# Climate change impacts increase economic inequality: evidence from a systematic literature review

Aurélie Méjean, Peron Collins-Sowah, Céline Guivarch, Franziska Piontek, Bjoern Soergel, Nicolas Taconet

► To cite this version:

Aurélie Méjean, Peron Collins-Sowah, Céline Guivarch, Franziska Piontek, Bjoern Soergel, et al. Climate change impacts increase economic inequality: evidence from a systematic literature review. Environmental Research Letters, 2024, 19 (4), pp.043003. 10.1088/1748-9326/ad376e. hal-04637031

HAL Id: hal-04637031

https://hal.science/hal-04637031v1

Submitted on 7 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
TOPICAL REVIEW • OPEN ACCESS

Climate change impacts increase economic inequality: evidence from a systematic literature review

To cite this article: Aurélie Méjean et al 2024 *Environ. Res. Lett.* **19** 043003

View the [article online](#) for updates and enhancements.

You may also like

- Relationship of Road Infrastructure to Economic Inequality in Central of Java
S Kusumawardani and U E I Kiat

- Climate-induced stressors to peace: a review of recent literature
Ayyoob Sharifi, Dahlia Simangan, Chui Ying Lee et al.

- The allocation of special autonomy funds and their impact on regional economic inequality in Papua Province
Y W Tamberan, M A Tawakal, S Betaubun et al.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

OPEN ACCESS

RECEIVED

10 November 2023

REVISED

19 March 2024

ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

25 March 2024

PUBLISHED

9 April 2024

Original Content from
this work may be used
under the terms of the
Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence.

Any further distribution
of this work must
maintain attribution to
the author(s) and the title
of the work, journal
citation and DOI.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

TOPICAL REVIEW

# Climate change impacts increase economic inequality: evidence from a systematic literature review

Aurélie Méjean<fnref n="1" />,*, Peron Collins-Sowah<fnref n="3" />, Céline Guivarch<fnref n="2" /> ID, Franziska Piontek<fnref n="3" />, Bjoern Soergel<fnref n="3" /> ID and Nicolas Taconet<fnref n="2" />

E-mail: aurelie.mejean@cnrs.fr

Keywords: climate change impacts, economic inequality, systematic literature review

Abstract

While it is widely assumed that poor countries will suffer more from climate change, and that climate change will exacerbate inequalities within countries, systematic and large-scale evidence on this issue has been limited. In this systematic literature review, we examine and synthesize the evidence from the literature. Drawing from 127 individual papers, we find robust evidence that climate change impacts indeed increase economic inequality and disproportionately affect the poor, both globally and within countries on all continents. This result is valid across a wide range of physical impacts, types of economic inequality, economic sectors, and assessment methods. Furthermore, we highlight the channels through which climate change increases economic inequality. While the diversity of different approaches and metrics in the existing literature base precludes extracting a universal quantitative relation between climate change and economic inequality for use in future modelling, our systematic analysis provides an important stepping stone in that direction.

1. Introduction

Since the late 1980s, global economic inequalities have been decreasing according to most metrics [1, 2]. This has been driven by decreasing inequalities between countries, due to rapid economic growth in Asia, and has occurred despite increasing inequalities within a number of countries [3, 4]. However, this trend could be reversed depending on the extent of climate change impacts, and how those are distributed globally [5]. Indeed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) [6] reports with high confidence that losses and damages attributed to climate change will be strongly concentrated, and disproportionately affect the poorest and vulnerable populations in the Global South. Climate change affects the economy, as biophysical impacts translate into economic damages in various ways [7]. These economic impacts are expected to be shared unequally between regions, countries, households and individuals. Indeed, different groups may be

impacted differently according to geographic location and socio-economic characteristics, and future economic inequality will depend on relative adaptive capacities [8]. Distributive justice calls for a fair distribution of the costs, benefits, and risks associated with climate change. If we accept the moral imperative of ensuring that the burden of climate change does not fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable, a comprehensive analysis of the role of climate change in driving economic inequality is a first necessary step to enable a just transition. A large and growing body of literature explores the impact of climate-related events on inequalities between and within countries. While it is widely assumed that poor countries will suffer more from climate change [9], and that climate change will exacerbate inequalities within countries [10], systematic and robust evidence on a large scale is lacking on the issue. This is despite the fact that some authors have provided reviews on the links between poverty and natural disasters [11], between livelihood resilience and climate change [12], and some

<footnote n="1">¹ Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement (CIRED), Nogent-sur-Marne, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Ecole des Ponts Paris Tech, Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement (CIRED), Nogent-sur-Marne, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Potsdam, Germany</footnote>

<footnote>* Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.</footnote>
systematic mappings of the literature on justice and climate change adaptation [13]. This paper fills this gap, and provides a systematic review of the effect of climate change on economic inequalities from the existing literature. Although climate change will evidently affect inequalities between generations, we focus here on inequalities within a generation. We gather evidence on whether, where and how climate change exacerbates economic inequalities. In doing so, we provide a reproducible and transparent, hence reliable knowledge base to inform policy-making and practice [14]. We first present the methods used for the systematic review, including publication selection and data extraction (section 2), then the results across geographical scopes, physical impacts, economic sectors, types of economic inequality, and assessment methods (section 3). We finally reflect on the implications of our results for policy-making and future research (section 4).

## 2. Methods

We provide a systematic review of the effect of climate change on economic inequalities from the existing literature, focusing on its distributive dimension across and within countries. For that purpose, we conducted queries on paper titles and abstracts in the Web of Science and Scopus literature databases in February 2023. This section presents the publication selection and data extraction. The final corpus includes 127 papers, listed in the Extended Data section, where bibliometric information is also presented (figure 7).

### 2.1. Publication selection

We conducted queries on titles and abstracts in the Web of Science and Scopus literature databases in February 2023. We used groups of keywords connected with Boolean operators, filtering for peer-reviewed papers on climate change impacts and their distributive implications. Books, book chapters and working papers were excluded from the results. We aimed for our method to be reproducible, and as transparent as possible. A balance thus needed to be found between explicitly excluding terms from the queries (with the risk of excluding relevant papers), and reaching a large enough corpus. The issue is that all-encompassing queries may include too many irrelevant papers, which should be then screened by hand, with the risk of losing transparency and reproducibility. Abstracts are bound to include a wider diversity of terms than titles. Therefore, we ran different queries for titles and abstracts. We used a smaller, more restrictive set of terms for titles (we included a smaller number of generic terms), and a larger set of more specific terms for abstracts. For titles, the query was organised into two blocks: the first one pertains to climate change and its physical impacts, the

second relates to the economic and inequality dimension. For abstracts, the query was organised into three blocks: the first one pertains to climate change and its physical impacts, the second relates to the economic dimension, and the third relates to inequality. All the sets of terms were linked by an AND Boolean. Those two sub-queries were linked by an AND Boolean in the overall query (see schematic representation on figure 1). We ran queries on 6 February 2023, returning 1066 items in the case of Scopus, and 825 items in the case of Web of Science. The query is summarised on figure 1, and the exact queries are presented in the Extended Data section. After merging the results and removing the 768 duplicates, the list of papers contained 1072 items, also after excluding conference proceeding papers, erratums, books and book chapters.

Each paper was then screened by two members of the author team using the *abstrackr* tool (http://abstrackr.cebm.brown.edu/). Abstrackr allows to organize and screen abstracts for systematic literature reviews. We did not use exclusion terms during the screening process. Papers were considered out of scope when they did not provide an assessment of the impact of climate change on income or consumption inequality. The following categories were used to tag the excluded papers: out-of-scope discipline (e.g. electrical engineering, chemistry, etc), irrelevant type of paper or method (e.g. purely theoretical paper, perspective paper), absence of clear link to climate change (e.g. focus on natural disasters disconnected from climate change), absence of economic variable, paper focused on mitigation and not on impacts, no mention of inequality, paper centered on adaptation. The grading system consisted of three labels: include, reject, unsure. The double screening process led to a small number of items that were not concurrently rejected or included by both reviewers. Those cases were then discussed individually within the author team. We retained 199 papers after the abstract screening process, which were then closely read by one member of the author team. The following information was extracted for all selected papers [15]:

* *bibliographic information:* journal, title, abstract, authors, year of publication, doi

* *general scoping information:* scope (global, regional, multi-regional, multi-national, national, sub-national); country or region of interest (if applicable); granularity (region, country, county, district, city, household, sub-national, sub-regional, urban-rural), type of inequality considered (income, consumption, GDP, welfare); method (econometric, surveys, or simulation based including integrated assessment model, computable general equilibrium model or microsimulation); type of physical impact (temperature, precipitation, extreme events, sea level rise, droughts, floods); specific sector; channel of impacts (e.g. labour productivity,
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Query structure.</figcaption></figure>

impact on infrastructure); whether the study is backward-looking (i.e. based on historical data only), forward looking (i.e. simulation scenarios), or both; whether the results only relate to exposure to climate change; whether the effects are strongly or only weakly related to climate change.

* results: whether the paper provides a quantitative estimate of the effect of climate change on economic inequality; the type of inequality metric and its value and unit (if applicable); the sign of the effect of climate change on economic inequality (increase, decrease, neutral, no conclusion, mixed, increase of poverty); the most impacted social group (neutral between poor and rich, no conclusion, mixed, the poor, the rich, the urban, the rural); a key quote from the paper; caveats or limitations highlighted by the authors.

