The conceptual basis of this study is positioned within Feminist Political Ecology (FPE), an approach which suggests that access to, and control of, environmental resources is shaped through gendered power relations in social institutions (Rocheleau et al., 1996; Agarwal, 2018). The FPE framework goes beyond biophysical understandings of risk to examine how social norms, laws, and customs create differential vulnerability and adaptive capacities. In this way, the IPCC (2022) frames vulnerability as a function of exposure to climate hazards, sensitivity to climate hazards, and adaptive capacity. From an FPE perspective, gender is a primary determinant of this sensitivity and adaptive capacity.

Importantly, an FPE lens requires an intersectional lens (Crenshaw, 1991). The experience of climate vulnerability is shaped not by gender alone, but by the intersection of gender with other social positions such as marital status, education, disability, age, class and ethnicity (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014; Djoudi et al., 2016). The purpose is to set aside overly broad homogenization of ‘pastoral women,’ to decipher via layered identities how distinctions of marginalization and resilience are formed.

Empirical studies within Ethiopian pastoral settings consistently show that customary institutional governance systems systematically exclude women and marginalized groups thus supporting a normative baseline of extreme vulnerability. The first means of exclusion relates to asset transfer governance systems. In all studies reviewed, patrilineal inheritance/law policies, referenced in Hamer (Dejene et al., 2024), Borana (Terefe et al., 2022), and Afar (Balehey et al., 2018; Kassie et al., 2021), prohibit women and marginalized groups from developing ownership of the primary asset for their livelihoods—livestock and land.

The second major means of habit is control over resource governance. Community decision-making institutions like the Hamer bitta councils maintain boundaries of male-only membership (Eneyew and Mengistu, 2013). Thus, women’s voices are absent in the decision-making processes that affect access to key ecological resources, particularly access to grazing land and water, and migration routes. Women’s exclusion from governance bodies is significant, as women may recognize ecological connections more directly than men, and have important implications for their reproductive workloads (Alebachew, 2019).

Third, the deeply entrenched gendered division of labor establishes daily exposure and sensitivity. For example, in the event of a climate shock like drought, men migrate strategically with the livestock and women are left to manage with fewer resources in the household. Water-related responsibilities, in particular, will intensify as women’s traveling distance for water can stretch to the surface area of 10–15 km (Balehey et al., 2018; Tofu et al., 2023). This phenomenon can be called a “crisis of social reproduction,” meaning women will have less time and energy to spend on pursuing strategic adaptation.

The institutional limitations of gender are exacerbated by other social variables. Research has shown that widows experience “triple marginalization” due to asset dispossession, social stigma, and exclusion from safety nets (Tamrat and Alemayehu, 2024). Women in polygamous households contend with resource stretching and competition within households (Gorebo, 2020; Doss et al., 2014). Additionally, women with disabilities or who are older often cannot handle physically demanding coping methods. As a result, they may be excluded from formal programs. This intersectionality points to a situation where the furthest marginalized individuals are directed into the more extreme and maladaptive coping mechanisms such as extreme food rationing, charcoal selling or begging.

An important contribution in the literature is of critiquing binary discourses that frame women as either passive victims or innately environmental heroines (Arora-Jonsson, 2011; Djoudi et al., 2016). Pastoral women clearly have agency within structural limitations. Indigenous practices such as shared distribution of food on a basis of food-reciprocity (marro in Borana) or child fostering (as in the Hamer and Karo pastoral groups) are critical for subsistence in the short term (Gebre, 2019). Women often manage downtime labor associated with herd diversification or opportunistic cultivation of crops resilient to drought conditions, or petty trade that incorporates a few niche goods.

However, agency to deploy any given adaptive approach is always constituted through intersecting variables. For instance, a woman living within a male steward household, possessing networking connections could successfully integrate climate-Smart agriculture (CSA), while a widowed or disabled woman may only be able to access distress-based coping strategies (Carr, 2019). In many instances, distress-based coping may manifest maladaptive behaviors; or acts organized to produce proximate survival, but that ultimately detracts from future resilience such as by selling breeding stock, or withdrawing children from school (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010). The literature depicts a gendered dimension of asset depleting strategy; with women in female-headed and marginalized households being differentially streamed into these erosive behaviors due to institutional barriers.

