ResearchPDF Available

Intersectional approaches to vulnerabilty reduction and resilience-building

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Intersectional approaches recognise that people will have different identities, needs, priorities and capacities which are not static, and will shift and change over time – affecting their ability to prepare for, cope with and respond to natural hazards and climate variability. This scoping paper explores intersectional approaches to vulnerability reduction and resilience-building, with the aim of informing institutional policy and operational practice.
Content may be subject to copyright.
resilience intel
www.braced.org
@bebraced
BRACED aims
to build the resilience
of up to 5 million
vulnerable people
against climate
extremes and disasters.
It does so through
15 projects working across
13 countries in East Africa,
the Sahel and Asia.
Intersectional approaches
to vulnerability reduction
and resilience-building
Daniel Chaplin, John Twigg and Emma Lovell
April 2019
Issue no. 12
Intersectional approaches recognise that people will have different identities,
needs, priorities and capacities which are not static, and will shift and change
over time – affecting their ability to prepare for, cope with and respond to
natural hazards and climate variability. This scoping paper explores intersectional
approaches to vulnerability reduction and resilience-building, with the aim
of informing institutional policy and operational practice.
Key messages
Intersectional approaches offer a way to
understand and respond to the ways different
factors, such as gender, age, disability and
ethnicity, intersect to shape individual identities,
thereby enhancing awareness of people’s needs,
interests, capacities and experiences. This in turn
will help in targeting policies and programmes.
Social groups are neither homogenous nor
static, and intersectional approaches recognise
this complexity by taking historical, social,
cultural and political contexts into account.
Intersectional approaches help us understand
the differentiated nature of vulnerability and
resilience. They also draw attention to the
social root causes of vulnerability, creating
a more nuanced picture.
Intersectional approaches help
to uncover dynamics that can shape
vulnerability and resilience. Intersectionality
emphasises the constant renegotiation
of power relations and how individuals
and groups can experience both power
and oppression simultaneously.
There is no single approach or defined
set of methods for seeking intersectional
understandings of vulnerability and resilience
relating to climate change and natural hazards.
Better collection and sharing of disaggregated
data and analyses relating to the circumstances
of vulnerable, marginalised and at-risk people
will also be a necessary input to guide resilience
policy and programming.
More research on intersectional approaches
to vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building is required – in particular qualitative
and contextual research to fully understand
how inequalities intersect and affect people
in different contexts.
resilience intel 12april 2019
2
1. introduction
1 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex and asexual or allied.
Natural hazards, including those
influenced by climate change, expose
existing inequalities. Those who face the
greatest levels of risk – and therefore
require the highest levels of resilience –
are often those who face the highest
inequality and barriers to accessing their
rights in everyday life. This often includes
people with disabilities, women, children,
older persons, minority and indigenous
groups, LGBTQIA,1 people with chronic
health conditions and others who are
contextually marginalised. These are
often brought together under the term
‘vulnerable or marginalised’. It can be
hard to avoid using this term but it is
crucial to note that these groups are
neither homogenous nor static.
Yet, climate and disaster risk reduction
research, policy and programming often
focus on vulnerable and marginalised
groups as a collective category, or on
specific groups of people separately.
The value of intersectional approaches
to vulnerability reduction and
resilience-building is that they take
complex contextual realities into account.
They recognise that groups of people
who experience marginalisation have
different identities, needs and priorities.
This scoping paper reviews academic
research and practice-focused literature
on the relevance and application of
intersectional thinking and approaches
to vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building, in order to inform institutional
policy and operational practice. Three
academic databases – Academic Search,
Scopus and Web of Science – were
used to identify relevant publications,
and grey literature was acquired from
the websites of development and
humanitarian organisations (see Annex 1
for a description of the methodology).
It accompanies a forthcoming BRACED
report with case studies in Kenya
and Nepal that look at intersectional
approaches to vulnerability reduction
and resilience-building in the case of
two different interesting inequalities.
2. social vulnerability and the need
for an intersectional approach
2.1. Defining intersectionality
Intersectionality is an approach to
understanding intra-group difference and
the existence of multiple axes of identity
that govern an individual’s or group’s
relationship to power (Osborne, 2015).
Recently, the concept and its application
have travelled across disciplines to
inform policy and practice in the fields of
development and humanitarian assistance.
Davis (2008: 68) defines intersectionality
as ‘the interaction between gender, race,
and other categories of social difference in
resilience intel 12april 2019
3
individual lives, social practices, institutional
arrangements, and cultural ideologies and
the outcomes of these interactions in terms
of power’. The concept of intersectionality
was introduced and popularised by the
critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw
(1989, 1991), who demonstrated that
legal frameworks that focus on either
gender or race fail to capture the distinct
experiences of marginalised black women
who simultaneously experience both
forms of discrimination.
Intersectional thinking challenges ‘one-
size-fits-all’ approaches – often perceived
to be the best way to quickly reach
most people in emergencies – to offer
a framework for better integrating social
heterogeneity, by exposing explicit and
implicit assumptions about predefined
social categories. It provides an analytical
tool for understanding and responding
to the ways in which individual factors or
identities intersect with others, to enable
more nuanced understanding of people’s
needs, interests, capacities and experiences.
Intersectionality uses a language that
reflects these complexities, helping prevent
the simplification of complex local realities.
Highlighting complexities is essential to
understanding the contexts of inequality
and marginalisation, and what is required
to build the resilience of individuals and
groups. Intersectionality acknowledges
that belonging to multiple disadvantaged
groups or identities compounds and
complicates experiences of oppression
in different contexts, which can entail
greater legal, social or cultural barriers.
For instance, marginalised groups may
2 Vertical inequality ranks everyone by some outcome (e.g. income, education, health).
One example is the standard Gini coefficient, which measures the dispersion of outcomes
within a given population. Horizontal inequality groups individuals according to some
characteristic (e.g. ethnicity, spatial location, wealth quintile), and inequality is determined
by the differences between these (e.g. average rural income compared to average urban
income) (Lenhardt and Samman, 2015).
have fewer resources and face greater
barriers to benefiting from social protection
or gaining a political voice, which will
affect their ability to cope with, prepare for
and respond to natural hazards (Osborne,
2015; ADCAP, 2018b; GFDRR and World
Bank, 2018). Intersectional approaches can
build comprehensive understandings of
how social dimensions of gender, identity,
power, governance, and institutions
intersect in different ecological, economic,
and climate contexts to produce webs of
distinct exposures, sensitivities and adaptive
capacities (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016).
The aim is to widen the perspective and
reflect on the factors that may be relevant
in a particular context (Kaijser and Kronsell,
2014). An intersectional approach can help
avoid generalising complex realities and will
always need to be adapted to the specific
context (Osborne, 2015; van Aelst and
Holvoet, 2016).
The concept of intersecting inequalities
goes beyond vertical and horizontal
inequalities2 (see Figure 1) to capture the
combination of multiple disadvantages
that reinforce the discrimination and
exclusion of certain individuals and
groups (Kabeer, 2010; Norton et al., 2014).
The most enduring forms of identity-
based inequalities are ascribed from
birth, such as race, caste and ethnicity,
and persist over generations (Norton et
al., 2014). Intersectional approaches to
vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building take historical, social, cultural
and political contexts into account and
have the potential to assist policies
and practices in being more equitable
and inclusive, helping prevent vulnerable
resilience intel 12april 2019
4
and marginalised individuals and groups
from being left behind. Taking an
intersectional approach thus helps provide
a more radical, transformational, gendered
and power-sensitive framing to the
issue at hand (Jordan, 2018).
2.2. The relevance of
intersectionality to understand
social vulnerability to disasters
and climate change
Although a disaster may be triggered
by a natural hazard, its effect on society
is grounded in the social system in
which it takes place. The root causes of
vulnerability to climate change and natural
hazards are constructed over many years
and are influenced by social relationships,
determined by a number of intersecting
factors, such as gender, ethnicity, class,
age and disability, coupled with situational
variables, such as where people live, their
health, household composition and size
and the resources available to them to
cope. For example, in a Humanity and
Inclusion study (Handicap International,
2015), 27% of persons with disabilities had
experienced secondary trauma as a result
of being psychologically, physically or
sexually abused after the disaster.
As such, natural hazards do not affect all
equally, and people will have different
experiences depending on the context
in which they live (Carson et al., 2013).
Therefore, it is important to draw
attention to the way social differences
and power differentials affect the nature
of vulnerability and resilience (Huynh and
Resurrección, 2014; Jordan, 2018). The
vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building discourse has historically been
dominated by natural scientific and
top-down technocratic approaches,
but there is increasing recognition of
these social dimensions (Djoudi et al.,
2016; Ravera et al., 2016a; Hackfort
and Burchardt, 2018).
Intersectional approaches are highly
relevant to the commitments to
inclusion made in international policy
agreements and agendas. Inclusion is
a central commitment of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) under the
‘leave no one behind’ agenda. SDG 10 calls
for reducing inequalities based on sex, age,
disability, race, class, ethnicity, religion
and opportunity (HelpAge International,
2018a; Twigg et al., 2018). Key to this is the
prioritisation and fast-tracking of actions
for those often exposed to intersecting
inequalities and most at risk of being
Figure 1: Concepts of inequality
Everyone ranked Group A Group B Group C
Group A
Group C
Vertical inequality Horizontal inequality Intersecting inequality
Group B
Source: Lenhardt and Samman (2015).
resilience intel 12april 2019
5
left behind (Samman and Stuart, 2017;
Norton et al., 2014; Paz Arauco et al., 2014).
Indeed, without addressing inequality,
it will not be possible to attain the SDGs
(Bhatkal et al., 2015).
