PROTOCOL: Evidence and Gap Map of Climate Change Adaptation Interventions for Enhancing Food Security and Livelihood in Sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

This protocol outlines the development of an evidence and gap map focused on climate change adaptation interventions aimed at improving food security and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. The map will assist users in assessing the size and quality of the existing evidence base, inform strategic program development, and identify gaps for future research. It will include studies published from the year 2000, encompassing systematic reviews, experimental and non-experimental designs, and modelling studies.

Keywords

climate change adaption,food security,livelihoods,agriculture,sub-Saharan Africa

Background

Introduction

The Problem, Condition, or Issue

Agriculture is the main source of livelihood in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), employing over 52% of the workforce and making a substantial economic contribution (ILOSTAT, 2022). However, food security, livelihoods, and overall economic development face significant hurdles as a result of SSA’s agricultural activities being more susceptible to the effects of climate change (Thornton et al., 2008). According to recent IPCC (2014) and, rising temperatures, more frequent and severe extreme weather events, changes in the distribution of pests and diseases, and changing rainfall patterns are all signs of climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Since the majority of agricultural methods are susceptible to these changes, it is imperative that SSA nations adopt climate adaptation measures to increase resilience, guarantee food and nutrition security, and enhance livelihoods in the face of climate change (FAO, 2017). Climate change adaptation refers to “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities” (IPCC, 2014 p.5). In this sense, adaptation interventions within the agricultural context refers to actions, technologies, or policies designed to help farming systems and agricultural livelihoods to cope with, adjust to, or benefit from climate change impacts. It is important to acknowledge that this is distinct from adaptation strategies which refer to the umbrella of approaches that may include multiple interventions. A significant amount of research on climate adaptation techniques connected to agriculture in SSA has emerged in recent years, indicating the region’s susceptibility to the effects of climate change on livelihoods, food security, and agricultural output. In SSA, studies on adaptation interventions linked to agriculture have been carried out across various agro-ecological zones including but not limited to: agroforestry systems – to improve soil health, reduce erosion and diversify incomes; conservation agriculture – to improve soil moisture retention and yields; water harvesting technologies – to ensure water availability during periods of dry spells; better crop varieties that can strive under stress conditions; and improved livestock management techniques – to reduce vulnerability to various stress conditions. These interventions do not only relate to adaptation but deliver several other benefits to mitigation, improved yields, and household incomes – all of which are consistent with the broader concept of climate-smart agriculture (CSA).

Even though this body of research has produced insightful information about the extent and efficacy of climate adaptation in SSA (Thornton & Lipper, 2018; Tubiello & Fischer, 2007), the available data is still scattered and fragmented across multiple sources. Its usefulness for funders' and practitioners' decision-making is limited by this fragmentation. Such fragmentation limits the ability to draw consistent conclusions about what works, for whom, and under what conditions – especially in vulnerable regions exposed to climate risks. Given the urgency of climate change impacts, there is a need for a thorough synthesis of the available data due to the rapidly changing nature of climate change and the intricate and ever-changing difficulties of climate adaptation in SSA. A methodical and transparent way to find, arrange, and evaluate the body of research on agriculture-related climate adaptation initiatives in SSA is to use an evidence and gap map (EGM) (Gough et al., 2012; Lipper et al., 2014).

We acknowledge that climate change adaptation interventions in agriculture entail a wide range of action-oriented measures intended to reduce vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of farmers and their households. For this EGM, we have grouped these interventions into thematic categories as follows:

• Climate-related crop production systems – This includes improving climate-tolerant crop varieties, integrated pest management, and soil and land management practices (e.g., mulching, composting, cover cropping) that enhance resilience to climate stress like drought, floods, heat, and pest and disease outbreaks.

• Water and land management systems – such as rainwater harvesting technologies and climate-resilient irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation, solar-powered pumps). It also includes other measures that aim to secure water availability during dry spells.

• Livestock production systems – such as improving climate-tolerant breeds, feeding practices (e.g., drought-tolerant fodder), and integrated pest and disease management to enhance productivity during climate stress.

• Fisheries and aquaculture management systems – This covers sustainable fishing techniques and climate-resilient aquaculture practices.

• Natural resource management – examples include practices aimed at maintaining the forest cover, reducing air and water pollution

• Energy systems – particularly renewable energy solutions that reduce dependency on traditional fossil fuels and promoting sustainable energy sources

• Risk and support systems – such as climate and disaster risk insurance and climate information services (CIS) that provide timely and relevant forecasts and advisories for decision making.

• Income diversification – interventions that support rural livelihoods through alternative income-generating activities to cushion households from climate-induced income shocks.

The EGM will inform policymakers, researchers, and funders about the current state of knowledge, highlighting areas requiring further attention and guiding investment toward the design and implementation of effective, context-relevant climate adaption interventions in SSA.

Why It Is Important to Develop the EGM

The proposed EGM will strengthen the adaptation science ecosystem in a sustainable manner by providing useful information relevant to funders, researchers, and practitioners in two main ways. Firstly, the evidence and gap map will guide researchers and practitioners to existing research on thematic areas within climate change adaptation and geographic regions in SSA, highlighting thematic and geographic priorities that warrant further research. The study focuses on SSA since agriculture is the main source of livelihood in SSA and this means of livelihood has become susceptible to the effects of climate change (Thornton et al., 2008). The EGM also provides the degree of certainty regarding the evidence generated, informing the required rigor in future research on climate change adaptation. Hence, studies done from the year 2000s, from the time the definition of climate change by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) became instrumental to 2024 will be included in this EGM.

Secondly, the results will identify existing research that may be used to generate additional research that supports evidence-based decisions supporting evidence-based decision-making. These additional research that supports evidence-based decisions include approach and methodology toolkits in climate change adaptation, network analysis of key authors, and cell-wise summaries. This usage can be supported through a follow-up project that undertakes a critical appraisal of the existing evidence generated by the current project. This positions the project to enhance evidence-based research and policymaking that could engage or improve the adaptive capacities, livelihoods, and lives of small-scale producers in Africa.

There are various existing or ongoing EGMs that also review similar interventions and outcomes but with notable distinctions from our proposed EGM. For example, Evidence gap map and intervention heat map: Climate change mitigation interventions in the private sector in developing countries” by Doswald et al. (2021) focused primarily on mitigation strategies whereas the focus of this current EGM is on adaptation strategies. Another similar ongoing EGM is “Understanding the Effects of Climate Smart Agriculture on Climate Policy Outcomes in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: An Evidence and Gap Map” by Amadu et al. (2024) which notably studies outcomes distinct from our current EGM. Other comparable EGM’s have primarily examined climate change in general rather than adaptation and measured these interventions against set outcomes (Meherali et al., 2024; Parrao et al., 2024; Sparling et al., 2024).

To our knowledge, there are no evidence gap maps (EGMs) that address our specific objectives.

Objectives

This EGM aims to identify, map, and provide an overview of existing evidence and gaps related to climate change adaptation interventions in agriculture, focusing on enhancing food security and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. Farmers are the target population for this study.

Specifically, the EGM will:

(1) Identify evidence clusters that present opportunities for synthesis.

(2) Highlight evidence gaps that necessitate further studies, research, and evaluations.

The EGM fulfils the aim of the study by answering this question:

(1) What evidence exists on the climate change adaptation interventions for enhancing food security and livelihoods in the SSA region?

Methods

Defining the EGM and Purpose

Several definitions of an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) are presented in the literature (Lum et al., 2011; Saran & White, 2018; Snilstveit et al., 2013). According to White et al. (2020), “EGMs are used to identify gaps requiring filing with new evidence, collections of studies for review, and increase the discoverability and use of studies by decision-makers, research commissioners and researchers. They also highlight reviews which can be used to generate higher-level evidence production such as guidelines. Evidence and gap maps could also be described as “a systematic presentation of all relevant evidence of a specified kind for a particular sector, sub-sector, or geography” (Campbell et al., 2023). EGMs consist of primary dimensions or framework (rows and columns) and secondary dimensions or filters, enabling exploration of the map using a particular focus (e.g. looking at particular populations or study designs). It creates a visual web-based and interactive output.