Despite the significant contributions from the existing literature to establishing the gendered aspects of climate vulnerability, important gaps exist. The majority of studies are either qualitative or descriptively quantitative without applying statistical modeling to identify the intersectional impacts of gender, type of marital arrangements, socio-economic status, and education on climate vulnerability, and the studies often generalize across pastoral contexts without delving deeper into studies that analyze the specific institutional contexts of pastoral systems, including the Hamer system that has received little attention.

This research addresses these gaps by:

Using a Simplified Vulnerability Model (SVM) to quantitatively analyze the architecture of vulnerability across gendered and intersectional lines. Similar applications of the SVM in Borana and Afar pastoral systems (Dejene et al., 2024; Kassie et al., 2021) demonstrate its utility, though limitations remain. Composite indices may mask intra-household dynamics and should be interpreted with caution.

In this study, we go beyond the simple listing of the symptoms of intersecting gender-based vulnerability and depict the institutional landscape of gendered vulnerability. We argue that the disparities in resilience of households is directly a function of institutional arrangements governing three domains: (1) intergenerational and marital asset transfer (i.e. inheritance, divorce, etc.): as which, to a large extent, determines, future economic security; (2) intra-household decision making which dictates the adoption of strategic adaptation responses (Doss, 2013); and (3) gendered division of labor which determines the time and energy available for the use of effective adaptation measures (Tofu et al., 2023).

In addition, we contend that gender alone tells an incomplete story. Vulnerability is compounded by intersectional concerns like marital structure (e.g., polygamy), disability status, age, or caregiving or productive obligations (Crenshaw, 1991; Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014). That is, a widow, a polygamous wife, a woman with a disability, or a woman in a marginalized group is at the intersection of multiple marginalization—in each case this intersection shapes her experience of vulnerability and adaptation (Tamrat and Alemayehu, 2024).

Based on a comprehensive survey of 384 sample households (50% female and 50% male headed), focus group discussions, interviews, and personal stories, this study looks at how social institutions might create a “funnel of vulnerability” for pastoralist women and other marginalized groups. Female-headed households were intentionally oversampled to ensure adequate analytical power for gender-based comparisons. While this may affect representativeness relative to their population share, it was necessary to support robust gender-disaggregated analysis.

Household headship was defined by primary decision-making authority over assets and livelihood strategies. In households with both male and female decision-makers, the person recognized by the community and survey respondents as the main authority was classified as head. Using a mixed-methods approach, we quantify these disparities through a multidimensional vulnerability model and critique the sustainability of adaptation strategies through a qualitative analysis of lived experiences. By asking not only “who is most vulnerable?, but also “how and why is vulnerability produced and sustained?”, this paper aims to bridge the gap between localized adaptation needs and practices and the palliative interventions they often receive (Tschakert et al., 2019), thereby contributing to more balanced, inclusive and effective climate resilience strategies in Ethiopia’s drylands.

This study aims to achieve the following specific objectives:

Assess gendered and intersectional vulnerabilities using a Simplified Vulnerability Model (SVM).

The research was carried out in Ethiopia’s Hamer District, located in the South Omo Zone of southwest Ethiopia. Hamer District is principally a semi-arid, agro-pastoral milieu with households relying on livestock herding, opportunistic farming and seasonal mobility. The Hamer ethnic group is the main group within the Hamer District but other smaller groups, such as the Karo, Arbore, and Tsamai ethnic groups, all inhabit the area. Pastoralism is the main economic activity for households and the local economy, but most households also engage in opportunistic crop cultivation, including sorghum, maize, and beans for subsistence. Households also engage in beekeeping and resource-based activities, such as gathering and hunting, and engage in seasonal raiding. Due to its agroecology, rising temperature, and irregular patterns of rainfall, the district suffers from repeated droughts and degradation of rangeland resources which resulted in increasing food, feed, and water insecurity and gradual erosion of livestock assets.

Patriarchal norms, age-based hierarchies, and polygamous family structures influence social structures within Hamer. Men generally control critical assets such as land, livestock, as well as resource and conflict governance institutions, and women take the leading role in food security and climate change adaptation activities, including care of livestock, the management of rangeland resources, and household chores. These gendered roles are increasingly pressured by climate stressors, such as increasing temperatures and shrinking water, and the brunt of these pressures is also being felt by women, many of whom remain marginalized from decision-making processes, increasing their exposure to climate shocks. To capture the region’s ecological and social diversity, the study focused on four representative villages (kebeles) from the region’s varied lowland and highland zones. Using a stratified random sampling procedure, the study surveyed 384 households, ensuring an equal balance of 192 female-headed and 192 male-headed households to allow for a balanced comparison. Household lists provided by kebele administrations served as the sampling frame. Stratification was done by gender and site. This was followed by the selection of households using a lottery method to ensure randomization. Further, the study deliberately included households with a range of intersecting experiences, such as polygamous families, those headed by older people, and households including persons with disabilities. This provided a deeper understanding of how gender-specific adaptation strategies in dryland areas are profoundly influenced by the complex interplay of multiple disadvantages.

