Introduction

Climatic conditions across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have significant implications for agriculture, food security, and the economic livelihoods of about 70% of the region’s population [1,2]. Climate refers to the average weather conditions in a specific location over a long period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years [3]. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) uses a 30-year reference period to establish climatic averages. According to the Köppen Climate Classification, sub-Saharan Africa is predominantly characterised by equatorial climates, arid and semi-arid regions [4]. The climatic condition is increasingly being disrupted by climate change, with rising temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, frequent droughts, sea level rise and extreme heat in SSA [5,6]. These climatic changes also pose drastic challenges for sub-Saharan African populations, whose livelihoods, health, and well-being are closely tied to climate-sensitive sectors [7,8].

Among the populations most affected by climate change are informal outdoor workers in sub-Saharan Africa [9,10]. Informal outdoor workers are individuals engaged in income‑generating activities outside formal employment arrangements, often without social protection or occupational health and safety measures and are directly exposed to weather conditions such as solar radiation, humidity, and heat [11–13]. This group includes, but is not limited to, agricultural laborers, smallholder farmers, construction workers, street vendors, waste pickers, transport operators, and artisanal miners.

As climate change intensifies, rising temperatures and unpredictable weather reduce work capacity, disrupt daily work schedules, which may lead to income instability and economic losses among outdoor workers [10,14,15]. For instance, the 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change reported that heat exposure led to a record high loss of 512 billion potential labor hours in 2023, worth $835 billion in potential income losses globally [16]. Moreover, the prolonged exposure to harsh climatic conditions increases the risk of physical health problems, including heat-related illness and respiratory strain, and contributes to stress, anxiety, and declining mental well-being [7,11,17,18].

Beyond these climate-related health outcomes, the socio-economic context within which informal outdoor workers operate further shapes the extent of their vulnerability and capacity to respond [16]. Socioeconomic factors such as low-income levels and limited access to occupational health services influence outdoor workers’ capacity to cope with climate stressors [19]. These workers often labor without shade, cooling, or protective infrastructure, making them susceptible to heat stress, dehydration, and exhaustion as temperatures frequently rise, surpassing 35°C in cities like Accra and Nairobi [20,21]. Their livelihoods depend on daily earnings, yet erratic rainfall, floods, and droughts increasingly disrupt workdays and damage goods [22]. Without formal labor protections, savings, or access to social safety nets, these workers have limited capacity to adapt or recover, leaving them exposed to both health risks and long-term economic instability.

In this informal work context, it is likely that much of the adaptive response shifts to the individual rather than being supported structurally. A common pattern is the reliance on individual-level behavioural, attitudinal and cognitive adaptation strategies. These include wearing lightweight or breathable clothing, taking intermittent breaks, seeking shade where available, and increasing water intake to maintain hydration [23,24].

Despite growing evidence that climate change disproportionately affects informal outdoor workers’ health and work in sub-Saharan Africa, a scoping review to map the scope and nature of existing research remains unexplored. Some reviews have focused on outdoor workers broadly [10,11,14,15]. These studies have often grouped workers from both formal and informal outdoor occupational sectors together, overlooking the distinct nature of these work contexts [10,14,15]. This broad categorisation appears to limit understanding of sector-specific insights because informal outdoor workers, such as market vendors and street traders, operate under markedly different conditions compared to their formal outdoor counterparts. Formal outdoor workers, such as miners, police officers, traffic wardens, or construction workers, are often employed in formal organizations. Formal outdoor workers often have access to occupational safety measures, regulated work hours, and employer-provided health or social protections that may be absent in informal outdoor worker settings. The support they may receive from the formal employee may reduce the impacts of climate change on their work outcomes.

Consequently, the resources available to adapt to extreme heat events in developing countries (where informal employment is more common) differ markedly from those in more developed contexts. Hence, combining studies from both developed and developing country settings may limit understanding of how contextual differences shape outdoor workers’ vulnerability and adaptive responses.

Additionally, given that a large proportion of the population is engaged in informal outdoor work, it is essential to map the existing knowledge and adaptation practices within this group. Such synthesis is critical for identifying research gaps and guiding context-specific interventions that support climate resilience among informal outdoor workers.

The existing literature has mainly focused on the impact of climate change on occupational health among outdoor workers [10,11,15]. While this evidence is substantial, emerging findings suggest that climate change also influences other work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction and job insecurity [25–27]. From a theoretical perspective, the link between climate change and the mental wellbeing of workers in vulnerable industries can be understood through the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model [28,29]. This framework suggests that workers' wellbeing is shaped by the balance between job demands (aspects of work that require physical or psychological effort) and job resources (aspects that help meet their work goals and reduce job demands) [28]. Knowing what is available regarding other work outcomes, job demands, and resources affected by climate change among outdoor informal workers is also essential. A worker-centered scoping review is therefore imperative.