When gathering evidence, we were careful to not over-interpret the results of the papers of the corpus, and to hold on to the wording used in those. For instance, if a paper concluded that 'climate change mainly affects the poor', without explicitly stating that inequalities increase, we refrained from concluding that the paper gave the result that 'climate change increases inequalities', as that result may depend on the effect of climate change on the middle of the income distribution. We did not use a preset definition of the term *poor* (e.g. people with income below a given level), but relied on the definition used by the authors of the papers of the corpus. This definition may thus vary from one case to the other. After careful review, 72 papers were excluded, because one or several of the following categories applied: (i) literature review, meta-analysis of existing papers, or purely theoretical paper, (ii) absence of a mention of distribution issues, (iii) absence of sentence linking climate change to the frequency or intensity of the studied physical manifestation of climate change, (iv) paper centered on adaptation, (v) paper centered on mitigation, (vi) inequality treated as a driver of another variable of interest,

not as an outcome, (vii) focus on energy poverty only. The final corpus contains 127 papers (listed in the Extended Data section), published between 1998 and 2023 (figure 7(a) of the Extended Data section), mainly within the fields of Environmental Sciences & Ecology and Business & Economics (figure 7(b) of the Extended Data section). We note a rapid recent increase in the number of relevant papers, trebling between 2020 and 2022. Also note that while a large body of literature studies the effect of climate policies (such as carbon pricing) on economic inequalities globally [16], in low and middle income countries [17], or in the case of the European Union [18], this is not the focus of this paper.

## 2.2. Data extraction: main dimensions

Here we present the dimensions we focus on in the data extraction process, and some descriptive statistics from the corpus. We devised six categories to analyse the corpus along its various dimensions (namely, geographical scope, granularity, physical impact, type of inequality, economic sector, assessment method). In each case, we counted the number of occurrences according to the statements made by papers on the impact of climate change on inequalities and on the nature of the most impacted group (cf categories described in table 1). Further descriptive statistics of the corpus are presented in the Extended data section (figures 8 and 9).

### 2.2.1. *Scope and granularity*

We consider the impact of climate change on inequalities within and between countries, and therefore include papers that provide global results, and papers on specific countries or regions. Scope is defined as the geographical perimeter of the study. Granularity refers to the geographical perimeter or social groups considered when assessing economic inequality within the geographical scope. In the global, regional, multi-regional, and multi-national studies, inequalities are mostly assessed at the country
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Outcome categories.</caption><thead><tr><th>Outcome category</th><th>paper statements</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>regressive effect</td><td><ul><li>inequalities increase due to climate change, <i>or</i></li><li>poverty increases due to climate change, <i>or</i></li><li>the poor are more impacted by climate change</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>mixed effect</td><td><ul><li>mixed results in terms of the impact of climate change on inequalities, <i>or</i></li><li>mixed results in terms of which social group is more impacted</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>neutral effect</td><td><ul><li>climate change does not affect inequalities</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>progressive effect</td><td><ul><li>inequalities decrease due to climate change, <i>or</i></li><li>the rich are more impacted by climate change</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>no conclusion</td><td><ul><li>no explicit conclusion on the effect of climate change on inequality, <i>and</i></li><li>no explicit conclusion on which social group is most impacted</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>other</td><td><ul><li>no explicit conclusion on the effect of climate change on inequality, <i>and</i></li><li>a particular non-income related group is identified as being most impacted</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

or regional level. Papers assess inequalities at the household level, or at other sub-national social groups or geographical entities (e.g. urban vs. rural, cities, counties, districts, farms). The majority of studies have either a global (35%) or national (32%) scope. The most studied single countries are China (9 papers), Brazil (6 papers), and South Africa (5 papers). There are 67 country-specific papers covering every continent. In terms of geographical distribution, 31 papers focus on Africa, 24 on Asia, 13 on South America, 8 on North America, 4 on Oceania, and 4 on Europe. Figure 8 shows the geographical distribution of the country and multi-country studies of the corpus.

### 2.2.2. Physical impacts

The scope of this review encompasses all manifestations of climate change. A large body of literature focuses on the impact of natural disasters on inequalities and the distribution of income without a clear focus on the possible links between those events and climate change. While that literature relates to our study, it is outside of its specific scope, and has been reviewed extensively elsewhere [19, 20]. The direct physical impacts of climate change can range from changes in the frequency or intensity of extreme events, such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, or heatwaves, to slower processes such as coastal erosion and changes in average climate conditions. These may lead to a wide variety of impacts, from reduced availability of fresh water and reduced crop yields, to changes in the incidence of vector-borne diseases, depletion of fisheries, mass coral bleaching, wildfires, and more. The main drivers of these

impacts include the warming trend (i.e. the evolution of global and regional average temperatures), extreme temperatures, the evolution of precipitation (and its spatial distribution), extreme precipitation, and sea level rise [21]. The types of physical impacts assessed in the corpus overwhelmingly relate to temperature increase (whether mean surface temperature or extreme heat) and precipitation (whether mean precipitation, increased variability of precipitation, or extreme precipitation), amounting to 197 occurrences (some papers may represent several types of impacts). The fact that most papers relate to temperature increase may be partly due to the large number of global studies, to the fact that temperature is easiest to project into the future, and to the difficulty to assess more specific physical impacts at the global scale.

### 2.2.3. Types of inequalities

We focus on the distributive dimension of economic inequality, i.e. how different dimensions of well-being are distributed within society, and how they may be affected by climate change<fnref n="4" />. Although these dimensions can be both monetary (such as income, wealth) and non-monetary (e.g. health, education), we understand here economic inequality as inequality with regard to income and consumption. Other dimensions can however affect individuals' well-being [22–25], notably health, leisure, the quality of social relations and the natural environment, but are not the focus of this paper. Heterogeneity in individual environmental, social, cultural conditions

<footnote n="4">⁴ We exclude here considerations of procedural justice, which concerns the processes by which achievements (such as being well-nourished or healthy) are distributed.</footnote>
influence what is accessible to individuals at a given income level. Still, income can be spent to improve achievements and expand capabilities. It can be a strong driver of the sensitivity to climate change impacts, as it often determines other factors that impact sensitivity to climate impacts, such as access to technology (e.g. irrigation, air conditioning), insurance, and health services. In poor countries especially, low-income households often lack appropriate assets that may provide protection against extreme climate events, for instance adequate housing, and sufficient livestock in the case of the rural poor. Besides income, another way to measure economic inequality is to look at disparities in terms of wealth (i.e. the value of owned assets such as housing, cattle, cash or stocks). Wealth is a key dimension of well-being, as it generates income, i.e. it accounts for potential income that could be derived from assets, and can be associated with increased opportunities [26]. In summary, our search queries do not include the following specific categories: health, mortality, food, energy access, and energy use, although those dimensions can be linked to income and consumption, and may appear in the analysis provided by the selected papers. We do not include those terms in the query to avoid selecting papers that would adopt a narrow scope, and would for instance solely focus on a specific component of consumption, while neglecting others. Further, the review aims at assessing the impacts of climate change on economic inequality beyond pure exposure. The papers which report only on the distribution of exposure across different groups are not formally excluded, but are assigned to a specific category in the review.

### 2.2.4. Assessment methods

The scope of this review encompasses all possible methods to assess the impact of climate change on economic inequality. These include econometric studies, often relying on household surveys, which are required to study income or consumption inequality across households, either at the level of individual countries [27], or at the level of subgroups within countries [28, 29]. Simulation approaches are also relevant. Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models capture the impacts of climate change (in some particular cases, the impacts on agricultural productivity) at the level of large world regions with representative agents. They are sometimes coupled with a microsimulation model, which is based on the modeling of agents and can capture effects on heterogeneous households. The advantages of CGE models are their sectoral detail and their ability to capture trade effects in particular. Integrated assessment models are used to study the interplay of socioeconomic conditions, climate, energy and land use in the context of future scenarios and on a global scale. They can capture inter-regional inequality, as they mostly operate

at the level of large world regions, but usually miss sub-regional inequality, as they typically consider a single representative agent by region. However, recent efforts have led to a better representation of intra-regional inequality in those models [18, 30], although inequalities are not always related to climate change impacts. In the NICE model [30], climate damages are distributed across regional income quintiles using an elasticity parameter which is not empirically based.

### 2.2.5. Outcome categories

A majority of studies shows differential impacts across regions and social groups, but their authors do not always explicitly discuss the consequences of those on inequality, nor provide quantitative estimates of standard economic inequality metrics. Further, inequality metrics, when available, are bound to widely differ in nature across papers. We therefore mainly provide a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment, and simply examine whether inequalities increase or decrease within and between countries due to climate change impacts. We use the outcome categories presented in table 1 to analyse the effect of climate change on economic inequalities.