Saran and White (2018), describes an EGM as a “systematic visual presentation of the availability of relevant evidence of effects within a specific policy area”. The evidence is compiled through a structured search guided by a predefined, published protocol.

Alongside the map, this study will include a descriptive report to summarize the evidence and gaps for stakeholders such as researchers, research commissioners, policymakers, and practitioners. Unlike systematic reviews, we will not synthesize the findings in detail (Potter, 2010). Instead, we will synthesize specific cells in the Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) to provide cell-wise summaries. A cell-wise summary is a summary of the synthesis of the studies within that cell, and this saves one from having to read all the studies in that cell. This summary provides a clear explanation, in everyday language, of what the studies in that cell aimed to achieve and what they discovered.

This EGM aims to offer a comprehensive evidence base on the connections between climate change adaptations, food security, and livelihoods. It will be accessible to all intended users, including researchers, policymakers, and funders.

Framework Development and Scope

We will implement the specified procedures and standards outlined in the Campbell Collaboration’s checklist and guidance for Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) (White et al., 2018, 2020). The EGM’s scope is defined by the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Designs (PICOS) framework, but this EGM will not specify the ‘Comparison’. The studies included will concentrate on behavioral changes that support the adoption of climate adaptation and weather variability strategies aimed at enhancing food security and livelihoods¹, thus it will not consider climate-change-related agricultural interventions without a farmer adoption (i.e., behavioral) component. For instance, technologies developed by institutions for testing on experimental fields without farmer adoption will not be considered for the EGM. This EGM will also consider agricultural infrastructure relevant to climate change and weather variability adaptation (i.e., services emanating from the use of climate-change-related agricultural infrastructure).

This EGM does not explore intersections between the two primary outcomes. It will encompass evaluations and studies on the effects of climate adaptation interventions related to the outcomes of interest, including quantitative methods (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. We will also include studies with qualitative designs. As in prior EGMs (e.g., CGIAR, 2021; Moore et al., 2021; Odei Obeng-Amoako et al., 2023), this EGM will include studies published from 2000 onwards. This is because it aligns with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2000 definition of climate change adaptation, guiding us to focus on post-2000 studies.

Stakeholder Engagement

We have established a team of subject matter experts and researchers to develop the framework. The researchers, in collaboration with our internal experts, drafted the initial framework, which was subsequently presented during a stakeholder engagement meeting.

The stakeholder engagement meeting took the form of a workshop that brought together about 65 key participants from the agricultural and climate change sector, including representatives from academia, policy makers, development practitioners, researchers, donors, Civil Society Organizations, Government institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) across Africa. The workshop was held at the Institute of Statistical Social and Economic Research (ISSER), University of Ghana on the 2^nd of May, 2024 from 8:30 am – 4:00 pm GMT. The objective was to gain deeper understanding of the adaptive interventions, various focus areas, outcomes (either economic or non-economic) and other relevant aspects of the work within the agricultural and climate change sector across sub–Saharan Africa. Insights from this engagement was intended to support ICED researchers to refine the Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design (PICOS) framework for the project. The workshop adopted a hybrid format with participants joining both in person and online via zoom. Participants were assigned to four groups (i.e., two online and two in-person) with each group focusing on interventions that led to either food security or livelihoods. Various categories of interventions were proposed with recommendations for refining the interventions based on feedback received.

Following the workshop, the ICED research team had further consultations with selected experts from both academia and policy as the framework was being refined. In some instances, experts participated directly in working sessions to elaborate more on aspects of the interventions, outcomes, and study designs. The Funding partner, SFA (Science for Africa Foundation) provided both financial and technical support in shaping the research focus. SFA is a philanthropic institution committed to advancing sustainable development through research and policy engagement. All contributions from SFA were made transparently and in alignment with the research objectives. There were no conflicts of interest identified. With these extensive consultations, the framework has now been finalized.

The results of the EGM are pivotal for donors such as Science for Africa (SFA), as well as for both academic and non-academic audiences. These findings will be shared with SFA, the sole sponsor of the map’s production, and disseminated to internal audiences, the broader development sector, academics, individuals, communities, and organizations familiar with the scope and creation of the EGM.

Stakeholders will be re-engaged during the report finalization and dissemination stages. The stakeholder engagement is designed to ensure effective dissemination of the study’s findings and to evaluate the research products in terms of evidence uptake and utilization by various audiences.

Conceptual Framework

In this EGM, interventions refer to practices aimed at enabling farmers and farming households to adapt to the impacts of climate change and improve food security and livelihoods. These include high-level categories such as crop production systems, soil and land management, water and land management, livestock production, fisheries and aquaculture management, natural resource management, energy systems, risk and support systems, and income diversification, each operationalized through specific practices². Short-term outcomes are the immediate and measurable changes resulting from these interventions, such as increased yields, improved soil fertility, enhanced dietary diversity, or increased seasonal productivity. Intermediate outcomes represent changes that build on these immediate effects such as higher household incomes, greater employment opportunities, improved food availability, or enhanced resilience to climate shocks. Longer-term outcomes/impacts are the sustained benefits achieved over time, including improved food and nutrition security, increased wealth, better access to productive assets, and strengthened livelihood resilience.

This framework assumes that interventions are implemented effectively, are contextually appropriate, and are supported by adequate resources, enabling environments, and stakeholder engagement. It also recognizes that outcomes are influenced by socio-economic, institutional, and environmental conditions, and that enabling factors (e.g. local ownership, access to finance, and policy support) or barriers (e.g. weak institutions, limited technology access) can either enhance or constrain the pathways from intervention to impact.

This EGM’s conceptual framework shows how different types of interventions, including crop production systems related to climate change, soil and land management, water and land management, livestock production, fisheries and aquaculture management, natural resource management, energy systems, risk and support systems, and income diversification, are thought to affect livelihoods and food and nutrition security (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework for the Theory of Change

For example, farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) may see an increase in crop yield if climate-related crop production adaptation initiatives are implemented. This enhances household food intake, food availability, and their income in the short run. These advancements eventually lead to increased food security. Furthermore, households may be able to find work as a result of higher crop output, which will boost their income and, eventually, their wealth and access to productive assets.

There are several strategies to achieve desired results from soil and land management interventions. These methods may increase the fertility and health of the soil, which raises household food intake, increases food availability, and increases productivity. Long-term improvements in food and nutritional security result from stronger access to food as household income and food quality rise.

Water and land management systems can be used to adopt a new system of productive adaptation for climate change that provides multiple crops growing seasons and greater seasonal productivity. Also, it may increase yields for augmented income of farmers and farming households and create opportunities for employment. Then, the availability and accessibility of food improve, making households more food secure in the long term due to better adequacy in consumption.

Animal production systems and fisheries/aquaculture management are other influential interventions. Such approaches will generate productivity in livestock and fish, improve the level of employment made available to households, and then foster the incomes of households. Increased income translates to better access to food, thus enhancing food security. Fish productivity, in particular, enriches dietary quality, fostering food and nutritional security over the long term.

The adopting of natural resources conservation practices adds value to conserving biodiversity, improving soil quality, and enhancing agriculture soils. All of these finally lead to improvements in increased production of crop yields, increased household income, and increased employment generation from such investments in agriculture. Such investments will change the availability, access, and consumption of food much as it would do in the short, medium, and long term.

Renewable energy systems are used also in the field. Renewable energy systems, harnessing such emerging technologies as solar and wind, have been powering water systems such as the irrigation system to increase the number of cropping seasons and thus enhance productivity. This brings a lot of food for present and future purposes into the house and thus secures long-term food and nutrition security.

Income diversification is a strategy for climate change adaptation and encourages farmers to engage in other productive off-farm activities or migrate to urban places for economic opportunities. With such activities come alternative livelihoods, making food affordable as well as improving food and nutrition security, and further broadening the income base through such an intervention improves livelihoods. Unfortunately, limited access to technology, poor financing, and lack of knowledge to smallholder communities hamper effective implementation in practice (IPCC, 2022). For instance, even though these practices improve productivity and income, climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has a lower adoption rate due to inadequate policy support and financial constraints (Bryan et al., 2013).