The goal of the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction is to prevent
new and reduce existing disaster
risk through the implementation of
inclusive economic, structural, legal,
social, health, cultural, educational,
environmental, technological, political
and institutional measures that
prevent and reduce hazard exposure
and vulnerability to disaster, increase
preparedness for response and recovery,
and thus strengthen resilience(UNISDR,
2015). The Framework also calls for
disaster risk reduction practices that
are ‘inclusive and accessible in order
to be efficient and effective… [and to]
3 Often referred to as ‘essentialism’ – the notion that some core meaning or identity is
determinate and not subject to interpretation. For example, an essentialist view of female
vulnerability and victimisation might characterise women as marginalised victims of climate
change, given their inherent biological ‘natural’ characteristics (Hackfort and Burchardt, 2018).
engage with relevant stakeholders,
including women, children and
youth, persons with disabilities,
poor people, migrants, indigenous
peoples, volunteers, the community
of practitioners and older persons in the
design and implementation of policies,
plans and standards’ (ibid.). Similarly,
the 2015 Paris Agreement acknowledges
inclusion as key to action to address
climate change (UNFCCC, 2015).
Recent examples of practical guidance
on intersectional approaches include
the Accessibility, Attitude, Communication
and Participation (ACAP) framework
(van Ek and Schot, 2017) and the Age and
Disability Capacity Programme (ADCAP)
good practice guide on embedding the
inclusion of older people and people with
disabilities in humanitarian policy and
practice (ADCAP, 2018a). Some donors
Box 1: Benefits of intersectional approaches to resilience-building
Intersectional approaches appear to offer
a number of benefits to vulnerability
reduction and resilience-building policy
and practice, including:
Recognising the socially differentiated
nature of vulnerability and resilience;
Better integrating social heterogeneity,
inequalities and power into
considerations of vulnerability
and resilience;
Unveiling explicit and implicit
assumptions about categories and
avoiding the notion that some core
meaning or identity3 of vulnerable and
marginalised groups or individuals
determines their vulnerability;
Highlighting how categories are
changing and renegotiated under
stressors such as climate change;
Providing a more nuanced
understanding of gender by avoiding
simplistic gender dichotomies;
Yielding insights into people’s
experiences that non-intersectional
approaches may fail to reveal,
or even mask, by analysing
a single identity.
resilience intel 12april 2019
6
are also attempting to better understand
intersecting inequalities and how to
respond to these. For instance, the UK
Department for International Development
(DFID) Strategy for Disability Inclusive
Development 2018–2023 recognises that
‘People with disabilities face intersecting
and compounding forms of discrimination
on the grounds of gender, sexuality,
impairment type, age, race, ethnicity,
religion or belief, and location which all
contribute to disability-related exclusion’
(DFID, 2018: 5); and DFID’s ‘personas’
approach facilitates a better understanding
of intersectionality and identifying people
left behind by development (DFID, 2017).
2.3. Intersectionality and
social heterogeneity
Even among very vulnerable and
marginalised people, there is diversity
of experience, capacities, strengths
and treatment, in practice and in
research, that need to be understood,
harnessed and built upon for successful
strategies and plans (Osborne, 2015;
Plan International, 2018). Individuals
and groups are categorised as vulnerable
often without understanding how
historical, social, cultural and political
factors intersect to create their
vulnerability (Barbelet and Samuels,
2018). The use of generic categories and
the homogenisation of people overlooks
specific barriers facing people who are
highly vulnerable and marginalised (Lovell
and le Masson, 2014; ADCAP, 2018a).
Moreover, reliance on generic categories
can lead to results that do not adequately
inform effective and inclusive vulnerability
reduction and resilience building
strategies (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016).
The characteristics of vulnerability and
resilience are complex and dynamic
(Ishii and Pongponrat, 2018; Leap, 2018).
ADCAP notes that, for organisations that
have implemented the humanitarian
inclusion standards, looking at the
intersections of gender, age and disability
has meant reassessing their approach to
social identities and recognising their
complexities (ADCAP, 2018a). To achieve
this, inclusion advisers have encouraged
their organisations to recognise the
intersectionality of social identities and
how different forms of discrimination
affect each other. An inclusion adviser
for CBM International, which works on
inclusion of people with disabilities,
addresses this: ‘For us, disability is the
key. That is not going to change. It is our
mission and it inspires our policies and
processes. But we now have cross cutting
concepts of age and gender… So we are
looking at disability as an intersectional
issue.’ Similarly, an inclusion adviser with
Christian Aid Kenya says, ‘My biggest
learning is that most organisations
hesitate to start something new. So the
idea should be to look for entry points in
our current work that link with or have
synergy with inclusion work’ (both in
ADCAP, 2018a).
Disadvantaged adolescent girls, who
face multiple burdens associated with
their gender as well as with their age,
have little power in society and may
already have very little choice in their
lives. A major disaster exacerbates some
of the inequalities they face in everyday
life – early marriage, lack of access to
education or health care, discrimination,
violence or abuse (Plan International,
2013). Consideration of their specific needs
is therefore required (Save the Children,
2016; Forbes-Genade and van Niekerk,
2018). An intersectional approach can
improve understanding of how gender
relationships are crosscut by other factors
and further shaped by, for example,
knowledge, access to communication
networks, risk perception, awareness
resilience intel 12april 2019
7
and social mobilisation, which ultimately
influence people’s ability to undertake
adaptive measures and build resilience
(Ravera et al., 2016b).
Simplistic assumptions about categories
and vulnerability to climate change and
climate variability – for example the
assumption that only men are farmers
or that women are the poorest and
most vulnerable – are seldom backed
up by careful empirical investigation.
An intersectional approach would give
deeper attention to the multiple facets
of farmers’ identities, for example, and
the way these come together to influence
vulnerability (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016).
Treating identity as one-dimensional
masks intra-group disparities and leads
to ‘one-size-fits-all’ approaches, which
inevitably leave the most marginalised
behind, as larger and more visible
groups are easier to identify.
2.4. Beyond the gender binary
Gender inequalities deeply shape
people’s vulnerability and resilience
to risks, but sometimes other social
differences, such as ethnicity, access
to education and geographic location,
may be equally or even more important
to understand who is at risk and who
is able to gain protection (Carson et
al., 2013; Carr and Thompson, 2014).
Identifying gender as a single analytical
category does not adequately capture
the vulnerability and resilience of all
women and men (Carson et al., 2013;
Huynh and Resurrección, 2014). Gender
intersects with other identities (Hackfort
and Burchardt, 2018; Jordan, 2018), yet
Iniesta-Arandia et al. (2016) found that
the intersectionality of gender with other
identities was nearly absent in analysis of
vulnerability, adaptation and resilience,
although there are notable exceptions
to this – for example work by van Aelst
and Holvoet (2016) on the intersections
of gender and marital status in accessing
climate change adaptation and that of
Gaillard et al. (2017) on the role of gender
minorities in disaster risk reduction.
The experiences of marginalised people
are defined by many identity factors
(Oxfam, 2015). An intersectional approach
considers gender in relation to other
categories of identity in order to facilitate
a relational inquiry into different axes of
inequality and social difference (Hackfort
and Burchardt, 2018). It situates gender as
a way of thinking that goes beyond the
age- and sex-differentiated understanding
of power relations and inequalities
between men and women.
Despite the recognised importance
of taking gender into account, there
remains a lack of nuance and depth of
understanding about how best to support
different categories of women to cope
with environmental shocks and stresses
(Lovell and le Masson, 2014). Women
are often represented as a homogeneous
group and/or compared with men (as the
other homogeneous group) in policies
and programmes that aim to build
resilience (Huynh and Resurrección,
2014). Intersectional approaches in
gender analysis are still lacking in most
organisations. Djoudi et al. (2016)
conducted a review to determine whether
gender was framed using an intersectional
lens in climate change adaptation and
found that intersectionality was not
sufficiently considered and gender was
basically approached from a simplistic
perspective of ‘men’ and ‘women’.
Such representations fail to account for
the complex intersectional interactions
between gender and other factors, for
example those based on class, age,
education, disability, ethnicity, location
and sexuality (Carr and Thompson, 2014).
resilience intel 12april 2019
8
Effective and responsive policies and
programmes that aim to build resilience
need to take into account how gender
intersects with other categories of social
difference that are subject to disadvantage
(Djoudi, 2015). Intersectionality exercises
can chart the different issues, potentials
and constraints at the different nodes
of intersection across social factors.
Such a disaggregated approach helps
deconstruct homogeneous categories
and recognise fundamental differences
within and across categories (Carson et al.,
2013). An overly narrow version of gender
mainstreaming may lead to ineffective
policies and the further marginalisation
of some women and men (van Aelst and
Holvoet, 2016). The message here is not
to reduce the relevance or importance
of gender in vulnerability reduction and
resilience-building but to make it clear
that gender is just one identity that
interacts with others (Carson et al., 2013;
Hackfort and Burchardt, 2018).
While binary gender analysis may ease
the design of policies and programmes,
it is not the most effective approach for
addressing vulnerability and resilience,
for which a much broader framing is
required (Carr and Thompson, 2014;
Owusu et al., 2018). A narrowly framed
gender analysis of vulnerability is not as
effective as a wider effort to integrate
several factors in the gender analysis,
asking how biological, social and cultural
categories determine identities, interact
and contribute to marginalisation and
inequality (Djoudi, 2015).
Organisations do not need to become
experts on a wide range of identities:
they can strengthen existing gender work
using an intersectional approach (ADCAP,
2018a). Mercy Corps’ gender approach
considers intersectionality in recognising
that complex crises affect men, women,
boys and girls differently and that
vulnerability to crisis is compounded by
intersecting identities, such as age, caste,
ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation and
gender identity (Mercy Corps, 2018). This
takes the ‘resilience of whom?’ question
in Mercy Corps’ approach to resilience
Box 2: Case study – beyond gender to age and disability
inclusion, Christian Aid
Christian Aid’s inclusion advisers have
introduced age and disability inclusion
strategically, using an intersectional
approach and building on the organisation’s
primary work on gender. Initially, there was
some resistance, particularly from gender
focal staff. Questions included: ‘Why do
you want to water down our gender work?