### 2.2.6. Agreement indicator

We use an agreement indicator developed in other systematic reviews [31] to summarize the level of agreement regarding the direction of the impact of climate change on economic inequality along all dimensions. This indicator is calculated as $H = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{3} s_i^2}{\sum_{i=1}^{3} s_i^2}$, where *i* is the possible outcome (regressive effect, progressive effect, mixed or neutral effect), and $s_i$ is the share of each outcome for the given category (e.g. geographical scope). By design, the index can range from 0.33 (a full level of disagreement regarding the effect of climate change on inequalities) to 1.00 (a full level of agreement, indicating that 100% of the papers are, for instance, pointing to a regressive effect of climate change on inequalities). For example, if, for a given category, 80% of the papers find a regressive effect, 10% report a progressive effect, and 10% find a mixed or neutral effect, the level of agreement equals $0.64 + 0.01 + 0.01 = 0.66$, which indicates broadly consistent although not universal evidence of a regressive effect of climate change on inequalities for that given category.

## 3. Results and synthesis

We present the main findings and analysis of the reviewed literature. We synthesize these according to the main relevant dimensions presented above. The result that inequality increases due to climate change or that the poor are more impacted is obtained across a diversity of geographical scopes (figures 2 and 3), physical impacts, economic sectors, channels,
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Effect of climate change on economic inequality according to geographical scope. Note that the x-axis gives the share of occurrences in the corpus. The number between brackets indicates the total number of occurrences for a given category.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Map of countries where studies show a regressive effect, i.e. that climate change increases economic inequality or that the poor are more impacted. This map includes studies with a national or sub-national scope, and multi-country studies where that result is valid for single countries. This map excludes global studies.</figcaption></figure>

types of economic inequality and assessment methods (figures 4–6).

**3.1. Climate change increases inequalities, both globally and within countries on all continents**

While the majority of papers (75 out of 127) do not explicitly conclude on the effect of climate change on inequality, most of those papers still identify the poor as being the most impacted (55%), while four papers identify the rich (households [32, 33], counties [34], or countries [35]) as being the most impacted. Three of the those four papers focus on very local

situations: one in the particular case of tropical cyclone Bulbul in Bangladesh, where rich shrimp farmers incurred higher losses (explained by the larger size of their farms) [32], one in the case of wildfires in the US, where owners of high-value properties also incurred higher losses [34], and one focusing on the Ethiopian Awash basin, where poor households were found to benefit more from additional rainfall, and suffer less from a decrease in rainfall than non-poor households [33]. One paper with a global scope finds that rich countries are most impacted by climate change, in the particular case of extreme
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Impact of climate change on economic inequality by physical impact, sector, type of inequality, and assessment method. Note that the x-axis gives the share of occurrences in the corpus. The number between brackets indicates the total number of occurrences for a given category. The sum of those numbers may differ from the total number of papers (127), as some papers may fall into several subcategories, for instance in the case where several types of physical impacts are discussed in a single paper.</figcaption></figure>

precipitation [35]. This econometric study looks at four different rainfall measures, and finds a greater sensitivity of rich countries to daily rainfall only. The authors explain this last result by the smaller dependence on agriculture and greater dependence on services of rich countries compared to poorer countries. Almost all global studies conclude that climate change increases inequalities or that the poor are more impacted (36 papers, i.e. 78% of global studies, figure 2). Some papers (12) identify other groups as being most impacted by climate change, without indication of income group, e.g. rural, urban, women, particular regions or countries, particular sectors or economic activities. Overall, a minority of papers does not conclude on either dimensions (17%), i.e. on both the effect of climate change on inequalities and on which group is most impacted.

Among the 52 papers which provide a conclusion on the impact of climate change on economic inequality, 35 papers find an increase in inequality due to climate change. Only two papers show a decrease in inequality due to climate change, both of which focus on very specific local circumstances:

floods in Pakistan [36], which is however associated with a decrease in income in the affected regions, and inequality of prices between fishers and traders in Mexico [37]. A majority of studies thus concludes that climate change either increases economic inequalities, or has more impact on the poor, or both (69% of the corpus, 83% of the papers which conclude on either dimension). In general, we find that the papers which conclude that climate change increases economic inequalities or that the poor are more impacted cover a much wider range of subcategories (e.g. types of physical impacts, assessment methods, etc) than those that conclude otherwise (figure 10).

We find that the results presented above can vary slightly according to whether one only considers within or between country inequalities. The result that climate change increases inequality mostly holds for national studies, as 68% of those conclude that climate change increases inequalities or that the poor are more impacted (30 papers). Studies comparing the effect of climate change across countries overwhelmingly find that inequalities between
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Impact of climate change on economic inequality by channel. Note that the x-axis gives the share of occurrences in the corpus. The number between brackets indicates the total number of occurrences for a given category. The sum of those numbers may differ from the total number of papers (127), as some papers may fall into several subcategories.</figcaption></figure>

countries increase or that poor countries are more impacted (79% of all occurrences, figure 12). The share of papers focusing on within country inequality and giving the same conclusion is lower (64% of all occurrences, figure 12). The results show that climate change increases economic inequalities and disproportionately affects the poor holds in all world regions (figure 3). The countries with the highest number of studies (more than 5) showing that climate change increases inequality or has more impact on the poor are China, Brazil, Ethiopia and the US. Only 5 country-level or sub-national studies conclude that climate change decreases inequality or that the rich are more impacted, in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Mexico, Pakistan, and Western USA.

Among all national, sub-national, multi-national and multi-regional studies, 41 studies focusing on the Global South (75% of such studies which provide a conclusion on either dimension) show that climate change increases inequality or that the poor are more impacted. This includes 15 studies that show that climate change increases inequalities, but do not necessarily provide a conclusion on whether the poor are more impacted, notably in Brazil, Lebanon, India, China, the Philippines, Iran, and African countries such as Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Malawi, Ghana, Tanzania. These include studies with a national and sub-national scope. Among studies focusing on the Global North, 8 provide the same conclusion (in Europe and the US), i.e. 89% of Global North studies which provide a conclusion on either dimension. We thus conclude that this general result is valid across the Global South and the Global North.

## 3.2. All types of physical impacts increase economic inequalities, through several channels

The share of papers that find that a particular physical impact increases inequality or has more impact on the poor (figure 4 top left, in red) ranges from 60% (precipitation) to 89% (sea level rise), depending on the type of physical impact. Most papers (90) focus on the impact of temperature. In those cases, 72% of papers conclude that temperature change increases inequality or impacts the poor the most. The same biophysical impacts can lead to different damages across groups due to different sensitivities, i.e. different propensities to be adversely affected by a given climate change impact.

Most papers look at impacts on the whole economy or on multiple sectors, and the most studied single sector is agriculture (figure 4 top right). When all or multiple sectors are concerned, 78% of papers conclude that inequalities increase or that the poor are most impacted. That result is weaker for papers focusing on agriculture (44%), as a large share of papers do not provide any conclusion (28%), or identify other groups as being most impacted (e.g. particular agro-ecological zones [38], fruit producers [39], urban households [40], wheat importing regions [41]). How climate change may affect inequalities through its impact on agriculture is not straightforward. Food price hikes may be triggered by reduced agricultural productivity in most regions exposed to climate change. The impact on inequality can depend on the share of household income spent on food (which tends to decrease with income), and on the share of agricultural revenues
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Level of agreement across studies on the impact of climate change on economic inequality by category (i.e. physical impact, method, type of inequality, channel, sector, scope, granularity, and overall). For each category, the indicator is calculated as $H = \sum_{i=1}^{3} s_i^2$, where *i* is the possible outcome (regressive effect, progressive effect, mixed or neutral effect, we exclude here studies from the *no conclusion* and *other* categories), and $s_i$ is the share of each outcome for the given category (e.g. geographical scope). For each category, the color indicates the contribution of each outcome ($s_i^2$) to the level of agreement indicator (*H*). The figure shows that the dominant outcome is that climate change increases inequality or has more impact on the poor (red) for all categories. These results exclude studies that do not provide any conclusion (i.e. they exclude the *no conclusion* and *other* categories, cf table 1). A level of agreement of 1 indicates that all studies within the given category agree on the dominant outcome. The lowest possible level of agreement is 0.33, i.e. in the case where the three considered outcomes represent equal shares of the results. The number between brackets indicates the total number of occurrences for a given category. The sum of all those numbers within a category may differ from the total number of papers (127) as we only account here for a subset of outcomes. Also, some papers may fall into several subcategories, for instance in the case where several types of physical impacts are discussed in a single paper. The level of agreement exceeds 0.5 in all sub-categories except *survey methods* and *sub-national scope*. It reaches 1 for some sub-categories, though note that most of those are covered by only a few studies. It reaches 0.75 or above for 34 sub-categories out of 46.</figcaption></figure>

in total household income. Agricultural productivity and prices, through their consequences on the income of farmers, are still identified by some authors as the main channel through which climate change may increase poverty [42], hence inequality.