Additionally, the weak institutional framework and inadequate local involvement can result in lack of success because adaptation strategies do not address community-specific needs (Tessema et al., 2013). There is a growing need for well-targeted adaptation interventions to improve food security while promoting livelihoods but overcoming these structural barriers as climate impacts increase. It is essential always to identify effective strategies and understand the conditions under which they work best to build resilient food systems capable of withstanding future climate challenges.

Dimensions

Types of Study Design

This EGM will focus on published and unpublished studies, peer reviewed papers, reports, pre-prints, working papers, conference papers, and reviews that applied mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative methods with the following study design:

• Effectiveness studies (impact evaluations studies which make use of Randomized Controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies).

• Non-experimental quantitative studies.

• Modelling studies.

• Qualitative studies.

• Process evaluations.

• Summative evaluations: are assessment types that “culminates in a report that evaluates the outputs, outcomes, and impacts against these objectives” (Janus & Brinkman, 2010)

• Formative evaluations: provide guidance for improvement during the implementation of a program.

• Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of eligible studies.

Only studies that clearly state the method they employed in their studies and correctly labelled will be included. Qualitative works that do not name the employed method will be excluded. Studies done from the years 2000 to 2024 on the issue of climate change adaptation will be included. This is because, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2000 definition of climate change adaptation has been influential in shaping the understanding of adaption to climate change.

The next section provides details of the study’s interventions, the sub-categories and descriptions of the intervention.

Types of Intervention/Problem

The EGM will focus on nine broad categories of climate change adaptation interventions, each with several subcategories. The intervention categories include climate-rated crop production, soil and land management, water and land management systems, livestock production systems, fisheries and aquaculture management systems, natural resource management, energy systems, risk and support systems, and income diversification. Table 1 presents the intervention categories, subcategories, and definitions.

Table 1

Intervention Categories, Subcategories and Definitions

Category	Sub-categories	Definition	Examples
Climate-related crop production systems		These actions aim at making farming resilient to climate events (i.e. drought, heat, and floods, and pest and disease infestation). They also include practices for enhancing the resilience of crops and livestock to adverse weather events.
	Crop production strategies	These are on- farm crop production strategies aimed at enhancing agricultural resilience against climate events like drought, flood, heat, and pest and disease infestations.	• Crop rotation• Intercropping• Changes in planting date• Mixed cropping
	Climate-tolerant varieties	These interventions include the use of crop varieties that are specifically designed to thrive amidst water deficits and in hot climatic conditions, and withstand high temperatures, as well as those that are resistant to pests, diseases, and floods.	• Drought resistance varieties• Heat resistance varieties• Pest and disease tolerant varieties• Flood tolerant varieties
	Integrated Pest management systems (IPM)	These interventions include the control of pests through biological, chemical, physical, and crop-specific management aimed at enhancing agricultural resilience during extreme climatic events.	• Installing pest barriers• Pest monitoring• Usage of traps and barriers• Biological pest control• Chemical pest control
Soil and land management		This relates to technologies/practices in improving soil structure and moisture retention capacity during climate shocks. Practices (e.g., mulching, compost application, cover cropping) explicitly implemented to enhance soil moisture retention, fertility, and carbon sequestration under climate stress.
Soil and land management	Integrated Soil Fertility Management practices (ISFM)	This intervention refers to practices aimed at managing and protecting the soil structure, water infiltration capacity, and soil health, while also enhancing soil fertility amidst climate events to support plant growth and productivity.	• Composting• Animal manure• Vermicomposting• Adoption of fertilization• Mulching• Biochar application
Water and land management systems		Water and land management systems are practices and technologies available to spread and buffer production risk. Water systems focus on storing, managing, and delivering water during extreme weather events, ensuring that agricultural activities can continue despite droughts or floods. Techniques like rainwater harvesting and efficient irrigation help maintain a stable water supply.
	Rainwater harvesting technologies	These interventions are aimed at storing and utilizing rainwater for agricultural purposes as a result of drought caused by climate events. Infrastructure or systems (e.g., tanks, ponds) designed to collect/store rainwater specifically to buffer against drought impacts on crops.	• Rooftop rainwater harvesting• Surface runoff harvesting• Ground rainwater harvesting
	Irrigation technologies	• Climate-resilient irrigation methods (e.g., drip irrigation, solar-powered pumps) to sustain crop growth during prolonged dry spells or erratic rainfall.	• Hill irrigation• Drip irrigation• Sprinkler irrigation• Micro irrigation
Livestock production systems
	Livestock breed improvement and genetic conservation	This intervention is aimed at selecting livestock breeds that can tolerate climate events and enhance their growth and development. Selection/breeding of livestock species adapted to heat, drought, or changing forage conditions caused by climate variability.
	Feeding practice	This intervention is aimed at improving the feeding practices of livestock amidst climate events to enhance efficiency in production. Nutritional strategies (e.g., drought-tolerant fodder, feed conservation) aimed at sustaining livestock productivity during climate stress	• Rotational grazing• Pruning trees to feed animals• Changing feed time or frequency• Use of ensilage
	Integrated pest and disease management systems in livestock	This intervention refers to the use of appropriate strategies to manage pests and diseases, and their damage resulting due to climate events, at acceptable levels with minimal disruption to the environment. Measures to prevent or manage livestock diseases linked to changing climatic conditions.	• Veterinary care and pest management• Cultural pest control• Usage of pesticides/bio pesticides to treat animals
Fisheries and aquaculture management systems		Fisheries management practices play a crucial role in climate change adaptation by providing food security, supporting livelihoods, and enhancing ecosystem resilience. As global temperatures rise and ocean conditions change, adaptive fisheries management practices become essential. These practices include implementing sustainable fishing techniques, establishing marine protected areas, and promoting aquaculture to reduce pressure on marine fish stocks.
	Marine fisheries conservation practices	Interventions for marine fisheries will generally focus on strategies and activities that aim to improve sustainable fishing practices, conserve, and restore marine biodiversity.
	Aquaculture	These practices aim to improve the sustainability of aquaculture systems, enhance the resilience of species, and manage environmental changes.
	Freshwater fisheries conservation practices	Interventions for freshwater fisheries will generally focus on strategies and activities that aim to improve sustainable fishing practices, and conserve and restore freshwater biodiversity.
Natural resource management		These actions focus on the practices aimed at maintaining the forest cover, reducing air and water pollution. They encompass activities used in preventing water, air, and land (i.e. forest) pollution and to enhance biodiversity. Strategies undertaken to reduce bushfires, and adverse changes in water quality and quantity, and air quality.
	Vegetative management practices	These practices are aimed at maintaining and improving vegetation that has been depleted by climate events to enhance ecosystem health. This involves managing vegetation to improve ecosystem health and resilience.	• Habitat restoration• Grasslands management• Habitat restoration
	Agrobiodiversity conservation	These practices are aimed at protecting and restoring ecosystems and species depleted by climate events. They preserve critical habitats and species, while targeted conservation efforts safeguard endangered species and promote genetic diversity.	• Circa-situ conservation• Plants pollinators conservation• Closed season for hunting
Energy systems
	Renewable energy	These interventions play a crucial role in climate change adaptation by reducing dependency on traditional fossil fuels and promoting sustainable energy sources	• Wind• Solar energy• Plant materials (biomass)• Tidal energy
Risk and support systems		These are additional support systems provided to enhance the response to extreme weather events.These are tools providing the necessary knowledge and policy frameworks in mitigating the adverse effects of climate shocks. These actions provide the platform for managing climate risks at the national, regional, and community levels. These actions serve as the cross-cutting element of the other agriculture interventions employed to address extreme weather events.
	Climate and disaster risk insurance	These are interventions aimed at providing insurance to agricultural products as well as farms against damage and losses resulting from climate-related events.	• Weather index insurance• Micro insurance• Livelihood protection insurance
	Climate Information services (CIS)	Climate information services deliver climate-related data, forecasts, and advisories to support informed decision making and risk management at various levels. They provide timely, accurate, and relevant climate-related information to help individuals, communities, and decision makers take appropriate actions to reduce their vulnerability to climate risks.	• Climate data platforms such as CISA and C3S• Early warning systems• Indigenous information systems, knowledge
Income diversification
	Rural livelihoods	These interventions serve as an alternate form of income for smallholder farmers and farming households amidst climate events.	• Diversification in livestock rearing• Number of livelihood activities• Diversification of livelihood sources- engaging in more than one activity

Types of Population

This EGM’s population comprises of two main categories:

(1) Farmers: A farmer is an individual who grows crops or raises animals (such as livestock or fish). This person can be a small-holder or small-scale farmer, who holds areas of less than two hectares, or a large-scale farmer, who holds areas of more than two hectares (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2014; Wolfenson, 2013)

(2) Farming household: Any household in which at least one household member’s main occupation is farming and where the reference person’s primary occupation is a retired farmer (Kinsella, 2000). These households could be located in rural, peri-urban and urban communities in countries within SSA.