Is it strategic to include age and disability
if we don’t have enough capacity? We are
not specialists… Historically, we haven’t
invested in these issues even though
there have been a few projects with
a disability focus.’ The advisers responded
by emphasising that the aim was not
for Christian Aid to become experts on
a wide range of identities, but rather
that the agency’s gender work would
be strengthened using an intersectional
approach to development and
humanitarian work. Since then, training and
webinars by inclusion advisers have taken
a ‘gender plus’ approach, by including
age and disability.
Source: ADCAP (2018a).
resilience intel 12april 2019
9
a step further. When considering the
intersection of gender and resilience,
most past research and programming has
focused on the question of vulnerability.
‘Resilience of whom?’ asks how some
groups or individuals may be differently
vulnerable. Four guiding questions
frame Mercy Corps’ resilience analysis,
helping understand how shocks and
stresses threaten desired development
outcomes (ibid.).
2.5. Avoiding victimisation,
understanding power
and enabling agency
Presenting vulnerable and marginalised
people as passive victims of disasters
and climate change misinterprets the
institutional and political causes of
vulnerability, obscures their role as
agents of adaptation and resilience
and often excludes them from policy
and programme development (Lovell and
le Masson, 2014; Ravera et al., 2016a; Rao
et al., 2017). Vulnerable and marginalised
people have the right and agency to build
their own resilience. Such recognition is
critical for building resilience: however,
few approaches and strategies recognise
this agency. The resultant failure of
policies and programmes to address
the root causes of disaster risks further
reinforces inequalities arising within
local power structures, while leaving the
challenges of climate change and natural
hazards unaddressed (Djoudi et al., 2016;
Jordan, 2018; Smith et al., 2017).
Moreover, the concept of resilience
has been criticised for removing the
inherently power-related connotation
of vulnerability. Most resilience discourse
is power-neutral and under-theorises
social difference, socio-cultural contexts,
inequalities and the often-oppressive
ways in which the status quo is maintained
Resilience
of what?
Understanding
system dynamics:
• What needs to
become more
resilient?
Resilience
of whom?
Developing
vulnerability profiles:
• Whose resilience
capacity needs to
be enhanced?
• How are different
people vulnerable to
differnent shocks and
stresses, and why?
Resilience
to what?
Mapping shocks
and stresses:
• To what types of
shocks and stresses
should individuals,
households,
communities and
systems be resilient?
Resilience
through what?
Identifying resilience
capacities:
• What resources and
strategies do people
need to maintain
progress, even
when facing shocks
and stresses?
Source: Adapted from Mercy Corps (2018).
Figure 2: Mercy Corps’ approach to resilience
resilience intel 12april 2019
10
(Smith et al., 2017; Jordan, 2018). Further,
there is a risk of classifying people
into fixed categories as ‘oppressed’ or
‘oppressor’ and neglecting the complexity
and constant renegotiation of power
relations that produce and (re-)enforce
inequalities (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014).
Recent work on resilience-building
stresses the need to integrate inequalities
and power into considerations of
how communities are reorganised in
response to climate change and natural
hazards (Bond, 2018; Leap, 2018). From
an intersectional understanding, how
different individuals and groups relate
to climate and disaster risks depends on
their position in context-specific power
structures based on social categorisations
(Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014).
Development is as much about power as it
is about technical solutions, as those who
have power can support or hinder change.
Vulnerability and resilience to climate
change and natural hazards must be
conceived in part as political phenomena
and should not be isolated from power.
Thinking politically helps us identify where
power lies in practice and how decisions
take place. It can also help us understand
how those who may seem relatively
powerless can still effect change (Hackfort
and Burchardt, 2018; Haines and O’Neil,
2018). The power relations that determine
access to resources, information and the
availability of options and choices are
shaped by the identities and positions of
vulnerable and marginalised individuals
and groups (Djoudi et al., 2016).
An intersectional approach can analyse
how power differentials work together
to produce differentiated vulnerabilities
and shape the development of adaptation
strategies to climate change and other
associated drivers of change for different
categories of men and women (Owusu
et al., 2018). Instead of approaching
power and inequalities as zero-sum
games in which individuals and groups
are considered either privileged or
oppressed, intersectional analysis
emphasises the fact that individuals
and groups can experience both power
and oppression simultaneously because of
who they are and how they are positioned
vis-à-vis intersecting inequalities.
Intersectional approaches reject either/
or conceptualisations of both power
and inequalities (Djoudi et al., 2016;
Leap, 2018), instead enabling people
to express and experience their own
capacity because such an approach creates
a pathway of analysis enabling agency
across and beyond social categories.
An intersectional approach can reveal
agency and emancipatory pathways in
adaptation processes by providing a better
understanding of how the differential
impacts of climate change shape, and are
shaped by, the complex power dynamics
of existing social and political relations
(Djoudi et al., 2016). Intersectionality
gives policy-makers the ability to identify
the complex interplays of structure
and agency across scales of space and
time that present opportunities and
barriers for reorganising communities in
response to socio-ecological disruptions
(Leap, 2018). Such an approach offers
a framework for better integrating power
into considerations of vulnerability and
resilience (ibid.). Inclusive practice should
lead to vulnerable and marginalised
people having greater voice and agency
over the decisions that affect their
everyday lives as well as their resilience
to environmental shocks and stresses.
This ensures that vulnerability reduction
and resilience-building activities build on
local knowledge, account for contexts and
power relations and facilitate ownership
and agency of those most likely to be
affected by environmental shocks and
stresses (Smith et al., 2017).
resilience intel 12april 2019
11
3. intersectional approaches
in policy and practice
Though vulnerability and resilience
are largely shaped by social, gendered,
political and economic conditions and
processes, often the focus of programme
interventions is on climatic or other
environmental drivers (Huynh and
Resurrección, 2014; Rao et al., 2017).
In relation to resilience thinking, a number
of factors come into play when a disaster
strikes, making people vulnerable in
different ways (Barbelet and Samuels,
2018). While resilience can be important
for the functioning of systems, it may also
maintain a system in an undesirable state.
Indeed, pervasive aspects of a community,
such as uneven gender relations, poverty
and exploitation, can be highly resilient
to change (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016).
Resilience should not therefore be detached
from the underlying causes of vulnerability.
Failure to recognise the differentiated
nature of resilience risks exacerbating
vulnerability instead of addressing its
underlying determinants (Jordan, 2018).
Intersectionality emphasises the
importance of context: intersections are
experienced in different ways from one
context to another. For example, a study
looking at the impact of inequalities
associated with ethnicity found clearly
differentiated outcomes on women’s
education between Spanish speakers
and indigenous groups in Bolivia and
Peru, while in the Philippines ethnicity
appears to have had less of an impact
on education outcomes (Lenhardt and
Samman, 2015). Given this multiplicity of
contexts and everyday lived experiences,
the key lesson for policy, practice
and research is to be cautious about
generalising and to recognise the need
for a range of vulnerability reduction
and resilience-building strategies
(Rao et al., 2017). Intersectional analysis
offers an opportunity to highlight rather
than disregard complexities, which is
essential to understanding the contexts
of inequality and marginalisation
(although this is a potential barrier
to uptake by operational agencies).
Despite the benefits that intersectional
approaches offer, climate change
adaptation and disaster risk reduction
research, policy and programming tend to
focus on vulnerable groups as a collective
category, or on specific vulnerable and
marginalised groups. And yet the inclusion
of vulnerable and marginalised groups
and individuals can bring more informed
opinions and different perspectives to
discussions of vulnerability and resilience,
improving the effectiveness of policies
and programmes (UNISDR, 2017a; van Ek
and Schot, 2017; Forbes-Genade and van
Niekerk, 2018; Mercy Corps, 2018).
For example, in the humanitarian sector,
policy, guidelines and programming are
increasingly addressing the inclusion
of older people with disabilities. This
involves not just addressing their needs
for assistance and protection but also
enabling them to participate in decision-
making on issues that affect them, so
they can exercise their rights in full
(HelpAge International, 2018b). Their
inclusion is motivated by a range of
humanitarian and good programming
principles: the need to uphold impartial
humanitarian action, support to the most
vulnerable, rights-based approaches
to humanitarian action, the ‘Do No
Harm’ approach and commitments
resilience intel 12april 2019
12
to gender-sensitive programming or
protection (Barbelet, 2018). Human
rights commitments and commitments
under the Inclusion Charter4 require
humanitarian organisations and donor
governments to ensure inclusion of
older people, including understanding
how age intersects with sex and
disability (Barbelet and Samuels, 2018;
HelpAge International, 2018b). Barbelet
(2018) on the South Sudan response
found respondents from humanitarian
organisations felt the Inclusion Charter,
the leave no one behind ethos of the
SDGs and the work and advocacy of
HelpAge had all contributed to progress.
4 Signed at the World Humanitarian Summit, the Inclusion Charter consists of five steps, on
participation, data, funding, capacity and coordination, that humanitarian actors can take
to ensure assistance reaches those most in need and supports them to move out of crisis
and on to a path toward the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
See www.inclusioncharter.org
Policy-makers and operational agencies
are beginning to adopt intersectional
thinking and approaches. Various
approaches have been suggested.