Several channels translate climate change impacts into effects on economic inequality. In order to understand how climate change may affect economic inequalities, we report on the impact channels identified in each paper, when those are specified by the authors (figure 5). Those channels include economy wide effects affecting all sectors, agricultural revenues (through decreasing crop yields, livestock revenues, or agricultural total factor productivity), decreasing labour productivity, infrastructure and physical assets, energy demand, water availability, and forests. We find that papers that identify labour productivity (8 papers) or energy (4 papers) as the main channels through which climate change affects economic inequalities overwhelmingly conclude that economic inequalities increase or that the poor are more impacted. A decrease in labour productivity may indeed increase inequality if it reduces the income of low-skilled workers more than the income of high-skilled workers. In particular, outdoor workers, and indoor workers in workplaces without air conditioning may be impacted more. We note that a

large share of the papers for which physical assets are identified as the main channel show that inequalities are decreasing due to climate change or that the rich are more impacted. Those correspond to the previously highlighted papers where rich agents incur a higher loss due to the higher value of their property [32, 34]. This is consistent with empirical evidence gathered elsewhere that richer households can also be vulnerable to climate-related shocks because they have a high concentration of capital assets [43], for instance in the case of livestock [44].

### 3.3. Climate change increases both household and national income inequalities

We categorise studies according to the type of inequalities considered, i.e. the variable that was used to compare social or geographical groups (figure 4 bottom left). The majority of studies considers household or individual income, followed by GDP, and household consumption. The studies focusing on national income (GDP), mostly with a global scope, do not generally provide details on the mechanisms at play at the sectoral level. While some global studies may only refer to GDP, several sectors and mechanisms can be included in the modelling, although those are not explicitly mentioned in the text. Finally, although our review primarily focuses on income
and consumption inequality per se, some papers also specifically look at disparities using the normative concept of welfare, which is derived from consumption. In that case, welfare is typically an isoelastic function of consumption, so that changes at the bottom of the distribution are given a greater weight than those at the top of the distribution. Again, we find rather homogeneous results across the types of inequality considered, with a slightly higher share of papers finding that climate change increases economic inequality or has more impact on the poor in the case of GDP (74%, those papers mostly have a global or national scope).

Different indicators have been proposed to give an overall measure of income or consumption inequality [45]. The most commonly used indicator is the Gini index, which measures the gap between the actual distribution of income or consumption and a perfectly egalitarian distribution, i.e. a distribution where every individual would receive the same income or consumption. Other indices focus on both ends of the distribution, for instance the Palma Ratio, which compares the income or consumption of the top 10% of the population with that of the bottom 40% [46]. The Theil index [47] derives from information theory, and offers interesting decomposition properties, because it allows breaking down inequalities between and within different groups. A total of 60 papers of the corpus provide a quantitative analysis. From those, 16 papers quantify results in terms of an inequality index (income Gini, consumption Gini or Theil index), and 12 papers look at specific income groups like deciles. The others conduct other types of analysis without explicit inequality metrics, but sometimes provide a measure of the impact of climate change on a specific income decile. Most of the latter (18 papers) do not conclude regarding the effect of climate change on inequality, though 9 of these still find a larger effect on the poor (including poor countries or cities). Among the 16 papers providing an inequality index (Theil or Gini), 10 papers find an increase of inequality, 3 papers find mixed results, while only one study finds that climate change leads to a decrease in inequality, one concludes that climate change is distributionally neutral, and one does not provide any explicit conclusion. All of the papers quantifying effects on income deciles find a higher effect of climate change on the poor, though most do not draw conclusions on inequality, since their analysis mostly focuses on the lowest income group. They are mostly conducted at the national or sub-national level, and a majority focuses on agriculture as the impact channel. The studies providing an inequality index are very different in scope (spatial, impact channel) and focus (forward/backward looking analysis, method and range

of future projection, etc). Therefore, it is impossible to draw more universal quantitative conclusions from the reported changes in the inequality index. The categorization of outcome provided in table 1 is used to bypass the lack of consistent and comparable income and consumption inequality metrics across papers.

### 3.4. Climate change increases economic inequality across the main assessment methods

The two main methodological approaches used to quantify the linkages between climate change impacts and economic inequality are econometric methods and simulation-based approaches. Econometric methods are used to study the relationship between selected past weather and climate and socioeconomic outcomes related to inequality. They constitute a large share of the literature on that issue, and the most common single method of our corpus (figure 4, bottom right). The four main single simulation approaches appearing in the corpus are general equilibrium modelling, multi-model approaches, integrated assessment models, and microsimulation. The result that climate change increases inequality or has more impact on the poor is robust across economic and simulation based approaches (over 70% of the whole corpus in each case, over 80% of studies providing a conclusion on either dimension, figure 4 bottom right). We provide separate results for studies based on historical data (backward-looking) and for studies showing prospective scenarios (forward-looking) in the *Extended Data* section. Those subsets of studies show similar results to those of the whole corpus (figure 12, see also figures 13–16 for more detailed results).

Finally, using the indicator described in the methods section, we find that there is an agreement on the fact that climate change increases economic inequality or has more impact on the poor for all categories: in each case, that outcome is identified as the dominant one (figure 6, in red). In the case of surveys for instance, the level of agreement is rather low (0.44) compared to other categories of papers. The dominant color is red, meaning that those particular papers still point to a regressive effect of climate change on inequalities, although the level of agreement on that outcome is weaker than for other categories of studies. The overall level of agreement (for all studies providing a conclusion) is 0.79.

### 4. Discussion

An overwhelming majority of studies find that climate change increases economic inequalities or has more impact on the poor. This result is valid across all
regions, physical impacts, sectors, types of inequalities and assessment methods, and is particularly salient in studies comparing the effect of climate change across countries. Due to our conservative approach to paper classification, this result does not rely on studies which show differential impacts of climate change across regions or social groups without explicitly concluding on their effect on inequality. For that reason, the evidence for climate change impacts increasing economic inequality may be even stronger than indicated by our assessment. Indeed, this conservative approach might have led us to underreport the evidence of the regressive effect of climate change on economic inequality because of our decision not to categorise studies that did not make explicit statements on those effects. In the final list of papers, only two studies conclude that climate change decreases inequality, both of which focus on very specific local circumstances [36, 37], and four papers identify the rich, either households [32, 33], counties [34], or countries [35], as being more impacted by climate change, again mostly in very specific settings. The main exceptions are found to be a few studies where rich agents incur higher losses due to the higher size or value of owned physical assets. These papers represent less than 5% of the corpus.

We acknowledge limitations in our methodology. First, there are possible pitfalls related to the choice of keywords in the title and abstract queries. As already mentioned, we aimed to reach a balance between using keywords that bring out the most important papers, while at the same time avoiding the selection of unrelated papers, with the risk of possibly omitting papers that might have been relevant. While we aimed for maximum reproducibility and transparency of the methodology used, several steps along the process of paper screening and selection have involved decisions by the team of authors: some papers were excluded from the final list, for instance if it appeared that they did not present a strong enough link to climate change (cf list of categories presented in section 2). One avenue to possibly address this limitation would be to survey the results using machine learning tools [48]. Machine learning systematic reviews are easily scalable, and exclude human interference, but bring their own intrinsic biases. Those relate in particular to the selection of data used to train the algorithm. The question remains also whether these methods would perform better on all the paper selection criteria, which sometimes are rather subtle and involve expert knowledge beyond text mining. A second limitation of our work relates to the lack of consistent reporting of inequality measures across papers, which means that we are unable to provide a quantitative assessment of

the size of the effect of climate change on economic inequality.

This review has been motivated by the need to better understand the distributional dimension of climate change impacts, in order to provide the other side of the coin of the widely discussed distributional effects of climate change mitigation. From a public policy perspective, our analysis calls the attention of policy-makers on the issue of inequality, in particular when designing adaptation plans to climate change. Our results clearly show that climate change impacts are regressive across countries, therefore calling for appropriate and targeted compensatory mechanisms at the international level, in particular through international adaptation finance. This issue is strongly linked to the debate surrounding the implementation of a loss and damage fund, as discussed at COP27. Regarding within country inequalities, national policy-makers need to ensure that adaptation and loss and damage funding is actually directed to low-income households to reduce their vulnerability and improve their resilience to climate change impacts. Addressing future climate change impacts on economic inequalities will require considerable policy change and the deployment of financial resources. The results from this study can help policy-makers better integrate climate risk management components into the design of ‘climate-proof’ social intervention programs in poor regions, which is particularly vital for achieving climate justice goals. Such social intervention programs can be the provision of insurance for smallholders and other primary sector producers. Labour market interventions such as re-skilling or re-training can also achieve additional resilience to climate risks through the enhancement of the productivity and employability of workers in highly exposed sectors.