A scoping review was chosen because it aligns with the broad study’s aims of identifying and presenting the most current available information regarding the impacts of climate change on informal outdoor workers in SSA [30]. This approach helps summarise what is known, highlight areas needing further research, and determine whether a systematic review is warranted. In accordance with suggestions from Tricco et al. [30], this protocol was created to outline the purpose and methodology of the review. Publishing the protocol promotes transparency in the research process and helps prevent unnecessary duplication of work [31].

Methods

The review whose development is planned in this protocol will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline.The development and planning of the review and protocol is also guided by the JBI [The Joanna Briggs Institute] approach and the PCC [Population [or participants]/Concept/Context] framework [31,32]. These two complementary guidelines, which share several authors, address methods and reporting, respectively [31,32]. The review will be carried out in accordance with this protocol, and details of any changes to this protocol will be reported in the final manuscript. S2 File presents the PRISMA-P checklist for this protocol.

Study records

Data screening.

All retrieved studies’ bibliographic records will be imported into the Covidence Systematic Review Software, along with the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in S1(Table 1). Covidence will be used to remove duplicate records.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344943.t001

Two reviewers will pilot the screening procedure by independently screening the first 50 records at the title and abstract stage. Any records whose eligibility remains unclear after this stage will then be taken to full-text review during the screening phase. After establishing criteria, two independent reviewers will screen all remaining articles, with any disagreements resolved by the authors, CAB, ED, or YAB.

Discussion

This scoping review will systematically extract and synthesise outcomes associated with climate-related exposures among informal outdoor workers in SSA. To ensure alignment with review aims and conceptual clarity, the extracted data will be organised into four interconnected categories reflecting the worker-centred focus of this review. First, socioeconomic and work-related outcomes encompass changes in labour loss, job satisfaction, work interruptions, absenteeism, job insecurity and others. Second, mental health outcomes may capture conditions such as heat stress, heat strain, heat exhaustion, sleep disturbances, anxiety, psychological distress, burnout, occupational stress, post-traumatic stress symptoms, climate worry, eco-anxiety, and solastalgia. Third, physical health conditions will include acute and chronic bodily effects linked to climate exposure in occupational settings. Fourth, coping mechanisms will be extracted as adaptive behavioural and cognitive responses, such as adjusting work schedules, taking breaks, maintaining hydration, and using protective clothing. In addition to these predefined categories, any emergent outcomes that reflect worker-centred experiences or consequences of climate exposure will also be identified and extracted to ensure comprehensive mapping of the evidence. Synthesis of the extracted data will be primarily narrative and thematic.

A key strength of this review lies in its integration of climate change exposure with an organizational psychology theory, particularly the JD-R theory, to explain workers’ mental well-being. This perspective enables a more contextual understanding of how climate exposure intersects with job demands and resources in the informal outdoor work setting. Findings from this scoping review will be instrumental in shedding light on informal outdoor workers in SSA, a population that remains often underrepresented in occupational and climate–health research.

Additionally, this scoping review protocol adheres to the JBI methods guidelines and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines, ensuring a systematic, transparent, and reproducible approach to study identification, selection, and data extraction. The use of a clearly defined and replicable search strategy across multiple databases strengthens methodological rigor and enhances the reliability of the evidence mapping process. Moreover, this review will contribute to discussions on climate justice, ensuring that the vulnerabilities and needs of informal workers are not left out in the climate change adaptation strategies. Integrating climate adaptation measures into policies will be key to protecting informal outdoor workers from climate-induced economic and health shocks.

While this review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis, the researchers acknowledge certain limitations. The inclusion of only primary studies may exclude valuable insights from editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and other reports not based on primary data. Another limitation is that only English-language studies will be included, which excludes evidence published in other languages from the review. In addition, authors will not conduct methodological quality appraisals of the included studies, which represents a potential limitation common to all scoping reviews. As methodological quality will not be formally appraised, conclusions about the strength of evidence for specific outcomes will be made cautiously; the review will primarily map outcome domains and evidence patterns rather than infer causality or quantify effect sizes. However, by employing rigorous scoping review methods (JBI methods guidelines) and reporting using PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the authors aim to ensure a transparent and high-quality synthesis of the available evidence.

Findings will be shared through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and webinars targeting different audiences. This will help researchers, policymakers, and practitioners working on climate-related occupational health issues access and use the information. Also, presentations at local and international conferences and webinars will facilitate knowledge exchange with stakeholders.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the support of the Fox International Fellowship at the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University during the 2025–26 academic year. This fellowship provided an invaluable intellectual community and institutional resources. The authors thank independent librarian Thomas L. Mead for providing thoughtful feedback.