For example, Jones et al. (2018)
highlight the case for policy and
programmatic action to ensure more
inclusive development in line with
the SDGs. They suggest five key areas
for action to support adolescents
with disabilities, including addressing
intersecting disadvantages. Specific
recommendations include undertaking
comprehensive mapping of programming
and services to identify gaps and solutions
for the hardest-to-reach groups and
Box 3: Community Resilience Assessment and Action in Myanmar
The BRACED Alliance in Myanmar
developed a method to collect and
analyse data that can be used to assess
the resilience of a community and to
use this information to design specific
interventions that will strengthen resilience
(BRACED Alliance, 2015). Their method
built on established vulnerability and
capacity assessment tools to bridge
disaster reduction and climate change
approaches. While the method was
informed by, and mindful of, existing social
inequities in Myanmar, including gender
inequalities, the assessments also aimed
not to make any assumptions about who
the most vulnerable groups were in each
community. This involved looking beyond
gender inequalities as a major factor of
marginalisation, but also exploring other
risk factors including people’s age or
ethnicity. Therefore, each community-
based assessment was different and each
intervention was designed accordingly
to the context of the community. This
approach can also generate trade-offs:
for practitioners involved in supporting
women’s rights, important resources
(time, funding, human capacities) were
therefore spent on assessing what the
problems were, whereas women and girls
are subjected to numerous discrimination
and inequalities that are already known
and documented (see also Le Masson,
2016). In other words, an intersectional
approach is necessary to tackle
assumptions (who is most at risk?) but
there is a risk that pervasive inequalities
remain unchallenged.
resilience intel 12april 2019
13
individuals and tackling invisibility
to ensure involvement in planning
and programming.
At a strategic level, agencies have
begun to adopt approaches to give
staff, partners, governments and donors
a better understanding of how different
factors intersect to shape vulnerability
and exclusion. HelpAge International
(2018a) sets out a framework to stimulate
better understanding of the intersection
of gender and ageing by international
non-governmental organisations and
governments. It recommends that
governments adopt legal and policy
frameworks to ensure gender equality
throughout the life course, and that funding
bodies prioritise research on older age
from a gender perspective. Bond (2018)’s
recommendations for all stakeholders to
address multiple discriminations include
ensuring programmes clearly identify
intersecting inequalities in order to reach
the most marginalised and undertaking
qualitative and contextual research to fully
understand how inequalities intersect
and what their impacts are on vulnerable
and marginalised individuals and groups.
It is also recommended that donors support
civil society organisations to strengthen
their capacity to identify and address
intersecting inequalities and share that
learning (ibid.).
Lenhardt and Samman (2015) present
a methodological approach to the
measurement of intersecting inequalities
and empirical evidence on their links to
human development. They demonstrate
that tracking the outcomes of excluded
people is both possible and necessary
to ensure future progress in human
development is inclusive. Smith et al.
(2017) outline questions that could be
used in investigating intersectionality.
These should draw out existing social
divisions and inequalities; how these
reinforce (or otherwise influence) existing
social relations; what programmes and
policies are in place to bolster individual
and community resilience; and what, if
any, examples there are of the resilience
of vulnerable and marginalised people
being enhanced by these interventions.
Humanity and Inclusion requires field
teams to conduct disability, gender and
age analysis and to explore how these
three factors intersect to create exclusion
or marginalisation. Other context-specific
factors are also considered to evaluate the
exposure to risk of an individual, group
or community by taking an intersectional
approach (Bond, 2018).
Operational guidance incorporating
intersectional thinking is also beginning
to appear. Christian Aid’s inclusive
programming guide (2017) recognises that
achieving the goal of ‘equality for all’
requires that responses be driven by a deep
understanding of intersecting inequalities
in different contexts and at different
times. The ACAP framework approaches
inclusion by focusing on four areas:
Access, Communication, Attitude and
Participation. It then demonstrates how
this framework can be applied to projects
and programmes. A project or programme
that fulfils the requirements (Box 4) is likely
to be successful in recognising diversity,
removing barriers, ensuring participation
and providing tailored approaches to
development (van Ek and Schot, 2017).
ADCAP’s extensive good practice guide on
embedding inclusion of older people and
people with disabilities in humanitarian
policy and practice (2018a) includes the
need to address intersections between
social identities to embed inclusion within
programmes. Three recommendations
are made here: 1) identify entry points in
current work that can link with or have
synergy with inclusion work and promote
inclusion as a cross-cutting concept;
resilience intel 12april 2019
14
2) highlight the intersections between
social change agendas, such as gender
equity, and inclusion work and integrate
age and disability inclusion in social
change programmes to make them more
inclusive; and 3) promote the message
that addressing the equality agenda
requires addressing the diversity of needs
and capacities. ADCAP has also recently
finalised a set of nine humanitarian
inclusion standards for older people and
people with disabilities (ADCAP, 2018b)
(see Box 5).
In practice, an intersectional approach
may have to foreground a particular
intersection as an entry point.
Vulnerability and resilience are not shaped
by a single identity, and some identities
will be less relevant than others in
determining vulnerability, depending on
the context. An intersectional approach
should not attempt to include as many
analytical categories as possible or
list all the factors that may determine
vulnerability, but it should widen the
perspective and reflect upon what factors
may be relevant. To do so, it may be
necessary to select and prioritise the most
important or relevant intersections of
social difference, while keeping the bigger
picture in mind (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014;
Osborne, 2015). Relatedly, intersectionality
emphasises that individuals and groups
are often simultaneously (dis)advantaged
(Leap, 2018). By disputing predefined
categories and positioning individuals
and groups in the context of power
relations, it can refine, unpack and enrich
understandings of vulnerability reduction
and resilience-building (Iniesta-Arandia
et al., 2016).
Box 4: Accessibility, Attitude, Communication
and Participation Framework
Accessibility: Do project activities
lead to removal of barriers?
Do practices address causes
of exclusion?
Do they lead to relevant actions?
Are they supportive of
an enabling environment?
Will they be sustained?
Attitude: Does the project recognise
there are different people with different
characteristics? Does it recognise
That people face different issues?
That they face different barriers?
And that people have
different strengths?
Communication: Do all people
understand the messages delivered
through project activities?
Are messages accessible by all?
Are messages conveyed properly
and in acceptable language?
Will they lead to desired actions?
Participation: Can (and do) all people
participate in all stages of the project,
including decision-making?
Do they have a voice?
Are they active?
Are their decisions accepted
and incorporated?
Source: Van Ek and Schot (2017).
resilience intel 12april 2019
15
Methodological approaches for
establishing relevant categories
in particular places and at particular
project scales are therefore required
(Carr and Thompson, 2014). One example
is DFID’s ‘personas’ approach, which
enables a better understanding of
intersectionality and identifying vulnerable
and marginalised groups and individuals
(DFID, 2017). DFID has also undertaken
Box 5: ADCAP’s Humanitarian inclusion standards
for older people and people with disabilities
ADCAP aims to strengthen the capacity
of humanitarian agencies to deliver
an age- and disability-inclusive emergency
response using an intersectional
approach. ADCAP has recently finalised
a set of nine humanitarian inclusion
standards for older people and
people with disabilities.
1 Identification: Older people
and people with disabilities are
identified to ensure they have
access to humanitarian assistance
and protection that is participative,
appropriate and relevant
to their needs.
2 Safe and equitable access:
Older people and people with
disabilities have safe and equitable
access to humanitarian assistance.
3 Resilience: Older people and people
with disabilities are not negatively
affected, are more prepared and
resilient and are less at risk as
a result of humanitarian action.
4 Knowledge and participation:
Older people and people with
disabilities know their rights and
entitlements and participate in
decisions that affect their lives.
5 Feedback and complaints: Older
people and people with disabilities
have access to safe and responsive
feedback and complaints mechanisms.
6 Coordination: Older people and people
with disabilities access and participate
in humanitarian assistance that is
coordinated and complementary.
7 Learning: Organisations collect
and apply learning to deliver more
inclusive assistance.
8 Human resources: Staff and
volunteers have the appropriate
skills and attitudes to implement
inclusive humanitarian action,
and older people and people with
disabilities have equal opportunities
for employment and volunteering
in humanitarian organisations.
9 Resource management: Older people
and people with disabilities can expect
that humanitarian organisations are
managing resources in a way that
promotes inclusion.
Through ADCAP, organisations have
changed their policies, practices and
standard operating procedures to
embed age and disability inclusion.
Source: ADCAP (2018b).
resilience intel 12april 2019
16
work in Mozambique and Nigeria that
seeks to profile target beneficiaries based
on attributes such as gender and disability
and then evaluate whether development
and humanitarian programmes are
reaching such people and what the
barriers are if not (Bond, 2018).
Intersectional analyses need to grasp
how relations of power are manifested
at different levels, from social structures
to symbolic representation and identity
construction (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014).
Mixed approaches are also necessary.
In their article on how to conceive and
implement climate change adaptation
projects with a gender-transformative
lens, Ravera et al. (2016b) use a two-
tier interdisciplinary research approach
in two contrasting research cases from
Bihar and Uttarakhand, India. This
integrates qualitative and quantitative
methods and tools in order to implement
an intersectional approach. The article
concludes that intersecting identities, such
as caste, wealth, age and gender, influence
decisions and reveal power dynamics
and negotiation within the household
and the community, as well as barriers to
adaptation. Overall, the findings suggest
an intersectional approach is useful and
worth further exploration in the context
of climate change adaptation.
Vulnerability assessments that examine
how gender intersects with other
factors are potentially valuable for
understanding differing vulnerabilities
and capacities, and informing effective
and responsive policies and programmes
that aim to build resilience. In a review
of the literature on differences in how
men and women experience climate
change-related problems, Djoudi (2015)
conclude that evidence-based and
context-specific gendered vulnerability
assessments are needed to specifically
identify not only different needs and
perceptions but also different capacities
to adapt. It is not clear how well these
assessments capture intersectional
aspects in practice.
4. challenges to
intersectional approaches
Tackling intersecting inequalities and
power in practice is a challenge for
most development actors (Bond, 2018).
While intersectionality is recognised as
valuable for understanding intersecting
inequalities and power, its practical
applicability has been debated. For
instance, how can complex power
relations be studied in practice?