To help decision-makers achieve this, future research must provide a more robust quantitative assessment of the effect of climate change on inequality. Our analysis provides a first basis to construct an empirical understanding of the interactions between climate change and global inequality. However, it would need to be complemented in several ways to provide comprehensive and robust quantitative estimates with a global scope, which are needed to eventually include inequality in all of its aspects into integrated assessment modelling, and thus make the link between impacts, adaptation and mitigation to inform policy-making. First, and most importantly, researchers need to systematically provide a clear and explicit assessment of their results in terms of inequality, and compute inequality metrics whenever appropriate, in order to provide a more robust quantitative assessment on the effect of climate change on
inequality. Indeed, while the existing case studies reviewed here paint a fairly clear qualitative picture, what is currently lacking is a robust quantification across impact sectors and with global coverage. Such a quantification is needed to put future modelling efforts onto a solid empirical foundation, and as such a robust empirical assessment of the incidence of climate damages on different income groups is a key task in future work. It is also important to understand what the underlying drivers for this heterogeneity are, and if there are other socio-economic characteristics besides income that are key determinants, such as governance, institutions, education, and gender. Second, as our results show that the impacts of climate change increase economic inequalities or are concentrated on the poorest, measuring the impacts of climate change in terms of aggregate dollars hides their actual effect on welfare. Therefore, our analysis calls for using welfare indicators more widely in impact assessments. Third, our review is limited to the economic dimension of inequality, and complementary reviews would be needed to gather a better understanding of the impact of climate change on other dimensions of inequality, such as health, education and access to basic services. There is a need for more representation of social heterogeneity, especially in country-level studies. The lack of such representation could partly explain why a large share of the literature offers no explicit and quantified conclusion on the effect of climate change on inequality. Fourth, we note that only a very small number of studies focus on the Middle-East and Eastern Europe. There is thus a clear need for future research to examine the question of the impact of climate change on economic inequality in these regions. Fifth, further systematic studies would also be needed to complement our understanding on the role of adaptation actions and policies in their possibility to alter the effect of climate change impacts on inequality. The same biophysical impacts affect social groups differently depending on their adaptive capacities, and on the implementation of adaptation. It is important to account for how adaptation may mitigate the effects of climate change on inequality, or on the contrary in which conditions adaptation would exacerbate them, as was documented in cases of maladaptation [49]. Finally, there is a need to link to other areas of economics and social sciences studying inequality, as climate-related inequality interacts with other pre-existing inequalities. This is key to be able to design efficient and equitable policies. The research avenues outlined above could pave the way to a more robust and quantitative understanding of the interactions between climate change and global inequality. As such, it would help to tackle these two challenges together in an integrated and targeted way, and provide a basis to design policies that ensure climate justice for all.

## Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at the following URL/DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10894327.

## Acknowledgments

This work received funding from the PRISMA project of the European Union's Horizon Europe programme under Grant Agreement 101081604.

## Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

# Appendix. Extended data

## A.1. Queries

The Scopus query is presented below (also summarised on figure 1):

TITLE (climat* OR warming OR temperature OR heat* OR "sea level" OR "coastal erosion" OR extreme OR disast* OR hurricane OR cyclone OR storm OR drought OR flood* OR inundation OR *fire OR precipitation OR rain* OR snow* AND (inequalit* OR distribut* OR unequal* OR convergence OR *econom* OR gdp OR "gross domestic product" OR income OR (household W/2 consumption) OR expenditure OR wealth OR poverty OR impact))

AND

ABS (climat* OR warming OR temperature OR heat* AND (inequalit* OR distribut* OR unequal* OR convergence) AND ((household W/2 consumption) OR income OR expenditure OR wealth OR gdp OR "gross domestic product" OR (economic W/1 equalit*) OR (economic W/1 damage)))

The following analogous query was run on Web of Science in February 2023 also:

TI = (climat* OR warming OR temperature OR heat* OR "sea level" OR "coastal erosion" OR extreme OR disast* OR hurricane OR cyclone OR storm OR drought OR flood* OR inundation OR *fire OR precipitation OR rain* OR snow*)

AND
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Year of publication and research area. (a) Number of papers in the corpus according to the year of publication, (b) Number of papers in the corpus by area of research (following Web of Science categories).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 8.** Geographical distribution of the papers identified in the systematic review. This map excludes global studies.</figcaption></figure>

TI = (inequalit* OR distribut*
OR unequal* OR convergence
OR *econom* OR gdp OR “gross
domestic product” OR income OR
(household NEAR/2 consumption)
OR expenditure OR wealth OR
poverty OR impact) AND AB =
(climat* OR warming OR temperat-
ure OR heat*) AND AB = (inequalit*
OR distribut* OR unequal* OR con-
vergence) AND AB = ((household
NEAR/2 consumption) OR income
OR expenditure OR wealth OR gdp
OR “gross domestic product” OR
(economic NEAR/1 inequalit*) OR
(economic NEAR/1 damage))

## A.2. Bibliometric information

Figure 7 presents the years of publication and the areas of research of the papers of the corpus.

## A.3. Geographical distribution of the corpus

Figure 8 presents the geographical distribution of the country and multi-country studies of the corpus. We note that very few papers focus on the Middle-East and Eastern Europe.

## A.4. Descriptive statistics

Figure 9 presents the scope, granularity, method, physical impact, channel of impact and type of inequality in the papers of the corpus.

## A.5. Summary results

Figure 10 gives the characteristics of the studies that conclude that climate change increases economic inequalities or that the poor are more impacted, and those of the studies that conclude that climate change decreases inequalities or that the rich are more impacted.

Figure 11 gives the the evolution of the domín-
ant effect of climate change on economic inequal-
ity according to the year of publication. The type of
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

conclusion has become diverse over time, as the num-
ber of published papers has increased. Nevertheless,
the conclusion that climate change has a regressive
effect on economic inequality has remained domin-
ant across time, and even more so if one excludes the
papers that provide no conclusion.

A.6. Results for subsets of studies

Figures 12–16 give the detailed results of the impact of climate change on inequalities for four subsets of studies, namely backward-looking studies, forward-looking studies, studies focusing on inequalities within countries, and studies focusing on inequalities
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 13.** Impact of climate change on economic inequality according to geographical scope.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 14.** Impact of climate change on economic inequality according to sectors. The number between brackets indicates the total number of occurrences for a given category. The sum of those numbers may differ from the total number of papers (127), as some papers may fall into several subcategories.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 15.** Impact of climate change on economic inequality according to types of inequality. The number between brackets indicates the total number of occurrences for a given category. The sum of those numbers may differ from the total number of papers (127), as some papers may fall into several subcategories.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 16.** Impact of climate change on economic inequality according to assessment methods. The number between brackets indicates the total number of occurrences for a given category. The sum of those numbers may differ from the total number of papers (127), as some papers may fall into several subcategories.</figcaption></figure>
between countries. Note that some papers examine both within and between country inequalities at the global level (10 papers), 7 of which conclude that climate change increases inequality or that the poor are more impacted, while 2 papers provide no conclusion, and one paper concludes that inequality increases or that the rich are more impacted.

The results for studies based on historical data (backward-looking) and for studies showing prospective scenarios (forward-looking) are very similar to those of the whole corpus (figure 12). There is a larger share of progressive effect results (i.e. decreasing inequalities) in backward-looking studies than in forward-looking studies. However, evidence still points to the fact that climate change has increased economic inequalities in the past or that the poor have been more impacted (68% of all backward-looking studies, 79% of backward-looking studies which provide a conclusion), and that climate change is expected to increase economic inequalities in the future or that the poor will be more impacted (68% of all forward-looking studies, 87% of forward-looking studies which provide a conclusion).

### A.7. Corpus

1. Adjei-Mensah K and Kusimi J M 2020 Dwindling water supply and its socio-economic impact in Sekyere Kumawu district in Ashanti region of Ghana: public opinion on the role of climate change *GeoJournal* 85 1355–72

2. Adom P K and Amoani S 2021 The role of climate adaptation readiness in economic growth and climate change relationship: an analysis of the output/income and productivity/institution channels *J. Environ. Manage.* 293 112923

3. Aggarwal R 2021 Impacts of climate shocks on household consumption and inequality in India *Environ. Dev. Econ.* 26 488–511

4. Alam M M, Taufique K M R and Sayal A 2017 Do climate changes lead to income inequality? empirical study on the farming community in Malaysia *Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev.* 16 43

5. Alamgir M, Furuya J, Kobayashi S, Binte M and Salam M 2018 Farmers’ net income distribution and regional vulnerability to climate change: an empirical study of Bangladesh *Climate* 6 65

6. Alamgir M S, Furuya J, Kobayashi S, Mostafiz R B and Ahmed M R 2021 Farm income, inequality and poverty among farm families of a flood-prone area in Bangladesh: climate change vulnerability assessment *GeoJournal* 86 2861–85

7. Alizadeh M R et al 2022 Increasing heat stress inequality in a warming climate *Earth's Future* 10 e2021EF002488

8. Angelsen A and Dokken T 2018 Climate exposure, vulnerability and environmental reliance: a cross-section analysis of structural and stochastic poverty *Environ. Dev. Econ.* 23 257–78

9. Arndt C, Asante F and Thurlow J 2015 Implications of climate change for Ghana’s economy *Sustainability* 7 7214–31

10. Arreyndip N A 2021 African continental free trade area (AfCFTA): projected economic impact assessment under future warming in CMIP6 *Environ. Res. Lett.* 16 094046

11. Azzarri C and Signorelli S 2020 Climate and poverty in Africa South of the Sahara *World Dev.* 125 104691

12. Baarsch F et al 2020 The impact of climate change on incomes and convergence in Africa *World Dev.* 126 104699

13. Barbier E B and Hochard J P 2018 The impacts of climate change on the poor in disadvantaged regions *Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy* 12 26–47

14. Bayudan-Dacuycuy C and Baje I K 2019 When it rains, it pours? analyzing the rainfall shocks–poverty nexus in the Philippines *Soc. Indic. Res.* 145 67–93

15. Behrer A P, Park R J, Wagner G, Golja C M and Keith D W 2021 Heat has larger impacts on labor in poorer areas *Environ. Res. Commun.* 3 095001