The section below presents the study’s outcome categories, sub-categories and definitions.

Types of Outcome Measures

The EGM will focus on two broad categories, each with several subcategories. The outcome categories include food and nutrition security and livelihoods. Table 2 presents the outcome categories, subcategories, and definitions.

Table 2

Outcome Categories, Subcategories, and Definitions

Category	Sub-category	Definition/Description
Food and nutritional security		Food and nutritional security is the term which describes the sate when everyone has physical, social and financial access to adequate safe and nourishing food that satisfies their dietary needs and food choices for an active and healthy life.
	Food availability	The physical quantities of food that are produced, stored, processed, distributed, and exchanged.
	Food accessibility	A measure of the ability to secure entitlements, which are defined as the set of resources (including economic or food affordability, social, cultural, and environmental) that an individual requires to gain access to food.
	Food utilization	The use of food and how a person can secure essential nutrients from the food consumed. Effective use of available food to meet nutritional needs, assessed through dietary diversity scores, nutrient intake adequacy, and food safety, as influenced by adaptation interventions.
	Food systems stability	The stability over time of the availability, access, and utilization dimensions. (Nicholson et al., 2021)
Livelihoods		The financial and material well-being experienced by individuals because of their participation in economic activities, employment status, access to resources, and overall economic circumstances. These outcomes can significantly influence an individual’s standard of living, quality of life, and opportunities for socioeconomic mobility.
	Income	Income as a source of livelihood refers to the amount of money earned or received by individuals or households through various means, such as employment, business activities, or financial assistance.
	Income diversification	A process of constructing a diverse portfolio of activities (income sources). (Ellis, 2000)
	Employment status	The status of individuals participating in the workforce by engaging in paid work or self-employment to earn income.
	Wealth and physical assets	. Value of productive assets (e.g., tools, livestock, and irrigation equipment) accumulated or maintained as a result of climate adaptation interventions, excluding temporary aid-based gains.
	Human and social capital	Comprises capital beyond physical, financial, and natural wealth and assets (listed above). Human capital refers to the education, skills, and health of human resources. Social capital refers to the social networks and associations that the human resource belongs to (Ellis, 2000).
	Poverty	Poverty refers to the inability to meet basic needs due to insufficient income or resources.

Other Eligibility Criteria

Types of Location/Situations

Our EGM is located in countries within sub-Saharan Africa.

Types of Settings

Studies in the following settings will be included and excluded:

Inclusion Criteria

Type of Studies

This EGM will cover studies using various study designs, such as qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Eligible study designs will include those focused on behavioral changes that support the adoption of climate adaptation and weather variability strategies to enhance food and nutrition security and livelihoods. The following will be included in these designs, however not limited to: effectiveness studies (experimental studies/impact evaluations); modeling studies (provided the model is based on primary data rather than theoretical values); analytical frameworks; process evaluations; summative evaluations; and qualitative analysis.

Given the paucity of research on the subject, incorporating a broad range of study designs into this EGM will enable (i) the inclusion of all potential studies, given the limited literature on this topic, and (ii) an assessment of the extent of evidence across a spectrum of study designs. Qualitative studies that qualify must clearly outline their research methodologies (e.g., grounded theory, exploratory, narrative, deductive, inductive, ethnographic methods) and a thorough explanation of the data collection methods (e.g., key informant interviews, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, sample size). Systematic reviews of eligible primary studies will also be included in the EGM. We will consider reports, preprints, peer-reviewed papers and other documents (e.g. working papers, discussion papers,), either completed/ongoing or published/unpublished.

Geographical Location

Eligible studies for the EGM must have targeted smallholder and large-scale farmers and farming households in countries within SSA.

Timeframe

This EGM will include studies published or reported between 2000 and the end of 2024.

Language

Studies authored in English will be included in the EGM. This is due to the fact that the majority of the researchers in this study only speak English which means that studies that are not authored in English will require more translation resources (Neimann & Montgomery, 2018; Odei Obeng-Amoako et al., 2023).

Exclusion Criteria

Studies authored in languages other than English and carried out in countries outside SSA will be excluded from this EGM. Research done prior to the 2000 will not be included. Also, studies on climate-change-related agricultural interventions without farmer adoption (i.e., behavioral) component will be excluded. Papers that fail to evaluate the causal relationship between one or more interventions on livelihoods and food and nutrition security will be excluded from the EGM. Additionally, studies in fisheries/aquaculture or energy systems that have no direct and substantial link to farmers or farming households’ adaptation and food security will be excluded. This includes purely sectoral analyses such as industrial fisheries or standalone energy projects with no connection to agricultural contexts.

Search Methods and Sources

The searches will be done systematically following the right protocol for conducting systematic searches. Various sources of literature including academic and grey literature sources will be used for the EGM. A wide range of databases will be used in order to capture all the significant studies related to our work. Bibliography back-referencing will also be conducted by looking at citations, reference lists and included papers of systematic reviews. Key authors will also be contacted, and search within related EGMs to provide further references for consideration in the EGM. Database sources.

Searches will be conducted in the following database:

(1) Academic databases

• Web of science,

• SCOPUS

• Cab Abstract

• Greenfile

• African Journals Online (AJOL)

• J-STOR

• PubMed

(2) Grey literature databases

• IDEAS-RePEc

• World Bank Group

• SSRN (Social Science Research Network)

• Eldis database,

• AGRIS

• IFPRI

• Africa Climate Portal

• Regional Environmental Change Portal (RECP)

• UNEP,

• IIPCC,

• FAO,

• WFP

• CGIAR

(3) Systematic reviews databases

• Campbell collaboration

• 3ie Systematic review databases

• Cochrane database of systematic reviews

Search Terms

The search terms to be used for the study will be adapted in the various databases, including the filters used. The search will be combined in the format “Population AND Intervention AND Outcomes” to capture relevant papers. For example “Africa” AND “climate change adaptaion” AND “food security”. The study design will not be included in the search terms to prevent the loss of relevant papers. Appendix 1 shows the search terms for Scopus. To ensure that the search terms are accurate, 20 benchmark papers have been identified in various databases. These papers will be crosschecked within the search results from selected databases to ensure comprehensive retrieval and prevent the omission of relevant papers.

Creation of Search Terms

The search terms included in the EGM will be derived in the following manner:

• The interventions will be studied, and synonyms found using Google.

• Key relevant papers will be reviewed for similar words used by the papers.

• Synonym’s function and thesaurus of the various databases e.g. SCOPUS, Cab Abstract will be used to generate variations of the intervention.

• The search terms will also be altered slightly by database to reflect the acceptable format of the data base (A summary table will be provided to capture the slight variations in the databases).

• As done by Masset et al. (2011); Odei Obeng-Amoako et al. (2023), the outcomes in the PICOS will be used without variation to prevent too many unrelated papers for screening. A preliminary test was conducted using the terms in PICOS and the results were deemed adequate.

Restrictions

In conducting the searches, limiters such as language of publication, publication date, searching the title and abstract only and publication type will be applied before executing the search to refine the searches. In terms of time frame, it will be conducted from 2000-2024. This is the duration of the current research under study as the year climate change adaptation started gaining ground is around the 2000s. The language selected will be English from all the databases, Publication types to be considered are journal articles, books, Pre-prints, reports, conference papers, working paper, discussion paper, dissertation, protocols and book chapters.