Intersectionality is not associated with
any specific methodology but attempts
have been made to outline methods
for applying it empirically (Kaijser and
Kronsell, 2014). As yet, there are few
intersectional tools or frameworks to
identify areas of intersectionality, or
indeed to measure – and address – the
impact of intersectional approaches
(Smith et al., 2017). Methodological
issues have been described as one
of the greatest remaining challenges
in implementing intersectionality
frameworks (Iniesta-Arandia et al.,
2016). Facilitating the implementation of
intersectional approaches to vulnerability
reduction and resilience-building
will require further methodological
innovations (Carr and Thompson, 2014).
resilience intel 12april 2019
17
Intersectional analysis has been
critiqued for understanding social
difference and inequality principally as
identity categories and focusing on the
small scale, while giving insufficient
consideration to large-scale societal
structures and axes of inequality
(Hackfort and Burchardt, 2018). Another
criticism is that the concept is too
abstract for the practical analysis of
societal interrelations (Kaijser and
Kronsell, 2014; Hackfort and Burchardt,
2018). Understanding how to respond
in practice to the intersection between
people’s overlapping identities and
experiences is a challenge. Most
development actors still target their
programmes at supporting certain key
groups, in particular women, children
and people with disabilities (Bond, 2018).
It has proved difficult enough to keep
the promotion of gender equality on the
agenda without additionally nuancing
the intersection between gender and age
(Plan International, 2013).
There is also a tension between
approaches that subscribe to the ethos
of ‘inclusion for all’, such as the ACAP
framework (van Ek and Schot, 2017) and
the need to target specific disadvantaged
groups, particularly those facing
intersecting inequalities (Lenhardt and
Samman, 2015). Principles of equity and
inclusion are often considered an ‘add-on’
in practice rather than central to effective
programme design; and conceptualisations
of resilience and associated language tend
to exclude issues of inclusion (Smith et
al., 2017; Bond, 2018). For example, one
reason the needs of older people with
disabilities are often not well met is the
disconnect between organisations and
programmes focused on older people and
those focused on people with disabilities.
As such, older people risk being left out
of efforts towards disability inclusion and
vice versa (HelpAge International, 2018b).
Research on the interconnectedness
between human societies and climate
change encompasses a multitude of
disciplines and methods. Given this,
it is not feasible to provide a common
intersectional methodology: the methods
always need to be adapted to the specific
context or case under study (Kaijser
and Kronsell, 2014). There is currently
no one approach or defined set of
methods that represent best practices
for seeking intersectional understandings
of vulnerability and resilience relating
to climate and disaster risk (Thompson-
Hall et al., 2016). Broader forms of
context analysis, tools and assessments
that better capture intersecting risk and
use that information to build long-term
resilience are required. Developing a tool
that is both sensitive enough to measure
specificities while being used in the field is
a challenge (Smith et al., 2017); however,
adding an intersectional dimension to
existing methods does not require new
systems or approaches.
Inclusion cannot be achieved without
addressing discrimination, marginalisation
and exploitation experienced in disasters
and at other times (Twigg et al., 2018). It
is necessary to identify which vulnerable
and marginalised individuals and groups
are being excluded, based on analysis
of power dynamics as a result of social
differences. Such analysis must also
identify how categories of social difference
and forms of disadvantage interact and
intersect. Overcoming these entrenched
barriers to inclusion is a major challenge
for operational agencies; however,
an intersectional approach can help
identify the voices being heard and those
being neglected (Osborne, 2015; Smith
et al., 2017).
A review by Paz Arauco et al. (2014)
of countries that have made significant
progress in addressing intersecting
resilience intel 12april 2019
18
inequalities reveals four enabling factors:
social movements demanding changes in
the ‘rules of the game’; political trajectories
and processes of constitutional change that
facilitate and actualise these changes; social
guarantees, opportunity enhancements
and developmental affirmative actions;
and specific policies and programmes that
show commitment to reducing intersecting
inequalities over time.
5. disaggregated data collection
and analysis
Key to understanding intersectionality is
collecting the right data, including data
disaggregated by sex, age and disability,
which is a critical step towards making
better informed decisions and allocating
resources more effectively (van Ek and
Schot, 2017). This helps determine
differential impacts and expose hidden
trends and problems that may lead to
vulnerable and marginalised people
being left behind (IFRC, 2018). It can
help establish the scope of the problem,
enable the identification of marginalised
populations with specific needs and
capacities and make them more visible
to policy-makers (van Ek and Schot, 2017;
Smith et al., 2017). However, if it is not
done systematically, the complexities of
at-risk communities will not be properly
understood (HelpAge International,
2018b). Furthermore, limited disaggregated
data may hinder the inclusion of certain
vulnerable and marginalised groups and
individuals in programming (Barbelet and
Samuels, 2018). In practice, disaggregation
does not often progress beyond the
gathering of sex-disaggregated data
towards critical interrogation of the more
complex impacts of intersecting dimensions
of identity vulnerability (Thompson-Hall
et al., 2016).
Donors and governments are increasing
investment in the disaggregation
of programme data in the areas of
gender, disability, geography and age.
However, this needs to be supplemented
by intersectional analysis and data
disaggregation that makes visible those
people who may be most marginalised
in specific contexts and are not included;
these groups and individuals will vary
from one context to the next and may
also be deliberately ‘uncounted’ for
political reasons (Bond, 2018). Monitoring
of disaster impacts under the Sendai
Framework does not require national
governments to disaggregate data by sex,
age, disability or income: disaggregation
is merely ‘desirable’ (UNISDR, 2017b).
National census data are ‘generally not
disaggregated by gender, age, or type of
disability, resulting in a lack of reliable
statistics and data’ (Plan International,
2017: 9) and between countries. While the
logic for collecting data disaggregated by
sex, age and disability is increasingly well
understood and accepted, categorisation
and consistency may vary (ADCAP, 2018b).
Data on different people’s facets are rarely
combined to create a more holistic picture
of the situation and needs of particular
vulnerable and marginalised people
(IFRC, 2018).
A number of operational agencies,
including HelpAge International (2018a,
2018b) recognise the need for more
disaggregated data collection at all
levels, to inform research and policy
resilience intel 12april 2019
19
development and enable more inclusive
programming. HelpAge International
(2018b) also argues for building on older
people’s capabilities in humanitarian
response. Save the Children’s Group-
based Inequality Database (GRID) takes
an intersectional approach. It is based
on a dataset of disaggregated data on
child outcomes for nearly 80 developing
countries (Save the Children, 2018). The
data tools provide a visual representation
of the inequalities that persist between
different groups of children across key
SDG indicators and support the analysis
of intersecting inequalities (Bond, 2018;
Save the Children, 2018). Figure 3, taken
from GRID, shows child mortality rates
in Uganda, first by gender and then by
gender and location (urban/rural). The
example reveals the difference between
girls’ under five mortality rate in rural
areas (48 per 1,000) and in urban areas
(40 per 1,000), and the difference between
boys’ under five mortality rate in rural
areas (59 per 1,000) and in urban areas
(47 per 1,000).
6. conclusions
Only through inclusive development
that includes the most vulnerable
and marginalised in society will the
international community be able to
deliver on the SDGs. Intersectional
approaches offer a number of advantages
in vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building policies and practice. They help
us understand the differentiated nature of
vulnerability and resilience, challenging
the implementation of ‘one-size-fits-all’
approaches, and draw attention to the
Figure 3: Child mortality rate in Uganda disaggregated by gender and location
Under-five mortality rate per 1,000 live births
60
56
58
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
National average
GROUP Female
VALEU 52.0 [46.5–57.5]
GROUP Female
CHILD POPULATION 899,625
VALEU 47.0 [45.4–48.6]
GROUP Male
CHILD POPULATION 909,261
VALEU 57.0 [51.9–62.1] GROUP Male/Rural
CHILD POPULATION 747,466
VALEU 59.0 [54.7–63.3]
GROUP Female/Rural
CHILD POPULATION 737,057
VALEU 48.0 [46.8–49.2]
GROUP Male/Urban
CHILD POPULATION 161,794
VALEU 47.0 [28.2–65.8]
GROUP Female/Urban
CHILD POPULATION 162,568
VALEU 40.0 [30.2–49.8]
Male
Female
Source: Save the Children (2018).
resilience intel 12april 2019
20
social root causes of vulnerability, creating
a more nuanced picture. Policies and
programmes that fail to address the root
causes risk further reinforcing inequalities.
Intersectional approaches offer
a framework for integrating social
heterogeneity into considerations of
vulnerability and resilience by assisting
in unveiling explicit and implicit
assumptions about predefined social
categories. They also offer an analytical
tool for understanding and responding
to the way gender intersects with other
identities. Power is also a defining feature
of intersectional analysis. Intersectional
approaches illuminate how different
vulnerable and marginalised individuals
and groups relate differently to climate
and disaster risk, given their situatedness
in power structures based on context-
specific and dynamic categorisations.
Furthermore, instead of viewing
individuals and groups as either privileged
or oppressed, intersectional analysis
emphasises how they can experience both
power and oppression simultaneously.
Intersectionality provides a more refined
way of reflecting these complexities and
in doing so prevents the overgeneralisation
or simplification of local realities that may
misinform policy and practice. Highlighting
complexities is essential to understanding
the contexts of inequality and
marginalisation. However, the practical
applicability of such approaches has been
debated, and few tools or frameworks
exist. Examples of intersectional
approaches in practice include the ACAP
framework (van Ek and Schot, 2017)
and the ADCAP good practice guide on
embedding inclusion of older people and
people with disabilities in humanitarian
policy and practice (ADCAP, 2018a).
Intersectional approaches can refine,
unpack and enrich the understanding
of vulnerability and resilience, enabling
policies and programmes to be more
inclusive and ensure no one is left behind.
This requires some methodological
innovations. There is no one approach
or defined set of methods that represent
best practice for obtaining intersectional
understandings of vulnerability and
resilience relating to climate and disaster
risk: methods will always need to be
adapted to the specific context or
case. Although experience has shown
that adding an intersectional approach
to existing approaches is beneficial,
developing a tool that is both sensitive
enough to measure specificities while being
used in the field is a challenge, given the
lack of data and standard methodological
approaches, in a context of limited
resources and limited local capacities.
Some trade-offs may be necessary.
7. recommendations
for policy and practice
Policy-makers and operational agencies
working on vulnerability reduction and
resilience-building should make more use
of intersectional approaches to better
account for inequalities and power in
policy formulation and implementation.