16. Borgomeo E et al 2018 The distributional and multi-sectoral impacts of rainfall shocks: evidence from computable general equilibrium modelling for the Awash Basin, Ethiopia *Ecol. Econ.* 146 621–32

17. Breisinger C et al 2013 Economic impacts of climate change in Syria *Clim. Change Econ.* 04 1350002

18. Burke M, Hsiang S M and Miguel E 2015 Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production *Nature* 527 235–9

19. Callahan C W and Mankin J S 2022 Globally unequal effect of extreme heat on economic growth *Sci. Adv.* 8 eadd3726

20. Callahan C W and Mankin J S 2022 National attribution of historical climate damages *Clim. Change* 172 40

21. Calzadilla A, Rehdanz K and Tol R S 2011 Trade liberalization and climate change: a computable general equilibrium analysis of the impacts on global agriculture *Water* 3 526–50

22. Calzadilla A et al 2013 Climate change impacts on global agriculture *Clim. Change* 120 357–74

23. Cammarano D et al 2020 Integrated assessment of climate change impacts on crop productivity and income of commercial maize farms in northeast South Africa *Food Secur.* 12 659–78

24. Cappelli F, Costantini V and Consoli D 2021 The trap of climate change-induced “natural” disasters and inequality *Glob. Environ. Change* 70 102329

25. Chakraborty T, Hsu A, Manya D and Sheriff G 2019 Disproportionately higher exposure to urban heat in lower-income neighborhoods: a multi-city perspective *Environ. Res. Lett.* 14 105003

26. Chen Y, Liu A and Cheng X 2020 Quantifying economic impacts of climate change under nine future emission scenarios within CMIP6 *Sci. Total Environ.* 703 134950

27. Chen J et al 2020 Global socioeconomic exposure of heat extremes under climate change *J. Clean. Prod.* 277 123275

28. Ciscar J-C, Rising J, Kopp R E and Feyen L 2019 Assessing future climate change impacts in the EU and the USA: insights and lessons from two continental-scale projects* *Environ. Res. Lett.* 14 084010

29. Cororaton C, Tiongco M, Inocencio A, Siriban-Manalang A B and Lamberte A 2018 Climate change, food availability and poverty: the case of Philippine rice *DLSU Bus. Econ. Rev.* 28 70–83

30. De Cian E, Hof A F, Marangoni G, Tavoni M and Vuuren D P v 2016 Alleviating inequality in climate policy costs: an integrated perspective on mitigation, damage and adaptation *Environ. Res. Lett.* 11 074015

31. DePaula G 2020 The distributional effect of climate change on agriculture: evidence from a Ricardian quantile analysis of Brazilian census data *J. Environ. Econ. Manage.* 104 102378

32. De Silva M and Kawasaki A 2018 Socioeconomic vulnerability to disaster risk: a case study of flood and drought impact in a rural Sri Lankan community *Ecol. Econ.* 152 131–40

33. Diffenbaugh N S and Burke M 2019 Global warming has increased global economic inequality *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.* 116 9808–13

34. Dottori F et al 2018 Increased human and economic losses from river flooding with anthropogenic warming *Nat. Clim. Change* 8 781–6

35. Eboli F, Parrado R and Roson R 2010 Climate-change feedback on economic growth: explorations with a
dynamic general equilibrium model *Environ. Dev. Econ.* 15 515–33

36. Elsler L G *et al* 2021 Social relationship dynamics mediate climate impacts on income inequality: evidence from the Mexican Humboldt squid fishery *Reg. Environ. Change 21* 35

37. Eskander S M S U and Fankhauser S 2022 Income diversification and income inequality: household responses to the 2013 floods in Pakistan *Sustainability* 14 453

38. Estrada F and Botzen W J W 2021 Economic impacts and risks of climate change under failure and success of the Paris agreement *Ann. New York Acad. Sci.* 1504 95–115

39. Fant C *et al* 2020 Climate change impacts and costs to U.S. electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure *Energy* 195 116899

40. Feng L, Liu W, Zhao Z and Wang Y 2023 Rainfall fluctuations and rural poverty: evidence from Chinese county level data *Econ. Trans. Inst. Change* 31 633–56

41. Ferreira Filho J B d S and Moraes G I d 2015 Climate change, agriculture and economic effects on different regions of Brazil *Environ. Dev. Econ.* 20 37–56

42. Furuya J, Kobayashi S and Yamauchi K 2014 Impacts of climate change on rice market and production capacity in the lower mekong basin *Paddy Water Environ.* 12 255–74

43. Gholizadeh H, Zoghipour M H, Torshizi M, Nazari M R and Moradkhani N 2021 Gone with the wind: impact of soil-dust storms on farm income *Ecol. Econ.* 188 107133

44. Gohar A A and Cashman A 2018 Exploring the economic impacts of adapting abstraction policies in response to climate change and variability: application for small island developing states *Clim. Dev.* 10 687–700

45. Gourevitch J D, Diehl R M, Wemple B C and Ricketts T H 2022 Inequities in the distribution of flood risk under floodplain restoration and climate change scenarios *People Nat.* 4 415–27

46. Gul F, Jan D and Ashfaq M 2019 Assessing the socio-economic impact of climate change on wheat production in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* 26 6576–85

47. Haddad E A, Farajalla N, Camargo M, Lopes R L and Vieira F V 2014 Climate change in Lebanon: higher-order regional impacts from agriculture *Region* 1 9–24

48. Hallegatte S and Rozenberg J 2017 Climate change through a poverty lens *Nat. Clim. Change* 7 250–6

49. Harrington L J *et al* 2016 Poorest countries experience earlier anthropogenic emergence of daily temperature extremes *Environ. Res. Lett.* 11 055007

50. He C *et al* 2022 The inequality labor loss risk from future urban warming and adaptation strategies *Nat. Commun.* 13 3847

51. Hertel T W, Burke M B and Lobell D B 2010 The poverty implications of climate-induced crop yield changes by 2030 *Glob. Environ. Change* 20 577–85

52. Hounnou F E, Dedehouanou H, Zannou A, Agbahey J and Biaou G 2019 Economy-wide effects of climate change in Benin: an applied general equilibrium analysis *Sustainability* 11 6569

53. Hsiang S *et al* 2017 Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States *Science* 356 1362–9

54. Iannella M, De Simone W, D'Alessandro P and Biondi M 2021 Climate change favours connectivity between virus-bearing pest and rice cultivations in sub-Saharan Africa, depressing local economies *PeerJ* 9 e12387

55. Ibarrarán M E, Ruth M, Ahmad S and London M 2009 Climate change and natural disasters: macroeconomic performance and distributional impacts *Environ. Dev. Sustain.* 11 549–69

56. Islam M M, Nipa T A, Islam M S, Hasan M and Khan M I 2022 Economic and non-economic loss and damage to climate change: evidence from a developing country shrimp farms to cyclone Bulbul *Fish. Aquat. Sci.* 25 214–30

57. Jacoby H G, Rabassa M and Skoufias E 2015 Distributional implications of climate change in rural India: a general equilibrium approach *Am. J. Agric. Econ.* 97 1135–56

58. Juana J S, Mangadi K T and Strzepek K M 2012 The socio-economic impacts of climate change on water resources in South Africa *Water Int.* 37 265–78

59. Kilgarriff P, McDermott T K J, Vega A, Morrissey K and O'Donoghue C 2019 The impact of flooding disruption on the spatial distribution of commuter's income *J. Environ. Econ. Policy* 8 48–64

60. Kjellstrom T 2016 Impact of climate conditions on occupational health and related economic losses: a new feature of global and urban health in the context of climate change *Asia Pac. J. Public Health* 28 28S–37S

61. Kotz M, Levermann A and Wenz L 2022 The effect of rainfall changes on economic production *Nature* 601 223–7

62. Lemoine D and Kapnick S 2016 A top-down approach to projecting market impacts of climate change *Nat. Clim. Change* 6 51–55

63. Letta M, Montalbano P and Tol R S 2018 Temperature shocks, short-term growth and poverty thresholds: evidence from rural Tanzania *World Dev.* 112 13–32

64. Li Q, Sun P, Li B and Mohiuddin M 2022 Impact of climate change on rural poverty vulnerability from an income source perspective: a study based on CHIPS2013 and county-level temperature data in China *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* 19 3328

65. Lim W H *et al* 2018 Long-term changes in global socioeconomic benefits of flood defenses and residual risk based on CMIP5 climate models *Earth's Future* 6 938–54

66. Liu Y and Chen J 2021 Future global socioeconomic risk to droughts based on estimates of hazard, exposure and vulnerability in a changing climate *Sci. Total Environ.* 751 142159

67. Liu Y *et al* 2020 Climate change effects on agricultural production: the regional and sectoral economic consequences in China *Earth's Future* 8 e2020EF001617

68. Liu Y and Chen J 2021 Socioeconomic risk of droughts under a 2.0°C warmer climate: assessment of population and GDP exposures to droughts in China *Int. J. Climatol.* 41 E380–91

69. Lopez-Feldman A 2013 Climate change, agriculture and poverty: a household level analysis for rural Mexico *Econ. Bull.* 33 1126–39