Use of Truncation and Wild Cards, Boolean Operators

Wild cards and Boolean operators will be included in the search terms. Boolean operators and wild cards are relevant to searches as they ensure that the search is optimized, and the search terms are refined and concise (Holland et al., 2021). Boolean operators such as “OR” and “AND” will be used to link search terms to optimize search results. Truncation and Wildcards such as asterisks (*) and question mark (?) will be used to account for different characters and different variations of the word (plurals, multiple word endings and spelling variation).

Analysis and Presentation

Report Structure

The EGM report will include the typical sections: executive overview, background, methods, results, and conclusion. Any modifications made between the protocol and the final report will be noted. The executive summary will encapsulate the report’s findings, while the background section will outline climate change adaptation interventions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). After outlining the precise parameters of this EGM, we will also offer a theory of change (ToC). Our framework, intervention categories and outcome categories will all be covered in this subsection.

The report will detail our search strategy, how to include or exclude studies, and how to extract data from papers that will be included. Furthermore, there will be a thorough quality assessment plan with a PRISMA flow chart, and an appendix that includes a comprehensive search strategy for all the databases.

In the results section, the number of studies found from the databases will be reported, along with a summary of the different study types grouped by interventions, outcomes and other filters. The conclusion will highlight a comprehensive account of policy implications for researchers and provide a detailed explanation of key topics for future research for decision-makers.

We will include several main figures (including heat maps, network mapping, bar charts), and tables, such as:

• Conceptual framework/theory of change

• PRISMA flow chart

• Number of studies by intervention and outcome subcategories

• Number of studies by region

Filters for Presentation

For stakeholders' other factors including (1) country or region, (2) age group, (e.g. 0-2, 3-5, 5-11), (3) delivery channel/place (e.g. community, school, home, health institution). In the hard copy multiple 2 × 2 representations of the EGM may be reported. The other dimensions can be used as a filter in the online interactive map to choose studies shown as bubbles that fit those criteria. .

Dependency

We will combine several reports from a single study (such as secondary analyses or methods/protocols) into a single entry. Systematic reviews may encompass primary studies that are also featured in the map, and there may be multiple systematic reviews that reference the same primary study. Primary studies that fit our eligibility requirement will be featured in the map, regardless of their inclusion in a systematic review.

Data Collection and Analysis

Screening and Study Selection

The screening of studies will be done by the use of EPPI-Reviewer 6, a web-based software program for managing and analyzing data in literature reviews. References/studies identified from database searches, and reference list of systematic reviews will be imported into EPPI-Reviewer, where duplicates will be checked for and deleted before screening. To expedite the screening process, we will employ a machine learning model to prioritize, and order identified papers by relevance based on the eligibility criteria for this EGM.

The study screening process will occur in two stages. Studies will first be screened by title and abstract based on the eligibility criteria (see Figure 2). Full-text screening will then be performed on the studies that passed the title and abstract screening. A team of two independent researchers will conduct the screenings. Any disagreements regarding a particular study will be resolved by a third researcher. Studies included in this second stage of screening will proceed to coding and data extraction. A predefined form in EPPI-Reviewer will be used for coding, data management, and analysis (Odei Obeng-Amoako et al., 2023; Thomas & Brunton, 2010). Pre-test of screen tool will be done prior to full screening.

Figure 2

Screening Tool Showing Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inter-Rater Reliability and Reviewer Training

Prior to the main screening, all reviewers will undergo training sessions to ensure a consistent understanding and application of the eligibility criteria. We will conduct a pilot screening exercise on a random subset of studies (10% of retrieved records) at the title and abstract stage. Each record in the pilot set will be screened independently by all reviewers.

Inter-rater reliability (IRR) will be calculated using Cohen’s Kappa statistic for each reviewer against two senior reviewers, in line with recommended practice (Gisev et al., 2013). Screening will proceed only when each reviewer achieves a minimum Kappa score of 0.65, indicating substantial agreement. If a reviewer does not meet this threshold, additional calibration meetings will be conducted, and further pilot testing will be repeated until the target is reached.

To minimize the risk of bias, reviewers will not be assigned to screen, code, or extract data from any studies they have authored or co-authored, or from studies authored by their close collaborators.

Data Extraction and Management

Studies will be coded/data extracted based on the information provided in the coding sheet (Table 3). Reviewers involved in coding will receive guidance through piloting the coding process and using checklists. Before full-scale coding, reviewers will conduct several pilot coding sessions, during which a pair of reviewers will independently code selected case studies. After each pilot session, the entire EGM team will discuss the pilot results to refine the application of the coding sheet.

Table 3

Coding Sheet

	Parent code	Child code
Region	Central Africa
	Eastern Africa
	Western Africa
	Southern Africa
Country	Angola
	Benin
	Botswana
	Burkina Faso
	Burundi
	Cabo Verde
	Cameroon
	Central African Republic
	Chad
	Comoros
	Cote d'Ivoire
	Democratic Republic of Congo
	Equatorial Guinea
	Eritrea
	Eswatini (Formerly Known as Swaziland)
	Ethiopia
	Gabon
	Gambia, The
	Ghana
	Guinea
	Guinea-Bissau
	Kenya
	Lesotho
	Liberia
	Madagascar
	Malawi
	Mali
	Mauritania
	Mauritius
	Mozambique
	Namibia
	Niger
	Nigeria
	Republic of Congo
	Rwanda
	Sao Tome and Principe
	Senegal
	Seychelles
	Sierra Leone
	Somalia
	South Africa
	South Sudan
	Sudan
	Tanzania
	Togo
	Uganda
	Zambia
	Zimbabwe
Study status	Completed
Study status	Ongoing
Study population	Farmers
Study population	Agricultural household
Intervention	Climate-related crop production systems	Crop production strategies
		Climate Tolerant varieties
		Integrated pest Management system (IPM)
	Soil and land management	Integrated Soil Fertility Management practice (ISFM)
	Water and land management systems	Rainwater harvesting technologies
	Water and land management systems	Irrigation technologies
	Livestock production systems	Livestock breed improvement and genetic conservation
		Feeding practice
		Integrated pest and disease management systems in livestock
	Fisheries and aquaculture management systems	Marine fisheries conservation practices
		Aquaculture
		Freshwater fisheries conservation practices
	Natural resource management	Vegetative management practices
	Natural resource management	Agrobiodiversity conservation
	Energy systems	Renewable energy
	Risk and support systems	Climate risk insurance
	Risk and support systems	Climate information services
	Income diversification	Rural livelihoods
Outcome	Food security	Food availability
		Food accessibility
		Food utilization
		Food systems Stability
	Livelihoods	Income
		Income diversification
		Employment status
		Wealth and physical assets
		Human and social capital
		Poverty
Study design	Experimental	Experimental study
	Non-experimental	Non-experimental (quasi-experiment, descriptive and regression-based study)
	Qualitative	Case study
		Other qualitative
	Modeling studies	Modeling studies
	Systematic review	Systematic reviews
	Scoping reviews	Scoping reviews
Evaluation types	Impact evaluation
	Process evaluation
	Formative evaluation
	Summative evaluation
Publication type	Peer review article
	Pre-print peer review article
	Report
	Conference paper
	Working paper
	Discussion paper
	Dissertation
	Protocol
Year of publication	2000
	2001
	2002
	2003
	2004
	2005
	2006
	2007
	2008
	2009
	2010
	2011
	2012
	2013
	2014
	2015
	2016
	2017
	2018
	2019
	2020
	2021
	2022
	2023
	2024

Following the pilot phase, post-pretest coding will be conducted by pairs of reviewers who will reconcile any disagreements through discussion. If consensus cannot be reached, the issue will be referred to a third reviewer to serve as the tiebreaker. In addition to the “interventions” and “outcomes” outlined in the previous section, several other factors will be coded to enable effective filtering of studies in the EGM. Each study will be regarded as the unit of analysis. Studies reporting multiple interventions and outcomes will be coded as one study but assigned different codes for interventions and outcomes.

Tools for Assessing Risk of Bias/Study Quality of Included Systematic Reviews

We will evaluate the methodological quality of included systematic reviews by use of a defined inclusion and exclusion criterion, a well-defined search strategy, a systematic coding and analysis of included research, and, if feasible, a meta-analysis in duplicate for 20% of eligible studies (Hassan et al., 2024). EGMs typically don’t evaluate the methodological quality of primary studies.

Methods for Mapping

We will be using EPPI-Reviewer 6 to perform screening and coding and also use EPPI mapper to develop the map. Aside from the EPPI-Reviewer software, tools like Covidence, DistillerSR, and JBI-SUMARI are used to map EGMs (Schmidt et al., 2025). The EPPI-Reviewer software has several advantages including the opportunity to allocate references for screening as citations can be screened on titles and abstracts by one or more people; the advantage of retrieving full papers for inclusion where the researcher could keep track of which papers still need to be retrieved, which papers are still on order and available on specified libraries; and the advantage of synthesizing the results of the study where for example, categorical data can be summarized using frequencies and cross tabs (Thomas & Brunton, 2007). The EPPI- reviewer software also permits data sharing and re-use across the systematic review community (Park & Thomas, 2018), even though the EPPI-reviewer software requires an end-user informed evaluation for its adoption (Khalil et al., 2025).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This evidence and gap map is funded by Science for Africa. We would also like to acknowledge Prof. Howard White, Dr. Solomon Zena Walelign and Dr. Charles Okyere for their valuable feedback and contributions to this EGM. Special appreciation also goes to Campbell Collaboration for providing technical support and training the ICED team on EGM.

Author Contributions

Content: David Sarfo Ameyaw, Kwadwo Danso-Mensah, Joseph Clottey, Clarice Panyin Nyan

EGM methods: Clarice Panyin Nyan, Joseph Clottey

Statistical analysis: Kwadwo Danso-Mensah, Joseph Clottey, Clarice Panyin Nyan, Sheila Agyemang Oppong, Symphorien Agbahoungba.

Information retrieval: Miriam Oppong, Clarice Panyin Nyan, Nana Esi Badu- Ansah, Desmond Kaledzi, Isaac Letsa.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. external source: Science for Africa (SFA) (grant numer: GCA/R14 AGCARS/406). Internal sources: No sources of support provided.

ORCID iD

Clarice Panyin Nyan

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Plans for Updating the EGM

This EGM will be updated every two years when resources become available and there are sufficient further studies.

Preprint Notice

An earlier version of this protocol was posted as a preprint on the CABI repository (). That version was made publicly available to share the preliminary scope and methods during protocol development. The present submission to Campbell is a substantially revised and updated version, incorporating stakeholder feedback, donor priorities, and peer review comments. Key enhancements include refined scope, operational definitions for interventions and outcomes, updated conceptual framework, expanded grey literature sources, and detailed methodological specifications. This version is the final peer-review-ready protocol intended for publication in Campbell.

