Evidence and Gap Map on Climate Change and Nutrition
Photo © 2013 CIAT/Neil Palmer
Multi-sectoral Interventions at the Nexus of Climate Change and Nutrition: An Evidence and Gap Map
Welcome to our interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) of interventions to address the intertwined issues of climate change and malnutrition and where evidence is lacking to guide policy.
Rationale
Climate change and malnutrition share common drivers and consequences, especially for vulnerable populations. While investments in climate mitigation and adaptation measures are urgently needed, it is equally crucial to seize the opportunity to leverage climate investments and address food insecurity and malnutrition in tandem. In this EGM, you can explore interventions across different sectors that support climate mitigation or adaptation while also improving human nutrition and food security.
Methodological overview
This EGM presents the results of a systematic review of the evidence on multi-sectoral interventions that have demonstrated benefits for climate change (through climate mitigation or adaptation) and nutrition (including food security, diets, all forms of malnutrition, and diet-related non-communicable diseases). We screened gray and peer-reviewed literature from across sectors, including agriculture, food systems, and social protection, education, energy, and water and sanitation. Over 14,800 records published between 2000 and 2024 were screened. Of these, 689 met the inclusion criteria and are included in the EGM.
Evidence and Gap Map
Using the EGM
You can explore the evidence at multiple levels:
- Start with a broad overview with the collapsed view.
- Expand information provided under “interventions” or “nutrition outcomes” using the arrow icons.
- Hover over cells to view a summary of studies.
- Click on cells to access a full list of studies, which can be downloaded in RIS format.
You can also use the Filters tab (upper left) to refine your view based on:
- Climate focus
- Study design
- Gender equity implications
- Climate mitigation assessment
- Multicomponent interventions
- Setting: Economy, Region, and Country
In the View Records tab (upper middle bar), you can further select the intervention sectors/sub-sectors and nutrition outcomes for the records that you wish to download.
Findings overview
- Interventions: Sustainable Diets are the most extensively studied domain (43% of studies), followed by Food Production Systems (37%), evidence concentrated on climate-smart agricultural practices, inputs and infrastructure, and improved crop varieties. Around 37% of the studies also featured multicomponent interventions, spanning multiple domains or sub-domains. Underrepresented domains include Storage and Distribution (8%), Novel foods/Alternative proteins (6%), Social Protection (5%), Food Environments (5%), Consumer Behavior (4%), Livelihoods (3%), Nutrition and Health Services (1%), Food Processing (1%), and Energy (1%). No interventions addressing Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) were included.
- Nutrition outcomes: The majority (36%) of studies assess impact on food insecurity, while 27% do not include any of the nutrition outcomes of interest. Other reported outcomes include Diet Quality (16%), Nutrient Intake and Biomarkers (16%), Non-Communicable Disease (10%), Food Intake (10%), Anthropometry (6%), and Infant and Young Child Feeding or Birth Outcomes (1%).
- Climate focus: More studies focus on climate mitigation (57%), compared to mitigation (26%) or a dual mitigation and adaptation focus (17%).
- Study design: A wide range of study designs we used, although most rely on modeling (48%) and observational approaches (25%). Experimental/quasi-experimental methods account for 19% of studies. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comprise 8%.
- Setting: Most studies come from high-income countries (39%), with 16% from lower-middle income countries, and 12% each from low and upper-middle income countries. Regionally, Europe and Central Asia had the highest concentration of studies (28%), followed by Sub-Saharan Africa (22%), Global/multi-country studies (19%), East-Asia and the Pacific (11%), North America (7%), South Asia (6%), Latin America and the Caribbean (4%), and Middle East and North Africa (3%).
- Gender equity: A small minority of studies analyze the gender equity implications of their findings (2%), 7% include meaningful, and 5% minimal discussions on potential implications for gender equity and women’s empowerment. Overall, 34% of studies disaggregate results by sex and 52% include no gender-related discussion.
We hope that this map is a useful tool to navigate this diverse and rapidly growing body of evidence on double duty interventions for climate and nutrition.
Your feedback is welcome. Please direct questions or suggestions to Lais Miachon Silva, ST4N Program Manager, at: [email protected].