70. Manuel L, Chiziane O, Mandhlate G, Hartley F and Tostão E 2021 Impact of climate change on the agriculture sector and household welfare in Mozambique: an analysis based on a dynamic computable general equilibrium model *Clim. Change* 167 6

71. Melvin A M *et al* 2017 Climate change damages to Alaska public infrastructure and the economics of proactive adaptation *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.* 114 E122–31

72. Mendelsohn R, Dinar A and Williams L 2006 The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries *Environ. Dev. Econ.* 11 159–78

73. Mendelsohn R, Basist A, Kurukulasuriya P and Dinar A 2007 Climate and rural income *Clim. Change* 81 101–18

74. Mideksa T K 2010 Economic and distributional impacts of climate change: the case of Ethiopia *Glob. Environ. Change* 20 278–86

75. Moore F C and Diaz D B 2015 Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy *Nat. Clim. Change* 5 127–31

76. Mulwa R, Rao K, Gummadi S and Kilavi M 2016 Impacts of climate change on agricultural household welfare in Kenya *Clim. Res.* 67 87–97

77. Nazareth M S, Gurgel A C and da Cunha D A 2022 Economic effects of projected decrease in Brazilian agricultural productivity under climate change *GeoJournal* 87 957–70

78. Newell R G, Prest B C and Sexton S E 2021 The GDP-temperature relationship: implications for
climate change damages *J. Environ. Econ. Manage.*
108 102443

79. Ngepah N, Tchuinkam Djemo C R and Saba C S 2022
Forecasting the economic growth impacts of climate
change in South Africa in the 2030 and 2050 horizons
*Sustainability* **14** 8299

80. Ngepah N and Conselho Mwiinga R 2022 The impact of
climate change on gender inequality in the labour market: a
case study of South Africa *Sustainability* **14** 13131

81. Ogbide-Osaretin E N, Orhewere B, Ebhote O, Akhor S O and Imide I O 2022 Climate change, poverty and income inequality linkage: empirical evidence from Nigeria *Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy* **12** 332–41

82. Osberghaus D and Abeling T 2022 Heat vulnerability and
adaptation of low-income households in Germany *Glob.
Environ. Change* **72** 102446

83. Paglialunga E, Coveri A and Zanfei A 2022 Climate change and within-country inequality: new evidence from a global perspective *World Dev.* **159** 106030

84. Palagi E, Coronese M, Lamperti F and Roventini A 2022
Climate change and the nonlinear impact of precipitation
anomalies on income inequality *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.*
**119** e2203595119

85. Park J, Bangalore M, Hallegatte S and Sandhoefner E 2018
Households and heat stress: estimating the distributional
consequences of climate change *Environ. Dev. Econ.*
**23** 349–68

86. Pauw K, Thurlow J, Bachu M and Van Seventer D E 2011
The economic costs of extreme weather events: a
hydrometeorological CGE analysis for Malawi *Environ.
Dev. Econ.* **16** 177–98

87. Perez L P, Rodrigues-Filho S, Marengo J A, Santos D V and Mikosz L 2020 Climate change and disasters: analysis of the Brazilian regional inequality *Sustain. Debate* **11** 260–96

88. Ponce R D, Fernández F, Stehr A, Vásquez-Lavín F and Godoy-Faúndez A 2017 Distributional impacts of climate change on basin communities: an integrated modeling approach *Reg. Environ. Change* **17** 1811–21

89. Ponce R, Blanco M and Giupponi C 2014 The economic impacts of climate change on the Chilean agricultural sector. A non-linear agricultural supply model *Chil. J. Agri. Res.* **74** 404–12

90. Porio E 2014 Climate change vulnerability and adaptation
in metro Manila *Asian J. Soc. Sci.* **42** 75–102

91. Pretis F, Schwarz M, Tang K, Haustein K and Allen M R
2018 Uncertain impacts on economic growth when
stabilizing global temperatures at 1.5°C or 2°C warming
*Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A* **376** 20160460

92. Quiroga S and Suárez C 2016 Climate change and drought effects on rural income distribution in the Mediterranean: a case study for Spain *Nat. Haz. Earth Syst. Sci.* **16** 1369–85

93. Reid H, Sahlén L, Stage J and MacGregor J 2008 Climate change impacts on Namibia's natural resources and economy *Clim. Policy* **8** 452–66

94. Rezai A, Taylor L and Foley D 2018 Economic growth, income distribution and climate change *Ecol. Econ.* **146** 164–72

95. Roson R and Sartori M 2016 Estimation of climate change
damage functions for 140 regions in the GTAP 9 database *J.
Glob. Econ. Anal.* **1** 78–115

96. Saeed W et al 2022 The poverty impacts of labor heat stress in West Africa under a warming climate *Earth's Future* **10** e2022EF002777

97. Santos C V d, Oliveira A F d and Ferreira Filho J B d S 2022
Potential impacts of climate change on agriculture and the
economy in different regions of Brazil *Rev. Econ. Soc. Rural
60* e220611

98. Sassi M and Cardaci A 2013 Impact of rainfall pattern on
cereal market and food security in Sudan: stochastic
approach and CGE model *Food Policy* **43** 321–31

99. Sawadogo B 2022 Drought impacts on the crop sector and
adaptation options in Burkina Faso: a gender-focused

computable general equilibrium analysis *Sustainability*
**14** 15637

100. Schmidt E, Gilbert R, Holtemeyer B and Mahrt K 2021
Poverty analysis in the lowlands of Papua New Guinea
underscores climate vulnerability and need for income
flexibility* *Aust. J. Agri. Resour. Econ.* **65** 171–91

101. Sequeira T N, Santos M S and Magalhães M 2018 Climate change and economic growth: a heterogeneous panel data approach *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **25** 22725–35

102. Silva J A, Matyas C J and Cunguara B 2015 Regional inequality and polarization in the context of concurrent extreme weather and economic shocks *Appl. Geogr.* **61** 105–16

103. Smiley K T et al 2022 Social inequalities in climate change-attributed impacts of Hurricane Harvey *Nat. Commun.* **13** 3418

104. Stevanović M et al 2016 The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare *Sci. Adv.* **2** e1501452

105. Suh D and Pomeroy R 2020 Projected economic impact of
climate change on marine capture fisheries in the
Philippines *Front. Mar. Sci.* **7** 232

106. Sun Y, Xu C, Zhang H and Wang Z 2017 Migration in response to climate change and its impact in China *Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manage.* **9** 352–73

107. Taconet N, Méjean A and Guivarch C 2020 Influence of
climate change impacts and mitigation costs on inequality
between countries *Clim. Change* **160** 15–34

108. Tebaldi E and Beaudin L 2016 Climate change and economic growth in Brazil *Appl. Econ. Lett.* **23** 377–81

109. Tibesigwa B, Visser M and Turpie J 2015 The impact of
climate change on net revenue and food adequacy of
subsistence farming households in South Africa *Environ.
Dev. Econ.* **20** 327–53

110. Tol R S 2021 The distributional impact of climate change
*Ann. New York Acad. Sci.* **1504** 63–75

111. Tol R S 2002 Estimates of the damage costs of climate change - part II. Dynamic estimates *Environ. Resour. Econ.* **21** 135–60

112. Tol R S, Downing T E, Kuik O J and Smith J B 2004
Distributional aspects of climate change impacts *Glob.
Environ. Change* **14** 259–72

113. Tol R S J 2018 The economic impacts of climate change
*Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy* **12** 4–25

114. Tol R S J 2010 The economic impact of climate change: the economic impact of climate change *Perspekt. Wirtschaft.* **11** 13–37

115. Urama N E, Eboh E C and Onyekuru A 2019 Impact of extreme climate events on poverty in Nigeria: a case of the 2012 flood *Clim. Dev.* **11** 27–34

116. Wang T, Teng F and Zhang X 2020 Assessing global and national economic losses from climate change: a study based on CGEM-IAM in China *Clim. Change Econ.* **11** 2041003

117. Wibbenmeyer M and Robertson M 2022 The distributional incidence of wildfire hazard in the western United States *Environ. Res. Lett.* **17** 064031

118. Wilts R, Latka C and Britz W 2021 Who is most vulnerable to climate change induced yield changes? a dynamic long run household analysis in lower income countries *Clim. Risk Manage.* **33** 100330

119. Winters P, Murgai R, Sadoulet E, de Janvry* A and Frisvold G 1998 Economic and welfare impacts of climate change on developing countries *Environ. Resour. Econ.* **12** 1–24

120. Wossen T, Berger T, Haile M G and Troost C 2018 Impacts of climate variability and food price volatility on household income and food security of farm households in East and West Africa *Agric. Syst.* **163** 7–15

121. Wunder S, Noack F and Angelsen A 2018 Climate, crops and forests: a pan-tropical analysis of household income generation *Environ. Dev. Econ.* **23** 279–97
122. Yin J *et al* 2023 Future socio-ecosystem productivity threatened by compound drought-heatwave events *Nat. Sustain.* **6** 259–72

123. Yuan X-C, Yang Z, Wei Y-M and Wang B 2020 The economic impacts of global warming on Chinese cities *Clim. Change Econ.* **11** 2050007