In addition to the quantitative data collected using household survey, qualitative data were gathered through multiple approaches: four focus group discussions (separated by gender to encourage open dialogue), seven in-depth ethnographic case stories of individuals representing diverse social positions (including widows, women with disabilities, and polygamous wives), and six key informant interviews with community leaders, bitta (customary) council members, and government extension agents. Ethnographic cases were purposively selected to represent diverse intersectional profiles, including widows, women with disabilities, polygamous wives, and households headed by older people. This multi-faceted qualitative approach provided nuanced insights into lived experiences, institutional barriers, and adaptation decision-making.

The analysis employed two primary models to address the research objectives, supplemented by thematic analysis of qualitative data. Each sub-index was normalized on a 0–1 scale and weighted according to its relative importance: resource access (0.25), decision-making (0.20), socio-economic status (0.15), cultural constraints (0.20), environmental stress (0.10), and intersectionality (0.10) (OECD, 2008; Freudenberg, 2003).

Our data shows profound disparities between female-headed households (FHHs) and Male-headed households (MHHs). FHHs consistently operate from a structurally disadvantaged position (Table 1). Household size is significantly smaller ( 4.2   v s . 7.1   m e m b e r s , p   <   0.001 ) with a composition more heavily weighted toward unproductive dependents such as young children and older family relatives, further limiting the labor available for herding and farming, reflecting widowhood, divorce, or abandonment, which limits labor availability for herding, farming, and representation in community platforms. Illiteracy rates are comparatively higher among FHHs (75% vs. 58%, p < 0.01), restricting access to information including early warning and market information and health extension services.

In Table 2, the gap related to access to and control over critical assets is stark: FHHs own less land ( 0.8   v s . 1.9   h a , p   <   0.001 ) and fewer livestock ( 8.4   v s .   14.7   T L U , p   <   0.001 ). Credit access is marginally lower ( 2 %   v s .   22 % , p = 0.08 ). The magnitude of this difference is considerable and reflects structural and power limitations. Thus, the evidence points to a pronounced gender gap in access to financial services, reinforcing inequalities in resource control. Despite similar proportional cattle losses since 2010, FHHs were more likely to engage in distress sale of productive livestock for food ( 82 %   v s .   71 % , p   <   0.01 ). The household survey responses (>90%) consistently cite patrilineal inheritance and discriminatory social norms as the root causes, reinforcing cycles of dispossession, marginalization, and distress sales. The higher incidence of distress sales among FHHs appears linked to liquidity constraints, limited alternative coping mechanisms, and weaker social networks, as highlighted in FGDs.

The distribution of tasks greatly differs according to gender. Women typically handle domestic duties and tasks related to livestock and rangeland management, including cooking (98%), collecting water (96%), providing childcare/elder care (94%), processing dairy (91%), and foraging for wild food (89%). Men largely take on responsibilities for herding (92%), ploughing (87%), and seasonal movements of livestock (91%). Although women are engaged in both household tasks and agropastoral production, their workload escalates during times of drought or food scarcity. Nevertheless, the nature of women’s work does not confer upon them social status or influence in decisions regarding the resources linked to their labor.

Decision-making reflects a similar pattern to labor roles: men dominate decisions regarding livestock (95%), asset sales (93%), livestock movement (91%), and financial matters (89%). Fewer than 5% of households have women making decisions independently. Inheritance customs grant women very limited authority, as in over 95% of inheritance cases, sons receive cattle, land, and/or financial assets, while daughters may inherit only minimal, non-paternal items (e.g., poultry, 7%). Only 12% of divorced women reported receiving marital assets, a strikingly low figure that reflects the dominance of customary inheritance practices and the weak enforcement of statutory rights. This limited access is consistent with the broader “responsibility–power disconnect” observed in South Omo, where women shoulder the bulk of reproductive labor yet remain systematically excluded from decision-making and control over productive assets. The denial of property rights in divorce thus compounds women’s vulnerability, reinforcing entrenched patriarchal norms that marginalize female-headed households and constrain their adaptive capacity in the face of climate stress.

