Systematic review examines AI applications to enhance gender inclusion and climate resilience in farming, suggesting innovative pathways for rural women.
Gender inequality is a long‐standing global issue that threatens both human rights and sustainable development. Rural women have a crucial role in the agricultural economy, shaping food systems. Despite the central role of women in agriculture, women often face systemic barriers to adopting agricultural technology innovations. Without a gender‐inclusive approach in the process of developing technologies, there is a risk of women being marginalized and inequalities being exacerbated. This study examines the application of artificial intelligence as a gender‐inclusive innovation in addressing climate change for women farmers. This research is qualitative in nature and a systematic review in terms of methodology. To obtain the desired scientific evidence, an electronic search was conducted based on relevant keywords in English‐language published sources in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria designed in this study and following the PRISMA checklist pathway, 20 articles were examined in detail. The findings indicate that AI functions (including access to climate and market information, advisory services, e‐learning, insurance, and credit tools) can enhance women's empowerment and climate resilience through four dimensions of inclusivity (access, affordability, agency, and contextual appropriateness). However, realizing this potential requires addressing infrastructural barriers, gender biases, the lack of gender‐disaggregated data, and institutional constraints, alongside gender‐responsive training and extension programs and supportive institutional arrangements. This study demonstrates that AI can contribute to sustainable development and gender equity only when it is designed and implemented within an inclusive innovation framework and a gender‐responsive institutional environment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frouzanfar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: