# Climate, conflict, and food security: a systematic review of household-level evidence (2020–2025)

## TL;DR

This review examines how climate and conflict crises affect household food security, showing that combined crises reduce consumption and dietary diversity.

## Contribution

The study provides a systematic synthesis of recent evidence on climate-conflict interactions and household food security.

## Key findings

- Most studies focus on climate or conflict alone, with few analyzing their combined effects.
- Climate and conflict crises are linked to reduced food consumption and greater coping burdens.
- Longitudinal and context-specific research is needed to understand resilience and support mechanisms.

## Abstract

Climate and conflict crises increasingly occur together, creating compounded risks for household food security. This review synthesizes evidence from 37 quantitative studies published 2020–2025 on how climate crises (such as drought, storms, or floods), violent conflict (such as war and institutional fragility), and their interactions affect household food security. Most studies examine either climate crises (51%) or conflict crises (38%), while only 11% analyze combined crises. Evidence is geographically concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa (65%) and relies largely on cross-sectional surveys (68%), limiting insight into longer-term trajectories. Climate crises are measured mainly using meteorological or remote-sensing datasets (42%) while conflict exposure relies predominantly on self-reported data (71%). Only a small number of studies integrate geocoded climate or political violence datasets with household surveys, and few studies estimate interaction or spillover effects. Food security measurement is also narrow, with most studies using access and utilization indicators such as the food consumption score (FCS) (43%), household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) (35%), or household dietary diversity score (HDDS) (19%). Across studies, climate crises, conflict, and their concurrence are associated with reduced consumption, lower dietary diversity, and greater coping burdens. Impacts vary by household assets, agroecology, and institutional or humanitarian support, highlighting the need for longitudinal and spatially or contextually explicit evidence measuring productive resilience rather than only short-term consumption smoothing.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41043-026-01267-0.