Community evaluations show that female-headed households (FHHs) are regarded as the most at-risk social groups (94%), not due to their fragility, but as a result of systemic marginalization (Table 3). The concept of intersectionality exacerbates the vulnerability for widows, junior wives in polygamous families, and women with disabilities; these populations encounter various levels of exclusion. Adult males are rarely perceived as vulnerable (3%) because of their structural advantages.

The Simplified Vulnerability Model (SVM) shows that females-headed households (FHHs) have a total vulnerability score of 0.67 compared to males-headed households (0.42), an overall vulnerability difference of Δ V = 0.25 . FHHs have less access to resources (0.38 versus 0.61) and less decision-making power (0.42 versus 0.68) (Table 4). The largest contributions to vulnerability differences by score are from cultural constraints (+0.32) and intersectionality (+0.25) differences. Both groups have the same environmental stresses and score (0.75), indicating that vulnerability is more conditioned by socio-cultural factors rather than climate conditions. V g = 0.25 1 − R g + 0.20 1 − D g + 0.15 1 − S g + 0.20 C g + 0.10 E + 0.10 I V _ g = 0.25 1 − R _ g + 0.20 1 − D _ g + 0.15 1 − S _ g + 0.20 C _ g + 0.10 E + 0.10 I

This 0.25-point gap is significant--it indicates the point female headed households become mired in trajectories of distress. The power of the model is in ascribing qualitative norms (like inheritance and labor) to a quantitative measure: the pre-existing institutional structure sets the stage for differential vulnerability and adaptation outcomes. The result implies the need to address differential vulnerability by addressing institutionalized and intersectionality barriers rather than promoting reactive food aid, which in the short-term may help fix the symptoms, but sustains the structures of exclusion.

Adaptation strategies exhibit distinct gender differences (Table 5). Male-headed households (MHHs) lead in resilience-enhancing actions such as adjusting herd movement (68%) and altering herd composition (44%), while female-headed households (FHHs) are mainly sidelined (with mobility at only 12%). Women are pushed into negative coping mechanisms: reducing meal sizes (71%), foraging for wild foods (78%), and splitting up children (41%). Divergence in maladaptive behaviors is evident: MHHs contribute to overgrazing (41%) and sell breeding stock (54%), whereas FHHs turn to selling charcoal (29%) and begging (19%).

The array of responses to climate-related stress is distinctly divided along gender lines. MHHs mainly engage in pastoral-focused adaptation practices based on asset ownership, access to finance and mobility. These strategies consist of seasonal livestock mobility (68%) and changing the composition of herd (44%). FHHs are largely absent from adopting these strategies due to the structural barriers outlined earlier.

Maladaptive practices are also found to be gendered. MHHs, taking more agency and using their relative wealth, are more likely to practice selling breeding stock (54%) and overgrazing (41%). FHHs are more likely to engage in harmful and socially stigmatized (such as selling charcoal (29%) or begging (19%) as a last resort with few alternatives). This creates a hierarchical view of gendered resilience: men have the ability to adapt, women must cope, and both groups may maladapt; however, women bear the greatest long-term costs related to human dignity and ecological sustainability.

Access to early warning systems (EWS), which are crucial aspects of proactive adaptation, is highly limited, and it is also gendered. Out of the total sample, 41% stated that they have access to some form of early warning information, while FHHs were significantly more likely to say they were excluded (25% of FHHs reported access compared to 50% of MHHs). Among the households with access to EWS, there are high levels of reliance on informal, male-dominated social networks to receive EWS. Participants listed receiving information through word-of-mouth (81%), traditional forecasters (72%), and kebele committees (7%). Only 14% of respondents reported confidence that EWS would work for them. All respondents reported a definitive gender gap, stating, “Men had better access.”

Barriers for women are multifaceted, mutually reinforcing, and reported as the following: restrictive cultural norms (94%), an overwhelming domestic burden (91%), limited physical mobility (89%), and the digital divide as shown through mobile phone ownership (87%) and access to radios (84%). This information asymmetry is a direct byproduct of gendered labor and gendered decision-making norms. This lack of foresight ultimately forces FHHs into reactive rather than anticipatory responses, which helps to explain repeated reliance on distress sales and consumption-based coping strategies.

Multilevel regression analysis was used to investigate how effective different strategies are (Table 6). Herd mobility exerted the strongest positive effect as an adaptive strategy on the individuals’ measures of food insecurity ( β = + 0.18 , p < 0.001 ), although it was also used mostly by men. The strategy of meal reduction carried a strong negative effect ( β = − 0.22 , p < 0.001 ), making it a clear indicator of distress. The general policy support factors demonstrated an overall positive effect ( β = + 0.16 , p < 0.001 ), but this was qualified by a negative interaction term (Gender × Policy Support: β = − 0.08 , p = 0.011 ) suggesting that women benefited less from support policies, likely due to the upstream barriers to access to the EWS and mobility.

A linear regression on the HFIAS score was conducted in order to measure the coping trap (Table 7). The model confirms that FHH status is a consistent, significant predictor of greater food insecurity, increasing the HFIAS score by 2.91 points ( p   < 0.01 ) after controlling for other factors. The gendered strategies have direct implications: the coping strategy of herd mobility has a negative impact of −2.45 points (p < 0.05) while the gendered practice of meal reduction increases food insecurity by an additional 4.12 points ( p   < 0.001 ), which was the greatest predictor in the model.

An important finding is the discrepancy between the needs identified by the community and the services that were offered. Respondents were able to clearly separate interventions that would support transformational responses for changing root causes versus palliative responses that would only address symptoms. For example, as summarized in Table 8, interventions that helped women to access and control resources (89%), educate them (87%), and improving access to finances (85%) were rated as most effective. However, only a small percentage were able to access these transformational supports (5%–15%). Palliative food aid and cash transfers, which were rated as less effective (65%), were received by 45% of households. FGDs revealed that while women are excluded from ownership of larger capital assets such as cattle and land, they often have greater access to small livestock (poultry, goats, sheep), which provide limited but important coping capacity. The findings suggest several targeted interventions: reforming inheritance and credit systems to expand women’s access to land and livestock; inclusive extension services and livelihood diversification programs for women in polygamous unions and women with disabilities; and enhancing women’s participation in customary governance institutions to reduce exclusion from decision-making. These interventions directly respond to the differentiated vulnerabilities identified across strata.

This does represent a policy-implementation disconnect that continues to contribute to the cycle of vulnerability. Palliative support prevents starvation in the immediate future but does not seek to dismantle the structural barriers to food security that are largely institutional: patrilineal inheritance, lack of access to early warning and market information and exclusion from household decision making and community platforms.

This research unveils the institutional processes underlying the gendered and intersectional inequalities in climate vulnerability and adaptation experienced in Hamer Woreda. When one considers gender (the discrepancy in resilience architecture) as opposed to the traditional view of vulnerability (the vulnerability gap), the data emerges not as a gap but rather as a complex adventure in resilience that is simply women-based and men-based. The agency space of female head of households (FHHs) is limited by dispossession (patrilineal), labor (confined), and exclusion (decision-making) which pushes them toward the adoption of more erosive coping strategies compared to male headed households. The SVM (Simplified Vulnerability Model) calculated this disconnect at Δ V = 0.25 , and the multivariate regression indicates that being a FHH is a predictor of +2.91 HFIAS points ( p   <   0.01 ) independent of all other predictor variables. The FHH indicators of vulnerability in this research corroborate pastoral systems in Afar and Somali, where customary practices cause similar exclusion and premiums in vulnerability (Rettberg, 2010; Flintan, 2011). Gendered vulnerability in the Hamer is not something new or accidental—it is a condition continually reproduced by structural forces. Patrilineal inheritance of assets, by which sons inherit greater than 95 percent of productive assets, a dispossession of wealth replicated in Afar under the Adda law (Rettberg, 2010). This wealth deficit triggers a downward spiral—smaller herds, fewer options, and greater reliance on erosive coping strategies such as distress sales ( 82 %   F H H s , 71 %   M H H s , p   <   0.01 ). The bifurcation of labor further intensifies the situation—women are stuck with household tasks (98 percent food preparation, 96 percent water fetching)—which limited time during droughts to pursue income-generating opportunities. This leads to men exerting decision-making monopoly over household assets (95% herd management, 91% mobility)—the trifecta denies FHH any strategic agency on decisions affecting their household. The responsibility and power disconnect, whereby women manage crises without inclusion in developing solutions, aligns with feminist political ecology work that frames adaptation as a contested source of power (Nightingale, 2011). In Hamer, that is realized as a coping trap: meal reduction ( 71 %   o f   F H H s , β = 4.12   o n   t h e   H F I A S , p <   0.001 ) can support short-term survival but will, invariably, deplete a community of their human capital and risk intergenerational stunting. The impacts of this wealth deficit cascade across generations, reducing resilience today and constraining opportunities for tomorrow.

In Hamer, vulnerability is a spectrum shaped by overlapping identities rather than a simple binary. People with disabilities (78%), women in polygamous marriages (81%), and families led by women (94%) often rank as the most at risk in community assessments ( V = 0.63 ). These findings support the high intersectionality score ( I = + 0.25 ) and cultural constraint index ( C g = + 0.32 ) for female-headed households in the Simplified Vulnerability Model. The processes are clear: widowhood often leads to losing assets; incapacity limits work and movement; and polygamy divides household resources and marginalizes junior wives. Together, these overlapping issues limit options for adoption of adaptive practices thus heightening structural vulnerability. These results surpass Tigray’s reduced risks through statutory inheritance (Tache and Sjaastad, 2010), but they are similar to the experiences of FHHs and polygamous women in Afar (Rettberg, 2010).

Despite their exclusion from asset ownership and decision making due to patrilineal norms (>90% of responses), FHHs continue to strategize in order to survive amid worsening socioeconomic and environmental pressures. They exercise agency within constrained spaces—46% engage in handicrafts, 61% in frankincense and resin production, and 38% in petty trade—demonstrating innovation even under structural limitations. These innovative but relatively low-return activities contrast MHHs’ opportunistic farming, herd diversification and mobility strategies, underscoring how the same strategy’s efficacy is position-dependent. Selling breeding stock may be a strategic decision fir household with larger herds but catastrophic for FHHs with limited herd size, reframing “maladaptation” as contingent on asset portfolios (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010).

Early warning access—41% overall, 32% FHHs ( V = 0.17 )—is structurally gendered, flowing through male channels (81% word-of-mouth, 61% kebele committees). Barriers (94% cultural norms, 91% chores) mirror Afar and Somali exclusions (Rettberg, 2010), forcing reactive distress. This foresight deficit explains FHHs’ higher meal reduction and livestock sales, converting manageable risks into crises. Policy interaction improves outcomes ( β = 0.16 ) but benefits women less ( β = − 0.08 , p = 0.011 ), due to upstream exclusion.

Surveyed households sated their desire for external interventions to address the underlying causes of vulnerability (89%), access to information and skills training, and finance (85%)—yet receive palliative aid (45%). Institutional inertia sustains the triadic order, enabling customary law to supersede federal equity (Flintan, 2011). Formal finance requires collateral FHHs lack; extension targets MHHs. The divide is pan-dryland: transformative reach lags perceived efficacy by 70%–80% (Tache and Sjaastad, 2010).

Theoretically, findings extend feminist political ecology by quantifying structured agency—FHHs as rational actors in truncated fields (Sen, 1999; Nightingale, 2011). Strategy effectiveness depends on social context rather than being inherently fixed. For MHHs, strategies such as seasonal mobility, exclusive control of grazing and land resources and decision-making authority in pastoral institutions can strengthen adaptive capacity, while for FHHs it may undermine it. This complexity challenges simplistic victim–hero narratives, instead positioning adaptation as a political process shaped by negotiations over power and justice (Djoudi et al., 2016).

Women and marginalized communities face climate vulnerability as a product of institutional design and not by chance. Most pastoral societies practice patrilineal inheritance that prevents women from owning or managing productive assets, and develops a long-standing inheritance gap in relation to property, security, and decision making. If people are stripped of their voices concerning matters related to their lives, their agency will be limited and their resilience capacity will be eroded. Further, information asymmetries, a direct result of these restrictive norms, imposes a foresight deficit, forcing reactive crises.

The interplay of gender, intersectionality, and policy support demonstrates that the success of even well-intentioned adaptation and food security interventions can be constrained by entrenched structural barriers. Therefore, climate adaptation will inevitably fail to achieve equity and sustainability without the enforcement of equitable property rights, direct asset transfers to women, the creation of inclusive and women-controlled information and decision-making forums, and a fundamental reorientation of aid from palliative consumption subsidies to investments in women’s resilience capital.

Cross-sectional design limits causality; recall bias in 2010 holdings possible, though trends are consistent. Future longitudinal studies should track strategy trajectories under IPCC scenarios; multi-region SVMs forecast policy impacts.