Notes

Appendix

Appendix 1

Search Terms for SCOPUS

Item	Search terms
Geographical population	(“Angola” OR “Burundi” OR “Central African Republic” OR “Chad” OR “Democratic Republic of Congo” OR “Republic of Congo” OR “Rwanda” OR “Comoros” OR “Eritrea” OR “Ethiopia” OR “Kenya” OR ”Madagascar” OR “Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Somalia” OR “South Sudan” OR “Sudan” OR “Tanzania” OR “Uganda” OR “Botswana” OR “Eswatini” OR “Swazilandv OR “Lesotho” OR “Malawi” OR “Mozambique” OR “Namibia” OR “South Africa” OR “Zambia” OR “Zimbabwe” OR “Benin” OR “Burkina Faso” OR “Cabo Verde” OR “Cape Verde” OR “Cameroon” OR “Cote d'Ivoire” OR “Ivory Coast” OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR “Gabon” OR “Gambia” OR “Ghana” OR “Guinea” OR “Guinea Bissau” OR “Portuguese Guinea” OR “Liberia” OR “Mali” OR “Mauritania” OR “Niger” OR “Nigeria” OR “Sao Tome and Principe” OR “Senegal” OR “Sierra Leone” OR “Togo” OR “Africa”)
Target population	“Farmer” OR “Agriculturalist” OR “Cultivator” OR “Grower” OR “Agriculturist” OR “Farmworker” OR “producer” OR “Plantation owner” OR “farm operator” OR “agrarian”
Crop production strategies	(“climate smart agriculture” OR “plant date variability” OR “crop rotation” OR “crop sequence” OR “crop succession” OR intercropping OR polyculture OR “companion planting” OR “planting date” OR “sowing date” OR “crop calendar” OR “mixed cropping” OR “crop mixing” OR “crop combinations” OR “crop diversi” OR “tree based farming” OR “sustainable polyculture” OR “ecofriendly cropping systems” OR “sequential cropping” OR “successive cropping” OR “multiple cropping” OR “Planting agenda”) OR (( “indigenous crops”) AND (pest OR disease) )
Climate-tolerant varieties	((Adapt* OR resistan* OR toleran* OR resilien* OR moderate OR buffered) AND (“high temperature” OR heat OR drought OR “low rainfall” OR “rainfall deficit” OR “dry spell” OR “water deficit” OR pest OR parasite OR diseases OR pathogen OR flood OR “heavy rainfall”) AND (variet* OR crops OR plants OR seeds OR breed OR gene OR indigenous)) OR “crop stability” OR “crop adaptability” OR “plant breeding” OR “genetic conservation” OR “climate tolerant variet*”
Integrated pest management systems (IPM)	(“Integrated pest management” OR “IPM” OR “pest control” OR “pest management” OR “pest monitoring” OR “reducing clutter” OR “plant density” OR “weeding” OR “clean fields” OR “field maintenance”) AND (“biological” OR “chemical” OR “physical” OR “crop-specific” OR “resilience”) AND (“climat”) OR (( “control” OR “manage” OR “trap” OR “barrier” OR “monitoring”) AND (“pest” OR “standing water” OR “entry points” OR “field entry”) ) OR ((“pest life cycle”) AND (“disrupt”)) OR ((“reduc”) AND (“pest populations” OR “pest incidence” OR “pesticide resistan*”))
Integrated soil Fertility management practices (ISFM	(“Soil fertility management”) AND (practice OR technique) ) OR “Soil health” OR “water infiltration” OR “soil structure” OR “Compost” OR “Biochar” OR “Vermicompost” OR “leguminous plant” OR “nitrogen fixation” OR “plant fertiliz” OR “rhizobacteria” OR “PGPR” OR “earthworms” OR “beneficial fungi” OR “bacteria” OR “protozoan” OR “unicellular organism” OR “mulching” OR “conservation tillage” OR “cover cropping” OR “Strip cropping” OR “Contour farming” OR “Terracing” OR “Ridges” OR “tillage” OR “direct drilling” OR (( “manure”) AND (“animal” OR “plant”) ) OR (( “Fallow” OR “resting” OR “dormant”) AND (“land” OR “ground”) ) OR (( “lime” OR “limestone” OR “dolomite” OR “calcium carbonate”) AND (“application”) ) OR “liming” OR (( “sulfur” OR “sulphur” OR “sulfate” OR “sulphate” OR “wood ash”) AND (“application” OR “amendment” OR “fertilization” OR “supplementation” OR “incorporation”) ) OR (( “organic”) AND (“acidif”) ) OR “pH adjustment”
Rainwater harvesting technologies.	(( rainwater) AND (collection OR “capture vmethods” “OR “conservation techniques” OR storage OR “utilization systems” OR “management practices” OR “recovery systems” OR harvesting OR “harvesting tanks” OR “catchment tanks” OR “reservoirs” OR collection OR cisterns OR “filtration systems” OR “purification systems” OR “harvesting infrastructure” OR pits OR ponds OR trenche* OR swale* OR “retention system” OR “Catchment water system*” OR pluvial) )
Irrigation technologies	((“hill” OR “drip” OR “trickle” OR “spray” OR “strip” OR “low volume” OR “low flow” OR “micro” OR “canopy” OR “aerial” OR “sub” OR “locali?ed” OR “overhead” OR “sprinkler” OR “micro”) AND (“irrigation” OR “system” OR “water” OR “sprinkl” OR “hosing” OR “sluicing”) ) OR “dam” OR “dams” OR “barrier” OR “barrage” OR “embankment” OR “canal” OR “dikes” OR “dykes” OR “ditches” OR “borehole” OR “trench” OR “cavern” OR “waterhole” OR “sinkhole” OR “basin” OR “trough” OR “waterwell” OR “borewell” OR “canal” OR “reservoir”
Livestock breed improvement and genetic conservation	((“Breed”) AND (“livestock” OR “animal”)) OR ((“Genetic”) AND (“improvement” OR “livestock” OR “selection in livestock “ OR “animal enhancement” OR “conservation” OR “preservation” OR “safeguarding” OR “diversity maintenance” OR “resource conservation” OR “heritage”)) OR “Selective breeding” OR “livestock genetic optimization” OR “animal husbandry improvement” OR “breed development in livestock” OR “Genetic “ OR “livestock breed advancement” OR “biodiversity conservation” OR “Gene pool preservation” OR “Germplasm conservation” OR “Genome conservation”
Feeding practice	(“Balanced nutrition” OR “Modif* of diet” OR “Regular meal tim” OR “changing feeding tim” OR “feeding frequency” OR “Pasture rotation” OR “Forage co”nservation practice” OR ((“trees”) AND (“diet” OR “feed”)) OR “Rotational grazing” OR “confinement system” OR “automated feeding” OR “Nomadic feeding” OR ((“use” OR “usage” OR “practice”) AND (“haymaking” OR “ensilage”)) OR “Feed storage” OR “Feed handling” OR “Supplement feeding” OR “ concentrate mix” OR “Mineral supply” OR “mineral blocks” OR “feed Safety” OR “feed sourcing” OR “feed formulation”)
Integrated pest and disease management systems in livestock	((animal OR livestock) AND (pest* OR disease* OR parasite) AND (management OR control OR practic* OR observation OR behavi* OR faeces OR living AND quarter OR bedding OR surrounding) ) OR (( “livestock monitoring”) AND (“pest detection” OR “disease identification”) ) OR (( pesticide* OR biopesticide*) AND (“animal treatment” OR livestock OR “animal health”) ) OR (( livestock) AND (cultural) )
Marine and freshwater fisheries conservation practices	(( “Marine” OR “freshwater”) AND (“protected areas” OR “ reserves” OR “ parks” OR “habitats” OR “ No-take zones” OR “ species conservation practices” OR “wildlife protection” OR “species protection” OR “biodiversity conservation*” OR “endangered species preservation” OR “aquatic ecosystem management” OR “ocean conservation” OR “sustainable species management” OR “fauna protection” OR “ocean habitat protection” OR “ecosystem preservation” OR “costal” OR “environment conservation” OR “Aquatic habitat protection” OR “rehabilitation” OR “Seafloor habitat protection” OR “sustainable ocean habitat”) ) OR (( “fishing”) AND (“seasonal” OR “bans” OR “moratoriums” OR “restrictions” OR “closed” OR “prohibitions” OR “pauses” OR “shutdowns” OR “regulations” OR “Selective gear”) ) OR (( “targeted” OR “discriminatory” OR “Bycatch-reducing” OR “precision” OR “eco-friendly” OR “low-impact” OR “sustainable catch”) AND (“gear” OR “equipment”) )
Aquaculture”	(( “Integrated multi-trophic” OR “IMTA” OR “Polyculture” OR “Trophic-level” OR “multi-species farming” OR “ecological” OR “multi-trophic” OR “balanced” OR “synergistic” OR “sustainable species integration” OR “sustainable feed” OR “traditional methods” OR “climate tolerant species” OR “divers* species” OR “breeding”) AND (“aquaculture”) ) OR (( “fish*”) AND (“Brush- parks” OR “breeding holes” OR “pond culture” OR “cage culture” OR “Tanks culture” OR “Raceway culture” OR “Floating cage culture”) )
Vegetative management practices	(“forest plantations” OR “ecology restoration” OR “ecosystem restoration” OR “natural regeneration” OR “agroforestry system” OR “Diverse planting” OR “Habitat restoration” OR forestation OR “Reforestation” OR “Afforestation” OR “Wetland restoration” OR “Rangeland management” OR “Grasslands management” OR “conservation agriculture” OR “Native species planting” OR “soil organic matter” OR “Agrobiodiversity” OR ( ( “natural regeneration”) AND (forest) ) OR “Artificial regeneration” OR “beneficial soil organism” OR “Selective logging” OR “Thinning” OR “Controlled burn” OR “Native landscaping” OR “Green Roof” OR “Green Wall” OR “Buffer Strip” OR “Invasive Species control” OR “Alley cropping” OR “Polycultur*” OR “Hydroseeding” OR “artificial regeneration”)
Agrobiodiversity conservation	(( “in-situ” OR “on-site” OR “natural habitat” OR “Ex-situ” OR “artificial setting” OR “offsite” OR “Near-site” OR “Adjacent habitat” OR “proximal” OR “close-to-natural” OR “Neighbo?ring” OR “Circa-situ” OR “plant pollinator” OR “biodiversity” OR “ecosystem” OR “forest”) AND (“conservation” OR “preservation” OR “restoration” OR “regeneration” OR reserve* OR “protected area”) ) OR (“closed season” AND “hunting”) OR “reforestation” OR “revegetation” OR “tree replanting” OR “woodland renewal” OR “forest rehabilitation” OR “cryopreservation” OR “community gene bank” OR “Homegarden” OR “Ramsar site” OR “natural forest” OR “national park” OR “regional park” OR “Botanical garden*”)
Renewable energy	(“energy”) AND (“sustainable” OR “Green” OR “Clean” OR “Eco-friendly” OR “Environmentally friendly” OR “natural” OR “Geothermal” OR “Biomass” OR “Wave” OR “Tidal” OR “Ocean” OR “renewable” OR “sustainable” OR “Low-carbon” OR “climate-friendly” OR “sustainable power sources” OR “Environmentally sustainable” OR “Carbon-neutral” OR “non-fossil” OR “Regenerative” OR “Emissions-free” OR “next-generation” OR “future-proof” OR “solar” OR “wind”) ) OR “Innovative energy solutions” OR “Hydropower” OR “Bioenergy” OR “Clean power generation” OR “alternative energy systems” OR “Eco-energy technologies”)
Climate and disaster risk insurance	(“insurance”) AND (“weather index” OR “climate index” OR “weather-based” OR “index-based weather” OR “weather risk” OR “parametric weather” OR “micro” OR “low-cost” OR “low-income” OR “affordable” OR “livelihood protection” OR “income protection” OR “livelihood” OR “livelihood security” OR “economic security” OR “parametric” OR “index-based” OR “trigger-based” OR “trigger event”) ) OR “microinsurance”)
Climate Information services (CIS)	“Climate data platforms” OR “climate portals” OR “early warning systems” OR “Meteorological services” OR “hydrological services” OR “Hydrological data” OR “Oceanographic data” OR “climate service providers” OR “climate models” OR (( “Indigenous information systems” OR “Indigenous knowledge” OR “advisories” OR “Alerts” OR “update” OR “information” OR “short-term forecasts” OR “seasonal forecasts” OR “long-term projections” OR “Issuance of warnings”) AND (“climate” OR “water conservation measures”) ) OR “climate Bulletins” OR (“update” AND “weather condition”) OR “climate outlook*” OR (( “Information”) AND (“flood risk management” OR “drought management” OR “balance water supply”) ) OR “early warning systems” OR “risk assessment” OR “disease outbreak prediction” OR “Heatwave alerts” OR “climate information systems”
Rural livelihoods	((“diversi*”) AND (“labo?r” OR “income” OR “livestock”) ) OR “mixed farming” OR “labo?r mobility” OR “migration”
Outcomes	“Food security” OR “food availability” OR “food accessibility” “food utili?ation” OR “food stability” OR “food systems stability” OR “nutrition security” OR “livelihood” OR “income” OR “income diversity” OR “employment status” OR “wealth” OR “human capital” OR “social capital” or “poverty”
Combined interventions	All interventions
Climate	Climate
All searches	All population AND all intervention AND all outcomes AND climate

References

Amadu

F. O.

Castle

Munien

Jackson

S. B.

Reycraft

Mays

T. J.

Corfee- Morlot

(2024). Other configurative reviews (eg evidence maps or scoping reviews) title understanding the effects of climate smart agriculture on climate Policy outcomes in low-and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map citation. Proceed.

Bryan

Ringler

Okoba

Roncoli

Silvestri

Herrero

(2013). Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants. Journal of Environmental Management, 114, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.036

Campbell

Tricco

A. C.

Munn

Pollock

Saran

Sutton

Khalil

(2023). Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): The same but different—the “Big Picture” review family. Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5

CGIAR GENDER Platform . (2021). Gender in agriculture and food systems: An evidence gap map. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/114123

Doswald

Puche Marín

Rocio Pérez

J. J.

Prowse

De Roy

Sanchez Torrente

Fernandez de Velasco

(2021). Evidence gap map and intervention heat map of climate change mitigation interventions in the private sector in developing countries.

Ellis

(2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com.gh/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gCKQs-3NKhUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=Ellis,+F.+(1999).+Rural+Livelihood+Diversity+in+Developing+Countries:+Evidence+and+Policy+Implications&ots=vYQb8wkskb&sig=JnjMRiA4ZOAF5Na-95IR8m67-LY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Food and Agriculture Organization . (2014). Smallholders and family farmers. https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/1dd8c6ba-0f86-4e89-a850-5d7e31dea44e

Food and Agriculture Organization . (2017). Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition in Africa 2017. The food security and nutrition–conflict nexus: Building resilience for food security, nutrition, and peace. Accra.

Gisev

Simon Bell

Chen

T. F.

, et al. (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004

10.

Gough

Thomas

Oliver

(2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

11.

Hassan

White

Zahan

Saran

Ahmed

Rahman

Zubaid

(2024). PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of social accountability interventions in low‐and middle‐income countries: An evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(4), e1430. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1430

12.

Holland

Dutton

Glover

(2021). How it's done: Search tools and techniques for major bibliographic databases. Journal of Paramedic Practice, 13(5), 210–213. https://doi.org/10.12968/jpar.2021.13.5.210

13.

ILOSTAT database of the International Labour Organization . (2022). Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modelled ILO estimate) - Sub-Saharan Africa. Data as of January. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=ZG

14.

IPCC . (2014). Summary for Policymakers. In Field

C. B.

Barros

V. R.

Dokken

D. J.

Mach

K. J.

Mastrandrea

M. D.

Bilir

T. E.

Chatterjee

Ebi

K. L.

Estrada

Y. O.

Genova

R. C.

Girma

Kissel

E. S.

Levy

A. N.

MacCracken

Mastrandrea

P. R.

White

L. L.

(Eds.)., Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental Panel on climate change (p. 1132). Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-FrontMatterA_FINAL.pdf.

15.

Janus

Brinkman

(2010). Evaluating early childhood education and care programs. In International encyclopedia of education (pp. 25–31). Pergamon.

16.

Khalil

Welch

Grainger

Campbell

(2025). Methodology for mapping reviews, evidence maps, and gap maps. Research Synthesis Methods, 16(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.25

17.

Kinsella

Wilson

De Jong

Renting

(2000). Pluriactivity as a livelihood strategy in Irish farm households and its role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 481-496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00162

18.

Lipper

Thornton

Campbell

B. M.

Baedeker

Braimoh

Bwalya

Torquebiau

E. F.

Cattaneo

Garrity

Henry

Hottle

Jackson

Jarvis

Kossam

Mann

McCarthy

Meybeck

Neufeldt

Remington

(2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1068-1072. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2437. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273448307_Climate-smart_agriculture_for_food_security

19.

Lum

Koper

C. S.

Telep

C. W.

(2011). The evidence-based policing matrix. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9108-2. https://cebcp.org/wp-content/evidence-based-policing/the-matrix/MatrixPaperJEC.pd

20.

Masset

Haddad

Cornelius

Isaza-Castro

(2011). A systematic review of agricultural interventions that aim to improve nutritional status of children. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08abde5274a27b2000737/Masset_etal_agriculture_and_nutrition.pdf

21.

Meherali

Aynalem

Y. A.

Nisa

S. U.

Kennedy

Salami

Adjorlolo

Lassi

Z. S.

Silva

K. L.

Aziato

Richter

(2024). Impact of climate change on child outcomes: An evidence gap map review. BMJ Paediatrics Open, 8(1), e002592. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-002592

22.

Moore

Lane

C. E.

Storhaug

Franich

Rolker

H. B.

Furgeson

Sparling

Snilstveit

(2021). The effects of food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries. 3ie Evidence Gap Map Report 16. https://doi.org/10.23846/EGM01

23.

Neimann

R. L.

Montgomery

(2018). The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non‐English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: A survey and meta‐epidemiological study. Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0786-6

24.

Nicholson

C. F.

Stephens

E. C.

Kopainsky

Jones

A. D.

Parsons

Garrett

(2021). Food security outcomes in agricultural systems models: Current status and recommended improvements. Agricultural Systems, 188, 103028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103028. https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0308521X20308891

25.

Odei Obeng‐Amoako

G. A.

Nyan

C. P.

Clottey

Oppong

S. A.

Asafo‐Agyei

E. K.

Kotchofa

Ameyaw

D. S.

Walelign

S. Z.

Manuh

(2023). PROTOCOL: The impact of infrastructure on low‐income consumers' nutritious diet, women's economic empowerment, and gender equality in low‐and middle‐income countries: An evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(3), e1353. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1353

26.

Park

S. E.

Thomas

(2018). Evidence synthesis software. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 23(4), 140–141.

27.

Parrao

C. G.

Rodrigues

Romero

Snilstveit

(2024). Mapping the evidence on interventions to address climate and biodiversity crises in low- and middle-income countries. A framework proposal. Working paper series 60. https://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/WP60-ClimateChangeframework.pdf

28.

Potter

(2010). Evidence for policy and practice (27). EPPI‐Centre Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews. https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Methods.pdf

29.

Saran

White

(2018). Evidence and gap maps: A comparison of different approaches. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.2

30.

Schmidt

Cree

Campbell

WCT EVI MAP group . (2025). Digital tools to support the systematic review process: An introduction. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 31(3), e70100. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70100

31.

Snilstveit

Vojtkova

Bhavsar

Gaarder

(2013). Evidence gap maps-a tool for promoting evidence-informed policy and prioritizing future research. World bank policy research working paper, (6725). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2367606

32.

Sparling

T. M.

Offner

Deeney

Denton

Bash

Juel

Kadiyala

(2024). Intersections of climate change with food systems, nutrition, and health: An overview and evidence map. Advances in Nutrition, 15(9), 100274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100274

33.

Tessema

Y. A.

Aweke

C. S.

Endris

G. S.

, (2013), ‘Understanding the process of adaptation to climate change by small-holder farmers: The case of east Hararghe zone, Ethiopia’, Agricultural and Food Economics 1(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-7532-1-13

34.

Thomas

Brunton

(2007). EPPI-Reviewer: Software for research synthesis.

35.

Thomas

Brunton

(2010). EPPI‐Reviewer 4: Software for research synthesis. ER 4 flyer 2014 v7.pdf (ioe.ac.uk). https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10003909/1/Thomas2007EPPIReviewer(Poster).pdf

36.

Thornton

P. K.

Jones

P. G.

Owiyo

Kruska

R. L.

Herrero

Orindi

Omolo

(2008). Climate change and poverty in Africa: Mapping hotspots of vulnerability. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2(1), 24–44. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/56966/?v=pdf

37.

Thornton

P. K.

Lipper

(Eds.), (2018). Climate-smart agriculture: Building resilience to climate change. Springer.

38.

Tubiello

F. N.

Fischer

(2007). Reducing climate change impacts on agriculture: Global and regional effects of mitigation, 2000–2080. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(7), 1030-1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.027. https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162506001417

39.

White

Albers

Gaarder

Kornør

Littell

Marshall

Mathew

Pigott

Snilstveit

Waddington

Welch

(2020). Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4), e1125. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1125

40.

White

Welch

Pigott

Marshall

Snilstveit

Mathew

Littell

(2018). Campbell collaboration checklist for evidence and gap maps: Conduct standards title and protocol checklist DRAFT version 1.2. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1125

41.

Wolfenson

K. D. M.

(2013). Coping with the food and agriculture challenge: smallholders’ agenda. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/859873a8-47e5-4d6e-b307-1771e00f8564/content