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 14,000 records published between 2000 and 2024 were screened. Of these, 607 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
  • Multi-sector 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

  1. Interventions: Sustainable Diets are the most extensively studied domain (51% of studies), followed by Food Production Systems (41%), with evidence concentrated on climate-smart agricultural practices, inputs and infrastructure, and improved crop varieties. Less well represented domains include Social Protection and Livelihoods (10%), Food Environments (5%), Storage and Distribution (5%), Consumer Behavior (4%), Nutrition and Health Services (2%), Food Processing (1%), Energy (1%), Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) (less than 1%), and Other sectors (3%). Half of the studies (51%) had more than one intervention code. Around 20% of the studies also featured multi-sectoral interventions, spanning multiple intervention domains.
  2. Nutrition outcomes: The majority (38%) of studies assess impact on food insecurity, while 21% do not include any of the nutrition outcomes of interest but were eligible as nutrition specific interventions with climate mitigation outcomes (e.g., sustainable diets). Other reported outcomes include Diet Quality (17%), Nutrient Intakes (16%), Non-Communicable Disease (12%), Food Intake (11%), Anthropometry (7%), Infant and Young Child Feeding or Birth Outcomes (1%), and Birth Outcomes and Nutrient Biomarkers (<1%).
  3. Climate focus: More studies focus on climate mitigation (57%), compared to adaptation (26%) or a dual mitigation and adaptation focus (17%, not included in previous frequencies). 
  4. Study design: A wide range of study designs are represented, although most rely on modeling (47%), followed by experimental and quasi-experimental methods (21%). Other study designs includes cross-sectional (16%), cohort (5%) and qualitative studies (4%). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comprise 8%.
  5. Setting: Most studies come from high-income countries (40%), with 17% from lower-middle income countries, and 13% from low-income countries, and 11% from upper-middle income countries. Regionally, Europe and Central Asia had the highest concentration of studies (28%), followed by Sub-Saharan Africa (29%), Global/multi-country studies (17%), East-Asia and the Pacific (11%), North America (7%), South Asia (6%), Latin America and the Caribbean (4%), and Middle East and North Africa (2%).
  6. Gender equity: A small minority (2%) of studies analyze the gender equity implications of their findings, 7% include meaningful, and 5% minimal discussions on potential implications for gender equity and women’s empowerment. Overall, 37% of studies disaggregate results by sex and 49% 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].

Our website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience.
Please visit our Privacy Policy page for more information.

Accept