This can reduce the risk of producing and
reinforcing unequal power relations relating
to access to resources and decision-making
structures. The first step towards achieving
resilience intel 12april 2019
21
inclusive development is identifying who
are the excluded or marginalised groups or
individuals in each context so that no one
is left behind (Bond, 2018).
For more effective and inclusive
development, organisations should
consider the wider context beyond their
target groups and how interventions
could benefit everyone, as intersectional
approaches can support multiple vulnerable
or marginalised groups and individuals.
Policies and programmes should
start by identifying the reasons why
some people are more at risk and
how their social identities influence
their vulnerabilities.
Establishing consortia of organisations
that represent different vulnerable and
marginalised groups can bring together
like-minded actors and influence donors
to create space and promote an enabling
environment to support intersectional
approaches in wider vulnerability
and resilience research, policies
and programmes.
More collaboration between
organisations is needed to operationalise
intersectional approaches. In doing
so, expertise on different elements
of intersectionality can be shared
and invisible groups and individuals
identified, with their needs and priorities
promoted in programme design and
implementation. Programmes should
be designed in an overlapping way to
target intersectional inequalities.
Empowerment of local actors is an
important way to ensure greater inclusion
and more effective context analysis,
programme design and implementation.
The rollout of the ACAP framework
involved civil society and community-
based organisations representing Dalit
groups, disabled people’s organisations
and women’s groups in the process, and
this was a major factor in its success
There is a need to raise awareness
of intersectionality and intersectional
approaches in research, policy and
programmes targeting vulnerable and
marginalised people. Intersectionality
is beginning to be more widely
recognised; however, leadership is
required from donors and organisations
to bring intersectionality into focus
in vulnerability reduction and
resilience-building. More research on
intersectional approaches to vulnerability
reduction and resilience-building
is required to inform and influence
governments, United Nations agencies
and development stakeholders –
in particular qualitative and contextual
research to fully understand how
inequalities intersect and affect
people in different contexts.
Better data are essential.
The disaggregation of data must
be strengthened and go beyond
the gathering of sex, disability, geography
and age data towards supporting analysis
of more complex intersecting dimensions
of vulnerability and make visible those
people who are most marginalised in
specific contexts. Better collection and use
of disaggregated data is essential, both
for understanding intersecting inequalities
and for targeting interventions that build
resilience for all.
resilience intel 12april 2019
22
references
ADCAP (Age and Disability Capacity Programme)
(2018a) Good practice guide: embedding
inclusion of older people and people with
disabilities in humanitarian policy and practice.
ADCAP. London: HelpAge International
ADCAP (2018b) Humanitarian inclusion
standards for older people. ADCAP. London:
HelpAge International
Arksey, H. and O’Malley, L. (2005) ‘Scoping
studies: towards a methodological
framework’ Journal of Social Research
Methodology 8: 19–32
BRACED Alliance (2015) Community Resilience
Assessment and Action Handbook. BRACED.
www.braced.org/resources/i/?id=127f0e24-
a44a-4468-abca-96db853f6558
Barbelet, V. (2018) ‘Older people in
displacement: falling through the cracks
of emergency responses’. ODI Report.
London: ODI
Barbelet, V. and Samuels, F. with G. Plank
(2018) ‘The role and vulnerabilities of older
people in drought in East Africa: progress,
challenges and opportunities for more
inclusive humanitarian response’. ODI
Report. London: ODI
Beerens, R.J.J. and Tehler, H. (2016) ‘Scoping
the field of disaster exercise evaluation –
a literature overview and analysis’.
International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction 19: 413–446
Bhatkal, T., Samman, E. and Stuart, E. (2015)
‘Leave no one behind: the real bottom
billion’. ODI Report. London: ODI
Bond (2018) Leave no one behind: how
the development community is realising
the pledge. London: Bond
Carr, E.R. and Thompson, M.C.
(2014) ‘Gender and climate change
adaptation in agrarian settings:
current thinking, new directions,
and research frontiers’ Geography
Compass 8: 182–197
Carson, M., Remling, E. and Johanssen,
A. (2013) Institutionalizing gender
equality in disaster risk reduction.
Stockholm: MSB and SEI
Christian Aid (2017) ‘Christian Aid and leave
no one behind’. Programme Practice Paper.
London: Christian Aid
Crenshaw, K. (1989) ‘Demarginalizing
the intersection of race and sex: a Black
feminist critique of antidiscrimination
doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist
politics’ University of Chicago Legal Forum
140(1): 139–167
Crenshaw, K. (1991) ‘Mapping the margins:
intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of colour’
Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299
Daudt, H., Mossel, C. and Scott, S.
(2013). ‘Enhancing the scoping
study methodology: a large, inter-
professional team’s experience with
Arksey and O’Malley’s framework’.
BMC Medical Research Methodology
13: 1–48
Davis, K. (2008) ‘Intersectionality as buzzword:
a sociology of science perspective on
what makes a feminist theory useful’
Feminist Theory 9(1): 67–85
DFID (UK Department for International
Development) (2017) ‘Using human-centred
design at DFID’. London: DFID.
https://diytoolkit.org/tools/personas
resilience intel 12april 2019
23
DFID (2018) ‘Strategy for Disability Inclusive
Development 2018–2023. London: DFID.
Djoudi, H. (2015) ‘At the intersection of
inequities: lessons learned from CIFOR’s
work on gender and climate change
adaptation in West Africa’. Gender Climate
Brief 4, Bogor: CIFOR
Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., Vaast, C. et al.
(2016) ‘Beyond dichotomies: gender and
intersecting inequalities in climate change
studies’ Ambio 45: 248–262
Forbes-Genade, K. and Niekerk, D. (2018)
GIRRL power! Participatory action research
for building girl-led community resilience in
South Africa. Action Research, 12 February
Gaillard, J. C., Sanz, K., Balgos, B. C.,
Dalisay, S. N. M., Gorman-Murray, A.,
Smith, F., and Toelupe, V. A. (2017)
Beyond men and women: a critical
perspective on gender and disaster.
Disasters, 41(3), 429–447
GFDRR (Global Fund for Disaster Reduction
and Recovery) and World Bank (2018)
Disability inclusion in disaster risk
management: promising practices and
opportunities for enhanced engagement.
Washington, DC: GFDRR and World Bank
Hackfort, S. and Burchardt, H.J. (2018) ‘Analysing
socio-ecological transformations – a relational
approach to gender and climate adaptation’
Critical Policy Studies 12(2): 169–186
Haines, R. and O’Neil, T. (2018) ‘Putting
gender in political economy analysis:
why it matters and how to do
it’. Practitioners’ Guidance Note.
Gender and Development Network
Handicap International (2015) Disability
in humanitarian context: views from
affected people and field organisations.
Advocacy Study for the WHS
HelpAge International (2018a)
‘Transforming gender relations in
an ageing world’. Policy Discussion Paper.
London: HelpAge International
HelpAge International (2018b) ‘Missing
millions: how older people with disabilities
are excluded from humanitarian response’.
London: HelpAge International
Huynh, P.T.A. and Resurrección, B.P. (2014)
‘Women’s differentiated vulnerability and
adaptations to climate-related agricultural
water scarcity in rural central Vietnam’
Climate and Development 6: 226–237
IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies) (2018) World
disasters report, leaving no one behind.
Geneva: IFRC
Iniesta-Arandia, I., Ravera, F., Buechler, S. et al.
(2016) ‘A synthesis of convergent reflections,
tensions and silences in linking gender and
global environmental change research’
Ambio 45: 383–393
Ishii, K. and Pongponrat, K. (2018) ‘Social
vulnerability of marginalized people in
times of disaster: case of Thai women in
Japan tsunami 2011’ International Journal
of Disaster Risk Reduction 27: 133–141
Jones, N., Presler-Marshall, E. and
Stavropoulou, M. (2018) ‘Adolescents
with disabilities: enhancing resilience
and delivering inclusive development’.
ODI GAGE Report. London: ODI
Jordan, J.C. (2018) ‘Deconstructing resilience:
why gender and power matter in responding
to climate stress in Bangladesh’ Climate and
Development: 1–13
Kabeer, N. (2010) Can the MDGs provide
a pathway to social justice? The challenge
of intersecting inequalities. New York: UNDP
resilience intel 12april 2019
24
Kaijser, A. and Kronsell, A. (2014) ‘Climate
change through the lens of intersectionality’
Environmental Politics 23: 417–433
Leap, B. (2018) ‘Not a zero-sum game:
inequalities and resilience in Sumner,
Missouri, the Gooseless Goose Capital
of the World’ Gender, Place and Culture
25(2): 288–308.Le Masson, V. 2016.
Gender and Resilience: from theory
to Practice. BRACED working paper.
London: BRACED
Lenhardt, A. and Samman, E. (2015)
In quest of inclusive progress: exploring
the intersecting inequalities in human
development. London: ODI
Lovell, E., and le Masson, V. (2014) Equity and
inclusion in disaster risk reduction: building
resilience for all. London: CDKN and ODI
Mercy Corps (2018) Priming resilience with
intra-household change, addressing gender
norms. Portland, OR: Mercy Corps
Norton, A., Mariotti, C., Shepherd, A.
and Kabeer, N. (2014) ‘What can be done
to address intersecting inequalities?
Social justice post-2015’. ODI Report.
London: ODI
Osborne, N. (2015) ‘Intersectionality and
kyriarchy: a framework for approaching
power and social justice in planning and
climate change adaptation’ Planning
Theory 14(2): 130–151
Owusu, M., Nursey-Bray, M. and Rudd,
D. (2018) ‘Gendered perception and
vulnerability to climate change in
urban slum communities in Accra, Ghana’
Regional Environmental Change (in press)
Oxfam (2015) Building gender sensitive resilience
through women’s economic empowerment
lessons learnt from pastoralist women in
Ethiopia. Oxford: Oxfam
Paz Arauco, V., Gazdar, H., Hevia-Pacheco, P.
et al. (2014) ‘Strengthening social justice to
address intersecting inequalities post-2015’.
ODI Report. London: ODI
Plan International (2013). Because I am a girl,
the state of the world’s girls 2013, in double
jeopardy: adolescent girls and disasters.
Worthing: Plan International
Plan International (2017) Let me decide and
thrive: global discrimination and exclusion
of girls and young women with disabilities.
Worthing: Plan International
Plan International (2018) Adolescent girls in
crisis: voices from South Sudan. Worthing:
Plan International
Rao, N., Lawson, E.T., Raditloaneng, W.N. et
al. (2017) ‘Gendered vulnerabilities to climate
change: insights from the semi-arid regions of
Africa and Asia’ Climate and Development: 1–13
Ravera, F., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Martín-López,
B. et al. (2016a) ‘Gender perspectives in
resilience, vulnerability and adaptation
to global environmental change’
Ambio 45: 235–247
Ravera, F., Martin-Lopez, B., Pascual, U.
and Drucker, A. (2016b) ‘The diversity of
gendered adaptation strategies to climate
change of Indian farmers: a feminist
intersectional approach’ Ambio 45: 335–351
Samman, E. and Stuart, E. (2017) ‘Defining
“leave no one behind”’. Briefing Note.
London: ODI
Save the Children (2016) Every last child.
London: Save the Children
Save the Children (2018) ‘Save the Children’s
Group-based Inequality Database (GRID)’.
https://campaigns.savethechildren.net/grid
resilience intel 12april 2019
25
Smith, F., Simard, M., Twigg, J. et al. (2017)
‘Disability and climate resilience: a literature
review’. London: Leonard Cheshire
Thompson-Hall, M., Carr, E.R. and Pascual,
U. (2016) ‘Enhancing and expanding
intersectional research for climate change
adaptation in agrarian settings’ Ambio 45: 373
Twigg, J., Kett, M. and Lovell, E. (2018)
‘Disability inclusion and disaster risk
reduction: overcoming barriers to progress’.
Briefing Note. London: ODI
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change) (2015)
‘Paris Agreement’. Bonn: UNFCCC
UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction) (2015) ‘Sendai Framework
for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030’.
Geneva: UNISDR
UNISDR (2017a) ‘Consideration of marginalized
and minority groups in a national disaster
risk assessment’. Geneva: UNISDR
UNISDR (2017b) ‘Technical guidance for
monitoring and reporting on progress
in achieving the global targets of the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction: collection of technical
notes on data and methodology’.
Geneva: UNISDR
Van Aelst, K. and Holvoet, N. (2016)
‘Intersections of gender and marital
status in accessing climate change
adaptation: evidence from rural
Tanzania’ World Development 79: 40–50
Van Ek, V. and Schot, S. (2017) ‘Towards
inclusion: a guide for organisations
and practitioners’. Mission East, Light
for the World and ICCO.
https://missioneast.org/sites/default/
files/2018-01/Towards%20Inclusion%20-%20
A%20guide%20for%20organisations%20
%26%20practitioners.pdf
acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank
Maarten van Aalst, Virginie le Masson,
Colette Benoudji, Fred Smith and
Christophe Belperron for their review
of the paper; Charlotte Rye for her
help with production; Roo Griffiths for
copyediting; and Soapbox for designing
the paper. They would also like to
thank Christophe Belperron (Save the
Children), Daniel Morchain (Oxfam),
Fred Smith (Sightsavers), Jessica Cooke
(Plan International), Ken Bluestone (Age
International), Nigel Ede and Madeleine
Green-Armytage (British Red Cross),
Madeleine McGivern (HelpAge), Maggie
Ibrahim (World Vision) and Maureen
Fordham (University College London)
for participating in the ODI workshop
on intersectionality, vulnerability and
resilience, and for their expert insights.
resilience intel 12april 2019
26
annex 1: methodology
The approach of this report was exploratory
in nature and relied upon qualitative
research methods. Evidence was gathered
in three phases. First, academic databases
were searched using a scoping method so
as to provide a comprehensive overview of
the scientific literature on intersectionality
and intersectional approaches specifically
in relation to vulnerability reduction and
resilience-building. Grey literature was then
acquired from the websites of development
and humanitarian organisations. Finally,
additional grey literature was gathered
by sending requests through the research
team’s network of contacts working on
vulnerability and marginalisation in climate
and disaster risk contexts.
Scoping study: The aim of scoping studies
is to map the literature on a particular
topic or research area and to provide
an opportunity to identify key concepts,
gaps in the research and types and sources
of evidence to inform research, policy and
practice (Daudt et al., 2013; Beerens and
Tehler, 2016). As the aim of this paper is
both to advance understanding and to
encourage improved policy and practice,
the use of a scoping study is well justified.
The scoping study was conducted in
August 2018 using an adapted version
of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005)
framework as a guideline.
Step 1. Identifying the research question:
The broad and open research question:
‘what is known in the scientific literature
about intersectionality, vulnerability
and resilience?’ was chosen in order to
generate breadth of coverage (decisions on
how to set parameters can be made once
some sense of the volume and general
scope of the field has been gained). Before
starting the systematic search, quick-scan
searches were conducted in academic
databases in order to develop a broad
understanding of the literature, where
it might be found and the terminology
used (Beerens and Tehler, 2016).
Step 2. Identifying relevant articles:
The academic databases Academic
Search, Scopus and Web of Science were
chosen. All three are large databases
of peer-reviewed scientific literature
and cover a wide range of research
fields. The search string was developed
from the research question’s three key
words (intersectionality, vulnerability
and resilience) and based on a Boolean
approach. As these key words have
synonyms, searching these words alone
would be insufficient. Therefore, a list
of synonyms was compiled by searching
thesauruses and reflecting on the results
of the quick-scan searches of Step 1. The
synonyms were systematically combined,
and the various combinations of search
terms were used to search the academic
databases and the number of results was
noted for each query. Synonyms that
generated irrelevant results were removed
from the list. Additionally, ‘inequality’
was paired with intersectionality, given
the close relationship to intersecting
inequalities. Relatedly, because of the
wider research context of equity and
inclusion to this report, ‘inclusion’ was
also paired with intersectionality. Finally,
the search terms ‘climate’ and ‘disaster’
were added to restrict the results to
contexts of climate and disaster risk.
Search terms:
intersect* OR inequal* OR inclus*;
vulnerab* OR marginal*;
resilien* OR adapt*;
disaster OR climate.
resilience intel 12april 2019
27
Figure A1: The scoping study process
Research question:
‘what is known in the scientific literature about intersectionality, vulnerability and resilience?’
Search string:
TITLE-ABS-KEY (intersect* OR inequal* OR iclus*) AND (vulnerab* OR marginal*)
AND (resilien* OR adapt*) AND (disaster OR climate)
228 523 668
Duplicate removal (-169)
1,250
Title analysis (-1,078)
172
Abstract analysis (-148)
24
53
Limited
to last 5
years (-7)
46
Websites
Key words:
intersectionality AND intersectional
approaches AND vulnerability
AND resilience
Executive summary analysis
Network Executive summary analysis
13
16
Academic
Search
(EBSCO)
Scopus
(Elsevier)
Web of
Science
(Thomson
Reuters)
resilience intel 12april 2019
28
Figure A1 shows the search string and
the initial number of results 228, 523
and 668 (total 1,419). The results were
exported to Excel and 169 duplicates
were removed. This left 1,250 articles
for the study selection.
Step 3. Study selection: Articles that
were clearly irrelevant as determined
through the analysis of their titles were
removed and borderline cases were
retained for further analysis. This led to
the removal of 1,078 articles. The abstracts
of the remaining 172 articles were read
and assessed against the inclusion criteria
described below, which was devised ad
hoc, based on increasing familiarity with the
literature. This led to the removal of 148
articles. The research team decided to limit
the articles to within the past five years.
Nineteen articles were selected for the
scoping study from the scientific literature.
Inclusion criteria:
1. Article describes intersectionality,
intersectional approaches and/or
intersecting inequalities;
2. Article focuses on vulnerable and/or
marginal groups;
3. Article examines vulnerability reduction,
resilience-building and/or adaptation;
4. Article is set in the wider context
of disaster and/or climate risk.
Grey literature: 24 websites of
development and humanitarian
organisations were searched for
grey literature using the key words:
intersectionality, intersectional
approaches, vulnerability and
resilience. The papers were
shortlisted using a similar method to
the academic literature. Twelve papers
were selected. Requests were also sent
through the research team’s network
of contacts working on vulnerability
and marginalisation in climate and
disaster risk contexts (including
individuals who took part in an ODI
informal workshop on intersectionality,
vulnerability and resilience in June
2018 (Annex 2). Fifteen papers were
shared and incorporated into the
literature review.
Step 4: Analysis: Articles were
analysed in-depth to identify
intersectional approaches to
vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building. Through reviewing the articles
and placing their key findings into
categories, themes were identified.
The articles were also assessed using
the Ctrl-F function to identify any
explicit or implicit references to
keywords of the search string
and the emerging themes.
annex 2: workshop notes on
intersectionality, vulnerability
and resilience
ODI’s Risk and Resilience Programme
invited selected experts to an informal
workshop on Thursday 7 June 2018
to explore intersecting inequalities
and intersectional approaches to
vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building in the context of climate
and disaster risk, with a view to
advancing understanding of this
issue and encouraging improved
resilience intel 12april 2019
29
practice and policy. The core question
discussed was:
How can effective intersectional approaches
to vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building be developed and integrated
into policy and programming?
ODI’s Risk and Resilience Programme’s
new strategy on ‘Equity and Inclusion
in a Multi-Hazard Context’ seeks
to promote equitable and inclusive
access to all systems, processes
and policies that support people’s
escape from poverty and longer-term
development outcomes in the contexts
of environmental shocks and stresses,
in a way that leaves no one behind.