124. Yuan B, Cui Y, Wang X and Xu H 2022 Study on the heterogeneity of China's agricultural economic growth in the context of temperature shocks *Sci. Rep.* **12** 10511

125. Zhang T *et al* 2022 Increased wheat price spikes and larger economic inequality with 2°C global warming *One Earth* **5** 907–16

126. Zhou L and Turvey C G 2015 Climate risk, income dynamics and nutrition intake in rural China *China Agric. Econ. Rev.* **7** 197–220

127. Zidouemba P R 2017 Economy-wide implications of climate change in Burkina Faso *Econ. Bull.* **37** 2797–808

ORCID iDs

Aurélie Méjean https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2859-3613

Céline Guivarch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9405-256X

Bjoern Soergel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-7081

References

[1] Firebaugh G 2015 Global income inequality *Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable and Linkable Resource* 1st edn, ed R A Scott and S M Koslyn (Wiley)

[2] Milanović B 2018 *Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization* (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press)

[3] Alvaredo F, Chancel L, Piketty T, Saez E and Zucman G 2018 World inequality report 2018 *The World Inequality Lab* (available at: http://wir2018.wid.world)

[4] Piketty T, Saez E and Zucman G 2018 Distributional national accounts: methods and estimates for the United States* Q. J. Econ. **133** 553–609

[5] Taconet N, Méjean A and Guivarch C 2020 Influence of climate change impacts and mitigation costs on inequality between countries *Clim. Change* **160** 15–34

[6] Calvin K *et al* 2023 IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)] IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland *Technical Report* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

[7] Piontek F, Drouet L, Emmerling J, Kompas T, Méjean A, Otto C, Rising J, Soergel B, Taconet N and Tavoni M 2021 From biophysical to economic impacts of climate change: an integrated perspective *Nat. Clim. Change* **11** 563–72

[8] Richard S J T, Downing T E, Kuik O J and Smith J B 2004 Distributional aspects of climate change impacts *Glob. Environ. Change* **14** 259–72

[9] Tol R S J 2018 The economic impacts of climate change *Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy* **12** 4–25

[10] Paglialunga E, Coveri A and Zanfei A 2022 Climate change and within-country inequality: new evidence from a global perspective *World Dev.* **159** 106030

[11] Hallegatte S, Vogt-Schilb A, Rozenberg J, Bangalore M and Beaudet C 2020 From poverty to disaster and back: a review of the literature *Econ. Disas. Clim. Change* **4** 223–47

[12] Fan Y, Shi X, Li X and Feng X 2022 Livelihood resilience of vulnerable groups in the face of climate change: a

systematic review and meta-analysis *Environ. Dev.*
**44** 100777

[13] Coggins S, Berrang-Ford L, Hyams K, Satyal P, Ford J, Paavola J, Arotoma-Rojas I and Harper S 2021 Empirical assessment of equity and justice in climate adaptation literature: a systematic map *Environ. Res. Lett.*
**16** 073003

[14] Tranfield D, Denyer D and Smart P 2003 Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review *Br. J. Manage.* **14** 207–22

[15] Méjean A, Collins-Sowah P, Guivarch C, Piontek F, Soergel B and Taconet N 2023 Climate change impacts increase economic inequality: evidence from a systematic literature review *Zenodo* (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10894327)

[16] Budolfson M *et al* 2021 Climate action with revenue recycling has benefits for poverty, inequality and well-being *Nat. Clim. Change* **11** 1111–6

[17] Irina Dorband I I, Jakob M, Kalkuhl M and Christoph Steckel J C 2019 Poverty and distributional effects of carbon pricing in low- and middle-income countries -a global comparative analysis *World Dev.* **115** 246–57

[18] Fragkos P, Fragkiadakis K, Sovacool B, Paroussos L, Vrontisi Z and Charalampidis I 2021 Equity implications of climate policy: assessing the social and distributional impacts of emission reduction targets in the European Union *Energy* **237** 121591

[19] Pleninger R 2022 Impact of natural disasters on the income distribution *World Dev.* **157** 105936

[20] Karim A and Noy I 2016 Poverty and natural disasters - a qualitative survey of the empirical literature *Singap. Econ. Rev.* **61** 1640001

[21] Field C B *et al* (ed) 2014 Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (Cambridge University Press)

[22] Crow B, Zlatunich N and Fulfrost B 2009 Mapping global inequalities: beyond income inequality to multi-dimensional inequalities *J. Int. Dev.* **21** 1051–65

[23] Stiglitz J, Sen A, and Fitoussi J-P 2009 Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress *Technical Report* Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress

[24] Decancq K, Fleurbaey M and Schokkaert E 2015 Inequality, income and well-being *Hand Book of Income Distribution* vol 2 (Elsevier) pp 67–140

[25] Olsson L *et al* (eds) 2014 Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (Cambridge University Press)

[26] Killewald A, Pfeffer F T and Schachner J N 2017 Wealth inequality and accumulation *Annu. Rev. Soc.*
**43** 379–404

[27] Ibarrarán M E, Ruth M, Ahmad S and London M 2009 Climate change and natural disasters: macroeconomic performance and distributional impacts *Environ. Dev. Sustain.* **11** 549–69

[28] De Silva M M G T and Kawasaki A 2018 Socioeconomic vulnerability to disaster risk: a case study of flood and drought impact in a rural Sri Lankan community *Ecol. Econ.* **152** 131–40

[29] Letta M, Montalbano P and Tol R S J 2018 Temperature shocks, short-term growth and poverty thresholds: Evidence from rural Tanzania *World Dev.* **112** 13–32

[30] Dennig F, Budolfson M B, Fleurbaey M, Siebert A and Socolow R H 2015 Inequality, climate impacts on the future poor and carbon prices *Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.* p 201513967

[31] Peñasco C, Díaz Anadón L and Verdolini E 2021 Systematic review of the outcomes and trade-offs of ten types of
decarbonization policy instruments *Nat. Clim. Change* 11 257–65

[32] Monirul Islam M M, Akter Nipa T A, Sofiqul Islam Md, Hasan M and Islam Khan M I 2022 Economic and non-economic loss and damage to climate change: evidence from a developing country shrimp farms to cyclone Bulbul *Fish. Aquat. Sci.* 25 214–30

[33] Borgomeo E, Vadheim B, Woldeyes F B, Alamirew T, Tamru S, Charles K J, Kebede S and Walker O 2018 The distributional and multi-sectoral impacts of rainfall shocks: evidence from computable general equilibrium modelling for the Awash Basin, Ethiopia *Ecol. Econ.* 146 621–32

[34] Wibbenmeyer M and Robertson M 2022 The distributional incidence of wildfire hazard in the western United States *Environ. Res. Lett.* 17 064031

[35] Kotz M, Levermann A and Wenz L 2022 The effect of rainfall changes on economic production *Nature* 601 223–7

[36] Eskander S M S U and Fankhauser S 2022 Income diversification and income inequality: household responses to the 2013 floods in Pakistan *Sustainability* 14 453

[37] Elsler L G, Haight Frawley T, Britten G L, Crowder L B, DuBois T C, Radosavljevic S, Gilly W F, Crépin A-S and Schlüter M 2021 Social relationship dynamics mediate climate impacts on income inequality: evidence from the Mexican Humboldt squid fishery *Reg. Environ. Change* 21 35

[38] Mulwa R, Rao K P C, Gummadi S and Kilavi M 2016 Impacts of climate change on agricultural household welfare in Kenya *Clim. Res.* 67 87–97

[39] Ponce R, Blanco M and Giupponi C 2014 The economic impacts of climate change on the Chilean agricultural sector. A non-linear agricultural supply model *Chil. J. Agric. Res.* 74 404–12

[40] Rélouendé Zidouemba P 2017 Economy-wide implications of climate change in Burkina Faso *Econ. Bull.* 37 2797–808

[41] Zhang T *et al* 2022 Increased wheat price spikes and larger economic inequality with 2°C global warming *One Earth* 5 907–16

[42] Hallegatte S and Rozenberg J 2017 Climate change through a poverty lens *Nat. Clim. Change* 7 250–6

[43] Little P D, Priscilla Stone M, Mogues T, Peter Castro A and Negatu W 2006 Moving in place: drought and poverty dynamics in South Wollo, Ethiopia *J. Dev. Stud.* 42 200–25

[44] Mogues T 2011 Shocks and asset dynamics in Ethiopia *Econ. Dev. Cult. Change* 60 91–120

[45] Cowell F A 2011 *Measuring Inequality* (LSE Perspectives in Economic Analysis) 3rd edn (Oxford University Press)

[46] Gabriel Palma J G 2011 Homogeneous Middles vs. Heterogeneous Tails and the end of the ‘Inverted-U’: it’s all about the share of the rich: it’s all about the share of the rich *Dev. Change* 42 87–153

[47] Theil H 1967 *Economics and Information Theory* vol 7 (North-Holland)

[48] Berrang-Ford L, Sietsma A J, Callaghan M, Minx J C, Scheelbeek P F D, Haddaway N R, Haines A and Dangour A D 2021 Systematic mapping of global research on climate and health: a machine learning review *Lancet Planet. Health* 5 e514–25

[49] Lisa E Schipper F 2020 Maladaptation: when adaptation to climate change goes very wrong *One Earth* 3 409–14