Farming by Personal Initiative: Experimental Evidence from Mozambique. Technical report. Brown, O. (2008). Climate change and forced migration: Observations, projections and implications. Technical report, Human Development Report. Bryan, G., Chowdhury, S., and Mobarak, A. (2014). Underinvestment in a Profitable Tech- nology: The Case of Seasonal Migration in Bangladesh. Econometrica, 82:1671–1748. Bryan, G. and Morten, M. (2019). The Aggregate Productivity Effects of Internal Migration: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 127(5):2229 – 2268. Buehren, N., Goldstein, M., Molina, E., and Vaillant, J. (2019). The impact of strengthening agricultural extension services on women farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 50(4):407–419. Burlig, F., Jina, A., Kelley, E. M., Lane, G. V., and Sahai, H. (2024). Long-range forecasts as climate adaptation: Experimental evidence from developing-country agriculture. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research. a, G. (2024). Adaptation to climate change. Carleton, T., Duflo, E., Jack, B. K., and Zappal` In Handbook of the Economics of Climate Change, volume 1, pages 143–248. Elsevier. 36 Carranza, E., Dhakal, C., and Love, I. (2018). Female Entrepreneurs: How and Why Are They Different? Technical report, World Bank. Cattaneo, C., Beine, M., Frohlich, C. J., Kniveton, D., Martinez-Zarzoso, I., Mastrorillo, M., Millock, K., Piguet, E., and Schraven, B. (2019). Human Migration in the Era of Climate Change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13(2):189–206. Cattaneo, C. and Peri, G. (2016). The migration response to increasing temperatures. Journal of Development Economics, 122(Supplement C):127 – 146. Cecchi, F., Chegeh, J., Aredo, S. D., Kivuva, B., Kramer, B., Waithaka, L., and Waweru, C. (2021). Climate-smart crop insurance to promote adoption of stress-tolerant seeds: midterm findings from a cluster randomized trial. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., and Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk pref- erences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 87:43–51. Chavas, J.-P., Chambers, R. G., and Pope, R. D. (2010). Production Economics and Farm Management: a Century of Contributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2):356–375. Cherchi, L., Goldstein, M., Habyarimana, J., Montalvao, J., O’Sullivan, M., and Udry, C. (2019). Incentives for Joint Land Titling: Experimental Evidence from Uganda. Working Paper. Cho, Y., Kalomba, D., Mobarak, A. M., and Orozco, V. (2013). Gender Differences in the Effects of Vocational Training: Constraints on Women and Drop-Out Behavior. The World Bank. Chopra, D. (2019). Taking Care into Account: Leveraging India’s MGNREGA for Women’s Empowerment. Development and Change, 50(6):1687–1716. Chort, I., Gubert, F., and Senne, J.-N. (2012). Migrant Networks as a Basis for Social Control : Remittance Incentives among Senegalese in France and Italy. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42. Chuang, Y. (2019). Climate variability, rainfall shocks, and farmers’ income diversification in India. Economics Letters, 174:55–61. Cinner, J., Adger, W., Allison, E., Barnes, M., Brown, K., Cohen, P., Gelcich, S., Hicks, C., Hughes, T., Lau, J., Marshall, N., and Morrison, T. (2018). Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Climate Change, 8. e, X., Tobacman, J., Topalova, P., Townsend, R., and Vickery, J. (2013). Barriers Cole, S., Gin´ to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(1):104–35. ote Colin, J.-P. and Ayouz, M. (2006). The Development of a Land Market? Insights from Cˆ d’Ivoire. Land Economics, 82:404–423. 37 Conley, T. G. and Udry, C. R. (2010). Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana. American Economic Review, 100(1):35–69. Cools, S., Flatø, M., and Kotsadam, A. (2020). Rainfall shocks and intimate partner violence in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 57:002234331988025. Corno, L., Hildebrandt, N., and Voena, A. (2020). Age of Marriage, Weather Shocks, and the Direction of Marriage Payments. Econometrica, 88:879–915. Coulibaly, J., Birachi, E., Kagabo, D., and Mutua, M. (2017). Climate services for agricul- ture in Rwanda: Baseline survey report. CCAFS Working Paper 202, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Croppenstedt, A., Goldstein, M., and Rosas, N. (2013). Gender and Agriculture: Ineffi- ciencies, Segregation, and Low Productivity Traps. The World Bank Research Observer, 28. epon, B., Devoto, F., Duflo, E., and Parient´ Cr´ e, W. (2015). Estimating the Impact of Microcredit on Those Who Take It Up: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Morocco. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1):123–50. Dadzie, C. E. and Ofei-Aboagye, E. (2021). Opportunities for Youth and Women’s Partici- pation in Ghana’s Labour-intensive Public Works Program. World Bank. de Mel, S., McKenzie, D., and Woodruff, C. (2008). Returns to Capital in Microenterprises: Evidence from a Field Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(4):1329– 1372. de Nicola, F. (2015a). Handling the Weather: Insurance, Savings, and Credit in West Africa. Poverty and Equity Global Practice Working Paper Series. de Nicola, F. (2015b). The impact of weather insurance on consumption, investment, and welfare. Quantitative Economics, 6(3):637–661. Defrance, D., Delesalle, E., and Gubert, F. (2022). Migration response to drought in Mali. An analysis using panel data on Malian localities over the 1987-2009 period. Environment and Development Economics, page 1–20. Delavallade, C., Dizon, F., Hill, R., and Petraud, J. P. (2015). Managing Risk with Insurance and Savings: Experimental Evidence for Male and Female Farm Managers in the Sahel. SALDRU Working Papers 142, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town. Dercon, S. and Christiaensen, L. (2011). Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics, 96(2):159–173. Dercon, S., Hill, R. V., Clarke, D., Outes-Leon, I., and Seyoum Taffesse, A. (2014). Offer- ing rainfall insurance to informal insurance groups: Evidence from a field experiment in Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics, 106:132–143. 38 Deressa, T., Hassan, R., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., and Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 19:248–255. Descheemaeker, K., Oosting, S., Homann-Kee Tui, S., Masikati, P., Gatien, F., and Giller, K. (2016). Climate change adaptation and mitigation in smallholder crop–livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa: a call for integrated impact assessments. Regional Environmental Change, 16. Devereux, S. and Guenther, B. (2009). Agriculture and Social Protection in Ethiopia. Di Falco, S. and Chavas, J.-P. (2008). On Crop Biodiversity, Risk Exposure, and Food Secu- rity in the Highlands of Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91:599– 611. Di Falco, S. and Veronesi, M. (2013). How Can African Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change? A Counterfactual Analysis from Ethiopia. Land Economics, 89(4). ote d’Ivoire. The Diagne, A. (2006). Diffusion and adoption of NERICA rice varieties in Cˆ Developing Economies, 44:208 – 231. Dibba, L., Fialor, S., Diagne, A., and Nimoh, F. (2012). The impact of NERICA adoption on productivity and poverty of the small-scale rice farmers in the Gambia. Food Security, 4. Dicko, A. H., William, F., Mueller, M., and Bouyer, J. (2014). Index-based insurance: a new tool to control vector-borne diseases under climate change in West Africa ? Dikito-Wachtmeister, M. (2001). Social capital: The ’missing link’ in water resources man- agement. Waterlines, 20:29–31. Dillon, A., Mueller, V., and Salau, S. (2011). Migratory Responses to Agricultural Risk in Northern Nigeria. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(4):1048–1061. Diouf, N. S., Ouedraogo, I., Zougmor´e, R. B., Ouedraogo, M., Partey, S. T., and Gumucio, T. (2019). Factors influencing gendered access to climate information services for farming in Senegal. Gender, Technology and Development, 23(2):93–110. Donald, A., Lowes, S., and Vaillant, J. (2023). Experimental evidence on rural childcare provision. Donald, A. A., Goldstein, M. P., and Rouanet, L. M. (2022). Two Heads Are Better Than One : Agricultural Production and Investment in Cˆote d’Ivoire. Policy Research Working Paper Series 10047, The World Bank. Doss, C. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2020). Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework. Land Use Policy, 99:105080. Doss, C. R. (2001). Designing Agricultural Technology for African Women Farmers: Lessons from 25 Years of Experience. World Development, 29(12):2075–2092. 39 Doss, C. R. (2018). Women and agricultural productivity: Reframing the Issues. Develop- ment Policy Review, 36(1):35–50. Drever, A. and Hoffmeister, O. (2008). Immigrants and Social Networks in a Job-Scarce Environment: The Case of Germany. International Migration Review, 42:425 – 448. Duflo, E. (2003). Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old-Age Pensions and Intrahousehold Allocation in South Africa. The World Bank Economic Review, 17(1):1–25. Duflo, E. (2012). Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic literature, 50(4):1051–1079. Duflo, E. and Udry, C. (2004). Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Cote d’Ivoire: Social Norms, Separate Accounts and Consumption Choices. Working Paper 10498, National Bureau of Economic Research. Ellis, F. (2005). Small-Farms, Livelihood Diversification and Rural-Urban Transitions: Strategic Issues in Sub-Saharan Africa. Emerick, K. and Dar, M. (2020). Farmer Field Days and Demonstrator Selection for In- creasing Technology Adoption. The Review of Economics and Statistics, pages 1–41. Emerick, K., de Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., and Dar, M. H. (2016). Technological Innova- tions, Downside Risk, and the Modernization of Agriculture. American Economic Review, 106(6):1537–61. Eriksen, S. H., Brown, K., and Kelly, P. M. (2005). The dynamics of vulnerability: locating coping strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Geographical Journal, 171(4):287–305. Eriksen, T. H. (1999). A Non-ethnic State for Africa? A Life-world Approach to the Imag- ining of Communities, pages 45–64. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Erman, A., De Vries Robbe, S. A., Thies, S. F., Kabir, K., and Maruo, M. (2021). Gen- der Dimensions of Disaster Risk and Resilience : Existing Evidence. Technical report, Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. Fafchamps, M., McKenzie, D., Quinn, S., and Woodruff, C. (2014). Microenterprise growth and the flypaper effect: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Ghana. Journal of development Economics, 106:211–226. Fenske, J. (2009). L’Etranger: Status, Property Rights and Investment Incentives in Cote d’Ivoire. Land Economics, 86. Feriga, M., Gracia, N. L., and Serneels, P. (2025). The impact of climate change on work: Lessons for developing countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 40(1):104–146. Findley, S. (1994). Does drought increase migration? A study of migration from rural Mali during the 1983-1985 drought. International Migration Review, 28(3):539–553. 40 Fishman, R. (2013). Rainfall Variability, Adaptation through Irrigation, and Sustainable Management of Water Resources in India. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, pages GC32A–07. Friedson-Ridenour, S. and Pierotti, R. S. (2019). Competing priorities: Women’s microen- terprises and household relationships. World Development, 121:53–62. ohlich, C. and Brzoska, M. (2015). Climate Change, Migration and Violent Conflict: Fr¨ Vulnerabilities, Pathways and Adaptation Strategies. Migration Development, 5. Gaddis, I., Lahoti, R. S., and Li, W. (2018). Gender Gaps in Property Ownership in Sub- Saharan Africa. Policy Research Working Paper Series 8573, The World Bank. Gannon, K., Castellano, E., Eskander, S., Agol, D., Diop, M., Conway, D., and Sprout, E. (2022). The triple differential vulnerability of female entrepreneurs to climate risk in sub-Saharan Africa: Gendered barriers and enablers to private sector adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 13. Gavigan, S., Ciprikis, K., and Cooney, T. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurship training on self-employment of rural female entrepreneurs in Uganda. Small Enterprise Research, 27. Gavrilovic, M., Rubio, M., Bastagli, F., Hinton, R., Staab, S., Goulder, R. G., Bilo, C., Khan, R., Peterman, A., Diallo, B., Alfers, L., Santiago, A., Rizvi, Z., Holmes, R., Mejia, J. G. J., and Tabbush, C. (2022). Gender-responsive social protection post–COVID-19. Science, 375(6585):1111–1113. Gebrehiwot, T. and Veen, A. (2013). Farm Level Adaptation to Climate Change: The Case of Farmer’s in the Ethiopian Highlands. Environmental management, 52. ecoud, A. (2019). The Politics of International Migration Management. Geiger, M. and P´ Gine, X. and Yang, D. (2009). Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimen- tal evidencefrom Malawi. Journal of Development Economics, 89(1):1–11. Gittard, M. (2024a). Droughts, Migration and Population in Kenya. PSE Working Paper. Gittard, M. (2024b). Impacts of repetitive droughts and the key role of experience: evidence from Nigeria. PSE Working Paper. Glennerster, R. and Suri, T. (2018). Agricultural Technology and Nutrition: The Impacts of NERICA Rice in Sierra Leone. Working Paper. Goldstein, M., Houngbedji, K., Kondylis, F., O’Sullivan, M., and Selod, H. (2015). For- malizing Rural Land Rights in West Africa: Early Evidence from a Randomized Impact Evaluation in Benin. The World Bank. Goldstein, M. and Udry, C. (2008). The Profits of Power: Land Rights and Agricultural Investment in Ghana. Journal of Political Economy, 116(6):981–1022. 41 Gotschi, E., Njuki, J., and Delve, R. (2008). Gender equity and social capital in smallholder farmer groups in central Mozambique. Development in Practice, 18(4-5):650–657. Grace, K., Davenport, F., Hanson, H., Funk, C., and Shukla, S. (2015). Linking climate change and health outcomes: Examining the relationship between temperature, precipita- tion and birth weight in Africa. Global Environmental Change, 35:125–137. Gray, C. L. and Mueller, V. (2012). Natural Disasters and Population Mobility in Bangladesh. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(16):6000–6005. Greatrex, H., Hansen, J., Garvin, S., Diro, R., Blakeley, S., Le Guen, M., Rao, K., and Os- good, D. (2015). Scaling up index insurance for smallholder farmers: Recent evidence and insights. CCAFS Report 14, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Guirkinger, C., Gross, J., and Platteau, J.-P. (2021). Are women emancipating? Evidence from marriage, divorce and remarriage in Rural Northern Burkina Faso. World Develop- ment, 146:105512. Gumucio, T., Hansen, J., Huyer, S., and van Huysen, T. (2020). Gender-responsive rural climate services: a review of the literature. Climate and Development, 12(3):241–254. Hamory, J., Kleemans, M., Li, N., and Miguel, E. (2020). Reevaluating Agricultural Produc- tivity Gaps with Longitudinal Microdata. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19. Hanna, R., Mullainathan, S., and Schwartzstein, J. (2014). Learning Through Noticing: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3):1311–1353. Harris, J. R. and Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, Unemployment Development: A Two- Sector Analysis. American Economic Review, 60(1):126–42. Hemming, D. J., Chirwa, E. W., Dorward, A., Ruffhead, H. J., Hill, R., Osborn, J., Langer, L., Harman, L., Asaoka, H., Coffey, C., and Phillips, D. (2018). Agricultural input subsi- dies for improving productivity, farm income, consumer welfare and wider growth in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1):1–153. Henderson, J. V., Storeygard, A., and Deichmann, U. (2017). Has climate change driven urbanization in Africa? Journal of Development Economics, 124(C):60–82. Henry, S., Schoumaker, B., and Beauchemin, C. (2004). The Impact of Rainfall on the First Out-Migration: A Multilevel Event-History Analysis in Burkina Faso. Population and Environment, 25:423–460. Hesselberg, J. and Yaro, J. (2006). An assessment of the extent and causes of food insecurity in Northern Ghana using a livelihood vulnerability framework. GeoJournal, 67:41–55. 42 Higgins, D., Balint, T., Liversage, H., and Winters, P. (2018). Investigating the impacts of increased rural land tenure security: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Rural Studies, 61:34–62. Hill, R. V. and Robles, M. (2011). Flexible insurance for heterogeneous farmers: Results from a small-scale pilot in Ethiopia. IFPRI discussion papers 1092, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Hill, R. V. and Viceisza, A. (2012). A field experiment on the impact of weather shocks and insurance on risky investment. Ifpri discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Holden, S. T. and Ghebru, H. (2016). Land tenure reforms, tenure security and food security in poor agrarian economies: Causal linkages and research gaps. Global Food Security, 10:21–28. Hotte, R. and Marazyan, K. (2020). Demand for insurance and within-kin-group marriages: Evidence from a West-African country. Journal of Development Economics, 146:102489. Houria, D., Brockhaus, M., Brockhaus@cgiar, M., and Org (2011). Is Adaptation to Climate Change Gender Neutral? Lessons from Communities Dependent on Livestock and Forests in Northern Mali. International Forestry Review, 13. Howden, S., Soussana, J.-F., Tubiello, F., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., and Meinke, H. (2008). Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104:19691–6. Huyer, S. (2016). Closing the Gender Gap in Agriculture. Gender, Technology and Devel- opment, 20(2):105–116. Ijjasz-Vasquez, E. J., Saghir, J., and Noble, I. (2021). State and Trends in Adaptation Report 2021: Africa. Imbert, C. and Papp, J. (2020). Costs and benefits of rural-urban migration: Evidence from India. Journal of Development Economics, 146(C):S0304387820300481. IOM (2018). Migration, Climate change and the Environment. Technical report. IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Technical report, Cambridge University Press. Isaga, N. (2018). Start-up motives and challenges facing female entrepreneurs in Tanzania. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 11. Ishaya, s. and Abaje, I. (2008). Indigenous People’s Perception on Climate Change and Adaptation Strategies in Jema’a Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Jour- nal of Geography and Regional Planning., 1:138–143. 43 Johnson, N., Njuki, J., Waithanji, E., Nhambeto, M., Rogers, M., and Kruger, E. (2015). The Gendered Impacts of Agricultural Asset Transfer Projects. Gender, Technology and Development, 19:145–180. Jordan, J., Abhilashi, R., and Shaheen, A. (2021). Gender-sensitive social protection in the face of climate risk: A study in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, India. Jost, C., Kyazze, F., Naab, J., Neelormi, S., Kinyangi, J., Zougmore, R., Aggarwal, P., Gopal, B., Ah, M., Chaudhury, Tapio-Bistrom, M.-L., Nelson, S., Kristjanson, P., Bhatta, G., and Chaudhury, M. (2015). Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Climate and Development, 8. Kakota, T., Nyariki, D., Mkwambisi, D., and Wambui, K.-M. (2011). Gender vulnerability to climate variability and household food insecurity. Climate and Development, 3:1–12. Karlan, D., Osei, R., Osei-Akoto, I., and Udry, C. (2014). Agricultural decisions after relaxing credit and risk constraints. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(2):597–652. Karlan, D., Osei, R. D., Osei-Akoto, I., and Udry, C. (2012). Agricultural Decisions after Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints. Working Paper 18463, National Bureau of Economic Research. Katungi, E., Smale, M., and Edmeades, S. (2008). Gender, social capital and information exchange in rural Uganda. Journal of International Development, 20:35–52. Kebede, H. A. (2022). Risk Aversion and Gender Gaps in Technology Adoption by Small- holder Farmers: Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Studies, 58(9):1668– 1692. Khan, R. and Morrissey, O. (2020). Income diversification and household welfare in Tanzania 2008-2013. Technical report. opez, A., and Goldstein, M. (2015). Caught in a Productivity Trap: A Kilic, T., Palacios-L´ Distributional Perspective on Gender Differences in Malawian Agriculture. World Devel- opment, 70:416–463. Koloma, Y. (2014). Crop Microinsurance for Maize Farmers in Burkina Faso: Access and e Village. Strategic Change, 24:115–129. Agriculture Performance in the Dand´ et´ Komowski, F., Gibigaye, M., Muller, B., and Lalou, R. (2015). Les soci´ es rurales face aux changements climatiques en Afrique de l’Ouest . Kondylis, F., Mueller, V., Sheriff, G., and Zhu, S. (2016). Do Female Instructors Reduce Gender Bias in Diffusion of Sustainable Land Management Techniques? Experimental Evidence From Mozambique. World Development, 78:436–449. Kramer, B. and Lambrecht, I. (2019). Gender and preferences for non-farm income diversifi- cation: A framed field experiment in Ghana:. IFPRI discussion papers 1855, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 44 Kramer, B., Trachtman, C., and L., Z. (2023a). Information as a Source of Empowerment: The Role of Climate Information Services. AICCRA Workin Paper no.17. Kramer, B., Waweru, C., and Malacarne, J. G. (2023b). Control over future payouts and willingness-to-pay for insurance: Experimental evidence from Kenyan farmers. Techni- cal report, Conference paper presented at Agricultural Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, Washington DC on July 23-25, 2023. Krishnan, P. and Patnam, M. (2014). Neighbors and Extension Agents in Ethiopia: Who Matters More for Technology Adoption? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(1):308–327. Kwauk, C. and Braga, A. (2017). Three platforms for girls’ education in climate strategies. Washington, DC: Brookings. Lagakos, D., Mobarak, M., and Waugh, M. (2022). The Welfare Effects of Encouraging Rural-Urban Migration. Lawry, S., Samii, C., Hall, R., Leopold, A., Hornby, D., and Mtero, F. (2017). The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in devel- oping countries: a systematic review. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(1):61–81. Lecoutere, E., Spielman, D. J., and Van Campenhout, B. (2023). Empowering women through targeting information or role models: Evidence from an experiment in agricultural extension in Uganda. World Development, 167:106240. Leino, J. (2007). Gender and Community Management of Water Infrastructure: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya. Lovo, S. and Veronesi, M. (2019). Crop Diversification and Child Health: Empirical Evidence From Tanzania. Ecological Economics, 158:168–179. Macours, K. (2012). Volatility, Risk and Household Poverty: Micro-evidence from Random- ized Control Trials. Agricultural Economics, 44. Macours, K., Premand, P., and Vakis, R. (2022). Transfers, Diversification and Household Risk Strategies: Can Productive Safety Nets Help Households Manage Climatic Variabil- ity? The Economic Journal, 132(647):2438–2470. Maddison, D. (2007). The Perception Of And Adaptation To Climate Change In Africa. The World Bank. Maggio, G., Sitko, N. J., and Ignaciuk, A. (2019). Smallholder adaptive responses to seasonal weather forecasts. A case study of the 2015/16 El Ni˜ no Southern Oscillation in Zambia. ESA Working Papers 296656, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA). Marchiori, L., Maystadt, J., and Schumacher, I. (2012). The impact of weather anomalies on migration in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(3):355 – 374. 45 Mazzucato, V. (2009). Informal Insurance Arrangements in Ghanaian Migrants’ Transna- tional Networks: The Role of Reverse Remittances and Geographic Proximity. World Development, 37:1105–1115. McCarter, J., G.-M. (2011). Perceptions of the value of traditional ecological knowledge to formal school curricula: opportunities and challenges from Malekula Island. Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 7. McGuirk, E. F. and Nunn, N. (2024). Transhumant Pastoralism, Climate Change, and Conflict in Africa. The Review of Economic Studies, page rdae027. McKenzie, D. and Rapoport, H. (2010). Self-Selection Patterns in Mexico-U.S. Migration: The Role of Migration Networks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4):811–821. McKenzie, D. and Yang, D. (2015). Evidence on Policies to Increase the Development Impacts of International Migration. World Bank Research Observer, 30(2):155–192. McKune, S., Poulsen, L., Russo, S., Devereux, T., Faas, S., McOmber, C., and Ryley, T. (2018). Reaching the end goal: Do interventions to improve climate information services lead to greater food security? Climate Risk Management, 22:22–41. Scaling Up Climate Services for Smallholder Farmers: Learning from Practice. Meinzen, D., Ruth, S., Johnson, N., Quisumbing, A. R., Njuki, J., Behrman, Julia A. andRu- bin, D., and Peterman, A. (2013). Gender, assets, and agricultural development programs: A conceptual framework. Technical report, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J. A., Pandolfelli, L., Peterman, A., and Quisumbing, A. R. (2014). Gender and social capital for agricultural development. In Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap. Springer. Mersha, F. and Duguma, A. (2019). Climate Change and Its Impact on Agricultural Pro- duction in Ethiopia: An Empirical Review from Sub-Saharan Perispective. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 5:627–633. Mersha, T. and Sriram, V. (2019). Gender, entrepreneurial characteristics, and success: Evidence from Ethiopia. Thunderbird International Business Review, 61(2):157–167. Mertz, O., Mbow, C., Reenberg, A., and Diouf, A. (2009). Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Change and Agricultural Adaptation Strategies in Rural Sahel. Environmental Manage- ment, 43(5):804–816. Miguel, E. (2005). Poverty and Witch Killing. The Review of Economic Studies, 72(4):1153– 1172. Missirian, A. and Schlenker, W. (2017). Asylum applications respond to temperature fluc- tuations. Science, 358(6370). 46 Mitchell, T., Tanner, T., and Lussier, K. (2007). We Know What We Need: South Asian Women Speak Out on Climate Change Adaptation. Technical report, Institute of Devel- opment Studies (IDS), Sussex. Mobarak, A. M. and Rosenzweig, M. (2012). Selling Formal Insurance to the Informally Insured. Working Papers 1007, Economic Growth Center, Yale University. Molua, E. (2011). Farm income, gender differentials and climate risk in Cameroon: Typology of male and female adaptation options across agroecologies. Sustainability Science, 6:21– 35. Morsy, H. (2020). Access to finance – Mind the gender gap. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 78:12–21. Morten, M. (2019). Temporary Migration and Endogenous Risk Sharing in Village India. Journal of Political Economy, 127(1):1 – 46. Moshoeshoe, R., Nchake, M. A., and Tiberti, L. (2021). The Effect of Weather Shocks on Women’s Labor Supply and the Income of Women-Headed Households in Lesotho. Working Paper. Mude, A. and Barrett, C. (2012). Index-Based Livestock Insurance in northern Kenya: An analysis of the patterns and determinants of purchase. Technical report, Kenya: ILRI. Mude, A., Chantarat, S., Barrett, C., Carter, M., Ikegami, M., and Mcpeak, J. (2010). Insuring Against Drought-Related Livestock Mortality: Piloting Index Based Livestock Insurance in Northern Kenya. SSRN Electronic Journal. Mueller, V., Gray, C., and Kosec, K. (2014). Heat Stress Increases Long-term Human Migration in Rural Pakistan. Nature climate change, 4. Muller, B. (2012). Index based crop insurance in Senegal and West Africa: some concerns based on on-going experiments. Technical report, CIRAD, Agricultural Research for De- velopment. Murage, A., Pittchar, J., Midega, C., Onyango, C., and Khan, Z. (2015). Gender-specific perceptions and adoption of the climate-smart push–pull technology in eastern Africa. Crop Protection, 76:83–91. Murken, L. and Gornott, C. (2022). The importance of different land tenure systems for farmers’ response to climate change: A systematic review. Climate Risk Management, 35:100419. Mutangadura, G. (2007). The incidence of land tenure insecurity in Southern Africa: Policy implications for sustainable development. Natural Resources Forum, 31:176 – 187. Nabikolo, D., Bashaasha, B., Mangheni, M., and Mwanjalolo, M. (2012). Determinants of climate change adaptation among male and female headed farm households in eastern Uganda. African Crop Science Journal, 20:203–212. 47 Natali, L., Handa, S., Peterman, A., Seidenfeld, D., Tembo, G., and of Research Innocenti, U. O. (2016). Making Money Work: Unconditional cash transfers allow women to save and re-invest in rural Zambia. Papers inwopa827, Innocenti Working Papers. Nelson, J. A. (2015). Are women really more risk-averse than men? A re-analysis of the literature using expanded methods. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3):566–585. Nelson, V., Meadows, K., Cannon, T., Morton, J., and Martin, A. (2002). Uncertain predic- tions, invisible impacts, and the need to mainstream gender in climate change adaptations. Gender & Development, 10(2):51–59. Ngigi, M. and Muange, E. (2022). Access to climate information services and climate-smart agriculture in Kenya: a gender-based analysis. Climatic Change, 174. Nhemachena, C. and Hassan, R. (2007). Micro-Level Analysis of Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change in Southern Africa. Nicholson, S. E. (2018). The ITCZ and the Seasonal Cycle over Equatorial Africa. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(2):337 – 348. Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H. (2019). Combining feminist political ecology and participatory diagramming to study climate information service delivery and knowledge flows among smallholder farmers in northern Ghana. Applied Geography, 112. Otsuki, K. and Jasaw, G. S. (2017). Redistribution of property rights in response to climate change in Ghana, West Africa, In Property Rights and Climate Change: Land Use under Changing Environmental Conditions. Panthou, G., Lebel, T., Vischel, T., Quantin, G., Sane, Y., Ba, A., Ndiaye, O., Diongue Niang, A., and Diopkane, M. (2018). Rainfall intensification in tropical semi-arid regions : the Sahelian case. Environmental Research Letters, 13:p. art. 064013 [10 p.]. Partey, S., Dakorah, A., Zougmore, R., Ouedraogo, M., Nyasimi, M., Nikoi, G., and Huyer, S. (2020). Gender and climate risk management: evidence of climate information use in Ghana. Climatic Change, 158. Patel, K. and Vella, F. (2007). Immigrant Networks and Their Implications for Occupational Choice and Wages. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), IZA Discussion Papers, 95. orch, W., and Barahona, Perez, C., Jones, E., Kristjanson, P., Cramer, L., Thornton, P., F¨ C. (2015). How resilient are farming households and communities to a changing climate in Africa? A gender-based perspective. Global Environmental Change, 34:95–107. Peterman, A., Wang, J., Sonke, K. K., and Steinert, J. (2024). Social Safety Nets, Women’s Economic Achievements and Agency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Center for Global Development Working Papers, (684). Peterman, Amber; Kumar, N. P. A. and Gilligan, D. O. (2019). Towards gender equality: A review of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. Technical report, IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 48 Platteau, J.-P., De Bock, O., and Gelade, W. (2017). The Demand for Microinsurance: A Literature Review. World Development, 94(C):139–156. Pulido, J. and Swiecki, T. (2019). Barriers to Mobility or Sorting? Sources and Aggregate Implications of Income Gaps across Sectors and Locations in Indonesia. Technical report. Quisumbing, A. R., Meinzen-Dick, R., Terri L. Raney, A. C., Behrman, J. A., and Peterman, A. (2014). Gender in Agriculture Closing the Knowledge Gap. Springer, IFPRI. Quisumbing, A. R. and Pandolfelli, L. (2010). Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources, Constraints, and Interventions. World Development, 38(4):581–592. Reuveny, R. and Moore, W. H. (2009). Does environmental degradation influence migration? Emigration to developed countries in the late 1980s and 1990s. Social Science Quarterly, 90(3):461–479. Ribeiro, N. and Chauque, A. (2010). Gender and Climate change: Mozambique Case Study. Technical report, Heinrich Boll Siftung, Southern Africa. Roudier, P., Muller, B., d’Aquino, P., Roncoli, C., Soumar´ e, L., and Sultan, B. e, M., Batt´ (2014). The role of climate forecasts in smallholder agriculture: Lessons from participatory research in two communities in Senegal. Climate Risk Management, 2:42–55. Rozenberg, J. and Hallegatte, S. (2015). The Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty in 2030 and the Potential from Rapid, Inclusive, and Climate-Informed Development. The World Bank. Sarin, R. and Wieland, A. (2016). Risk aversion for decisions under uncertainty: Are there gender differences? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 60:1–8. Seo, S. N. (2010). A Microeconometric Analysis of Adapting Portfolios to Climate Change: Adoption of Agricultural Systems in Latin America. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 32(3):489–514. Sesmero, J., Ricker-Gilbert, J., and Cook, A. (2018). How Do African Farm Households Respond to Changes in Current and Past Weather Patterns? A Structural Panel Data Analysis from Malawi. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(1):115–144. Shapiro, D. (2012). Women’s education and fertility transition in sub-Saharan Africa. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 10(1):9–30. Shapiro, D. and Tenikue, M. (2017). Women’s education, infant and child mortality, and fertility decline in urban and rural sub-Saharan Africa. Demographic Research, 37(21):669– 708. Sheremenko, G. and Magnan, N. (2015). Gender-specific Risk Preferences and Fertilizer Use in Kenyan Farming Households. 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. 49 Silvestri, S., Bryan, E., Ringler, C., Herrero, M., and Okoba, B. (2012). Climate change perception and adaptation of agro-pastoral communities in Kenya. Regional Environmental Change, 12. Singh, G. and Belwal, R. (2008). Entrepreneurship and SMEs in Ethiopia: Evaluating the role, prospects and problems faced by women in this emergent sector. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23:120–136. Sorenson, S., Morssink, C., and Campos, P. (2011). Safe Access to Safe Water in Low Income Countries: Water Fetching in Current Times. Social science medicine (1982), 72:1522–6. Striessnig, E., Lutz, W., and Patt, A. G. (2013). Effects of Educational Attainment on Climate Risk Vulnerability. Ecology and Society, 18(1). Sundar, J. and Ramakrishnan, D. L. (2013). A Study on Farmers’ Awareness, Perception and Willing To Join and Pay for Crop Insurance. Tacoli, C. (2009). Crisis or adaptation? Migration and climate change in a context of high mobility. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2):513–525. Tadesse, M. A., Shiferaw, B. A., and Erenstein, O. (2015). Weather index insurance for managing drought risk in smallholder agriculture: lessons and policy implications for sub- Saharan Africa. Agricultural and Food Economics, 3:1–21. Tall, A., Coulibaly, J., and Diop, M. (2018). Do climate services make a difference? A review of evaluation methodologies and practices to assess the value of climate information services for farmers: Implications for Africa. Climate Services, 11. Tam, J. and McDaniels, T. L. (2013). Understanding individual risk perceptions and pref- erences for climate change adaptations in biological conservation. Environmental Science Policy, 27:114–123. Tambet, H. and Stopnitzky, Y. (2021). Climate Adaptation and Conservation Agriculture among Peruvian Farmers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(3):900–922. Tambo, J.A. Abdoulaye, T. (2013). Smallholder farmers’ perceptions of and adaptations to climate change in the Nigerian savanna. Reg Environ Chang, 13(375). Tavenner, K. and Crane, T. (2019). Beyond women and youth: Applying intersectionality in agricultural research for development. Outlook on Agriculture, 48:316–325. Thiede, B. and Gray, C. (2017). Erratum to: Heterogeneous climate effects on human migration in Indonesia. Population and Environment, 39:1–23. Thoenig, M., Eberle, U. J., and Rohner, D. (2020). Heat and Hate: Climate Security and Farmer-Herder Conflicts in Africa. CEPR Discussion Papers 15542, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. Timu, A. G. and Kramer, B. (2023). Gender-inclusive,-responsive, and-transformative agri- cultural insurance: A literature review. Global Food Security, 36:100672. 50 Tjaden, J. and Dunsch, F. A. (2021). The effect of peer-to-peer risk information on potential migrants–Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Senegal. World Development, 145:105488. UNHCR (2022). Sexual Violence Exploitation: The Experience of Refugee Children in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Technical report, UNHCR and Save the Children-UK. Van Aelst, K. and Holvoet, N. (2016). Intersections of Gender and Marital Status in Ac- cessing Climate Change Adaptation: Evidence from Rural Tanzania. World Development, 79(C):40–50. van den Bold, M., Dillon, A., Olney, D., Ouedraogo, M., Pedehombga, A., and Quisumbing, A. (2015). Can Integrated Agriculture-Nutrition Programmes Change Gender Norms on Land and Asset Ownership? Evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Studies, 51(9):1155–1174. Van den Broeck, G. and Kilic, T. (2019). Dynamics of off-farm employment in Sub-Saharan Africa: A gender perspective. World Development, 119:81–99. Veljanoska, S. (2018). Can Land Fragmentation Reduce the Exposure of Rural Households to Weather Variability? Ecological Economics, 154:42–51. Verma, R., Nellemann, C., and Hislop, L. (2011). Women at the Frontline of Climate Change: Gender Risks and Hopes. Walker, S. E., Bruyere, B. L., Zarestky, J., Yasin, A., Lenaiyasa, E., Lolemu, A., and Pickering, T. (2022). Education and adaptive capacity: the influence of formal education on climate change adaptation of pastoral women. Climate and Development, 14(5):409– 418. Weir, S. and Knight, J. (2004). Externality Effects of Education: Dynamics of the Adoption and Diffusion of an Innovation in Rural Ethiopia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53(1):93–113. Westermann, O., Ashby, J., and Pretty, J. (2005). Gender and Social Capital: the Importance of Gender Differences for the Maturity and Effectiveness of Natural Resource Management Groups. World Development, 33:1783–1799. William, F., Sanfo, S., Kedir, A., and Thiam, D. (2018). Estimating farmers’ willingness to pay for weather index-based crop insurance uptake in West Africa: Insight from a pilot initiative in Southwestern Burkina Faso. Agricultural and Food Economics, 6. World Bank (2010). Gender and governance in rural services : insights from India, Ghana, and Ethiopia. Technical report, Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank (2014). Levelling the field: Improving opportunities for women farmers in Africa. Technical report, World Bank Group/One Campaign. World Bank (2023). Climate-Smart Agriculture. Accessed: 26 June 2023. 51 Yegbemey, R. N., Bensch, G., and Vance, C. (2023). Weather information and agricul- tural outcomes: Evidence from a pilot field experiment in Benin. World Development, 167:106178. Zakari, S., Ying, L., and Song, B. (2014). Factors Influencing Household Food Security in West Africa: The Case of Southern Niger. Sustainability, 6(3):1–12. 52