As heat, floods and drought intensify, governments, donors and cities rely on climate risk assessments to decide who gets support and where money goes. A climate risk assessment uses information on climate hazards, exposure, vulnerability and responses to identify where, who or what is most at risk to climate impacts.
When climate shocks such as heat waves, droughts or floods strike, women are often described as vulnerable. But women are not a uniform group and they don’t all experience climate impacts in the same way.
Read more: Extreme weather affects mental health: what vulnerable women in Kenya told us
Their vulnerability to climate shocks is shaped by far more than gender alone. Factors like race, ethnicity, age, disability and class play a role in making some women more vulnerable than others. Power relations, such as ableism, racism, sexism and ageism, can also privilege some women while marginalising others.
This is known as intersectionality. Critical race theory scholar, professor of law and activist Kimberlé Crenshaw came up with the term “intersectionality” in 1989. It describes how overlapping identities can create forms of harm that remain invisible when problems are framed through only one lens. For example, separate frames for “Black people” and “women” can miss the distinct experiences of “Black women”.
If climate risk assessments don’t look at how identities and power overlap, they can miss why some women are far more at risk than others. For example, women who are impoverished and live in flood prone areas are more at risk and will find it more difficult to recover from climate disasters.
Read more: Women are seen as ‘saviours’ or ‘victims’ in climate change debates: why this is a problem
Women are more vulnerable to climate change if their opportunities are limited and if they’ve suffered as a result of economic structures that concentrate wealth and resources in the hands of a few.
Together with our co-author Songo Benya, we wanted to better understand women’s climate vulnerability in South Africa. Rather than treating women as a group of people who are all the same, we wanted to find out which women are most vulnerable to the impact of climate change and why.
We reviewed all the South African scientific literature published between 2004 and 2024 on how income, education, household roles and resources combine to shape women’s ability to respond to climate change.
Our research found that treating women as a single group can hide differences in vulnerability, exposure and responses to climate impacts. Women who lacked secure land tenure, access to credit, decision-making power or climate information often faced greater barriers to adopting adaptation strategies.
Understanding which women are worst affected by climate hazards
The country’s inequality is still rooted in apartheid, for example by shaping who gets good quality health services and who doesn’t. When climate shocks hit, these gaps decide who is most exposed and who has the means to cope or recover.
1. Economic factors
These are the biggest drivers that intersect with gender to shape climate vulnerability. We found that Black women were more often engaged in lower-income or climate-sensitive livelihoods, such as smallholder farming or informal trade. They faced barriers to accessing finance, credit and productive assets. These constraints limited women’s ability to invest in adaptation strategies or recover from climate shocks.
2. Limited land ownership
In many rural areas, customary land tenure systems favour male inheritance. They hamper women’s ability to make decisions about land use, adopt climate-resilient farming practices or access agricultural support. Access to knowledge, education and climate information also affected vulnerability.
3. The burden of housework
Household responsibilities were a major factor, intersecting with economic status and gender. Women are often primarily responsible for childcare, water collection, food provision, and caring for elderly relatives. Household labour limited the time and resources available to adopt new livelihoods or adaptation strategies. Caring for children increased risks, but also motivated women to persist and find ways through hardship.
4. Power dynamics and wider social exclusion
Women had less say in decision-making in homes led by men compared to those led by women. However, homes led by women often had lower levels of education, which limited their influence beyond the home. In some cases, women were more climate vulnerable if they lacked social ties to community leaders. This made i
Read More