This is also a core strand of the Building
Resilience and Adaptation to Climate
Extremes and Disasters (BRACED)
Knowledge Management work under
the Gender and Social Inclusion Theme.
This work will consider intersectionality
in vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building across practice, exploring the
value of intersectional approaches,
the opportunities and challenges these
present to operational agencies and
strategies for adopting them in their
policies and programming.
Ten participants working on vulnerability
and marginalisation in climate and
disaster risk contexts from academic
institutions and operational organisations
attended the workshop. Expertise on
gender, age (older persons, children and
young people), disability and poverty
were brought in, while recognising other
intersecting factors. Participants shared
their experiences and ideas through
discussions and explored opportunities
for future work on this issue. The meeting
was planned and facilitated by John Twigg
and Emma Lovell (ODI) and written up by
Daniel Chaplin. The following key issues
and ideas were discussed.
1. Intersectionality and
intersectional approaches:
Meanings and understandings
Participants agreed that the relevance
and importance of intersectionality
and intersectional approaches could be
framed within the ‘leave no one behind
agenda’, a commitment central to the
SDGs. ‘Leave no one behind’ means
ending extreme poverty in all its forms
and reducing inequalities among groups
and individuals (Samman and Stuart,
2017). Key to this is the prioritisation
and fast-tracking of actions for the
most vulnerable and marginalised
groups (ibid.) – groups that will often
be exposed to intersecting inequalities.
For this agenda to be successfully
implemented, policies and programmes
must recognise that certain groups
are deliberately excluded, which can
exacerbate their vulnerability and
exposure to climate and disaster risks.
Intersectional approaches to
vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building take historical, social,
cultural and political contexts into
account, recognising that vulnerable
and marginalised groups are neither
homogenous nor static. Different
identities, conditions, contexts and
forms of oppression, discrimination
and marginalisation intersect and people
will experience these exclusionary
processes in various ways at different
stages of their lives.
Intersectional analysis cuts across
simple categorisation to unpack
vulnerabilities and resilience.
However, disaster risk reduction
and climate research policy and
programming continue to focus on
‘vulnerable groups’ as a collective
category, or on specific vulnerable
and marginalised groups.
resilience intel 12april 2019
30
Participants acknowledged that,
while there is general recognition that
different vulnerability factors intersect,
few interventions specifically target
groups at risk to intersecting inequalities
in policy and practice. There is a tendency
to ‘list’ vulnerabilities rather than
examining intersectionality.
Intersectional approaches require going
beyond inclusivity to examine interactions
between the different vulnerability factors
that vulnerable and marginalised groups
are exposed to in order to understand
the context and inform interventions
so that no-one is left behind.
2. Lessons from experience
of addressing vulnerability
and marginalisation in
disaster contexts
As highlighted in the section above,
many organisational attempts to be
inclusive simply list vulnerable and
marginalised groups or target broad groups,
without examining how vulnerability factors
affecting those groups interact. As a result,
some vulnerable and marginalised groups
are ‘invisible’. Ultimately, if interventions
fail to be inclusive and fail to recognise
that marginalised groups are not
homogenous or static, they will not be
effective. By examining the interactions
of vulnerabilities, the ‘ultra-vulnerable’ can
be targeted. Understanding intersectionality
and utilising intersectional approaches can
enable policies and programmes to be more
inclusive and ensure they are reaching
those who are most at risk.
Participants agreed there was
a tendency by individuals and
organisations to ‘box’ people based
5 All quotations from here in relation to the workshop are anonymised quotations
from participants who attended.
on identities perceived and ascribed
to them, with subsequent impacts
on policies and programming.
This ignores the hidden and multiple
identities people have. Dealing with
the complexity of identity is a challenge;
however, it must be recognised. It was
suggested that, rather than attempting
to capture all the identities, drivers
of exclusion should be identified to
understand the barriers facing vulnerable
and marginalised groups.
Participants acknowledged
that addressing vulnerability and
marginalisation was inherently complex
and programming must be ‘chaotic and
messy’5 to be real. It was also recognised
that it was not pragmatic for programmes
to attempt to cover everything and there
would always be limitations. Instead,
the focus should be on the process of
attempting to capture the complexity
of a context rather than the end result:
‘It is not about trying to do everything
at the same time but rather recognising
that to do what you want to do, you have
to have clarity of vision.’
There is a conflict between the ability of
organisations to remain impartial and abide
by humanitarian standards while targeting
specific vulnerable and marginalised
groups as guided by their mandates.
Organisations that target specific groups
are at risk of excluding other groups, thus
not fulfilling humanitarian commitments.
Participants questioned the need for
vulnerability-specific organisations
in the current system; however, they
acknowledged that historically these
organisations were formed as they sought
to include vulnerable and marginalised
groups that were often excluded in policies
and programming.
resilience intel 12april 2019
31
Lack of understanding of the capabilities
that people who are in need of assistance
have often leads to discriminatory
interventions. Participants agreed that
interventions, policies and programming
must treat vulnerable people with dignity
and recognise their existing capabilities,
and the fact that they have the right to be
consulted and to participate in decision-
making over issues that affect them.
Relatedly, vulnerability reduction and
resilience-building approaches can remain
disempowering: ‘It is more complicated
than viewing vulnerable groups as being
passive and in need of assistance.
It was discussed that, while empowering
and devolving responsibility to local actors
in humanitarian contexts will strengthen
their capacity and will likely make
interventions more context-specific and
relevant, it is important also to recognise
that power dynamics still exist and
discrimination and exclusion often play out
at the local level. As such, there is a role for
external actors in promoting impartiality
and ensuring the most marginalised or at
risk in society are not left behind.
Organisations are increasingly
understanding the need to use
intersectional approaches when targeting
vulnerable and marginalised groups. Some
organisations are starting to change their
policies as a result. For instance, HelpAge’s
humanitarian model is based on pillars
of protection, inclusion and advocacy.
Others are deprioritising areas not within
their expertise and collaborating with
other organisations that have expertise in
those areas. However, intersectionality and
intersectional approaches to vulnerability
reduction and resilience-building
remains a new area for the majority
of organisations and is a challenge for
organisations that are trying to respond to
multiple donor requirements, within short
timelines and with limited funding.
3. Experiences of intersectional
approaches and lessons learned
Participants agreed that, in order
to be able to design programmes that
account for intersectionality, the local
context must be adequately understood,
and that working across different
contexts was a challenge in terms of
replicating approaches. For intersectional
approaches to be operational, they
must be context-specific and recognise
the different political, economic, social,
cultural and environmental contexts
within which people live that constrain
or enable people living there in different
ways and at different times. Context
analysis should be one of the first steps
in designing policies and programmes,
and this can be achieved through tools
such as community vulnerability and
capacity assessments (VCAs). While the
need for VCAs is not new, participants
acknowledged that understanding the
intersecting inequalities that people can
face was necessary for effectively targeting
the most vulnerable and marginalised, and
must be considered in every context.
Intersectionality and intersectional
approaches can assist in bringing
attention to power and oppression in
vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building. Participants noted that
addressing power dynamics through
policies and programmes would always
be political, ‘both with a big P and a little
p’. Participatory approaches can help us
understand power dynamics and design
equitable and inclusive interventions.
Capturing contextual discrimination
should be the first step for inclusive
resilience programming. While some
vulnerable and marginalised groups
will exist everywhere and others will
not, ‘there will always be contextually
discriminated people’. By using
resilience intel 12april 2019
32
intersectional approaches to understand
this discrimination, programmes can be
made more effective. Not doing so risks
bringing about collateral damage, doing
more harm than good and deepening the
gap between groups. Participants agreed
that discrimination could be used as
a lens to understand intersectionality.
Relatedly, intersectional approaches
help us address the blanket exclusion of
vulnerable and marginalised groups. Certain
groups may be ‘invisible’ as dimensions of
a person’s experiences are hidden. Using
generic labels masks important invisibilities.
Intersectional approaches ‘help to make
the invisible visible’. They can also promote
a ‘process of discovery’ as recognition and
inclusion of a vulnerable or marginalised
group may reveal additional, previously
invisible, groups.
Attention was drawn to how often
data collection tools are not designed
to capture intersectional inequalities
effectively. An example of age ranges
ending at 60+, which can be an issue in
middle- and high-income countries, was
shared. There was also an example of
a gender-based violence data collection
tool that ended at 49, thus ignoring
the intersection of gender and old age.
Participants also agreed that the collection
of disaggregated data (e.g. by sex, age,
disability, ethnicity and socio-economic
status) was often encouraged but not
mandatory. This often results in only the
bare minimum being collected, meaning
that different identities and aspects of
social vulnerabilities are not captured.
Furthermore, when data are disaggregated,
the interactions are rarely examined or
used to inform policies and programmes.
Intersectional tools for analysis (along
with relevant skills) are critical for putting
intersectionality into practice. They
would give actors ‘a frame of reference,
a checklist to ensure that at least at
a minimum level, vulnerability factors
are taken into consideration’. However,
participants raised a concern related to
adding more to the toolkits of actors
who are already struggling to use a range
of tools to be inclusive, and reinventing
the wheel.
The intersectional tool, ACAP, presented
in the practitioner guide ‘Towards inclusion’
(Van Ek and Schot, 2017) was highlighted
as a useful tool, which examines four
key drivers of exclusion (attitude,
communication, access and participation)
in order to be able to understand the
situation rather than attempting to capture
all the identities of vulnerable individuals.
It was discussed how the use of broad
categories like ‘men’ and ‘women’ was
insufficient to understand the complexity
of gender. This was linked to the issue of
identity and who defines and applies the
categories. Relatedly, using ‘sex’ in data
collection tools reduces disaggregation
to simply ‘male’ and ‘female’.
Participants noted that gender
could be considered an entry point for
intersectionality. Intersectionality has its
roots in gender, thus it should continue
to be a big part of the debate and
moving the agenda forward.
It was agreed that, for programming to
be more inclusive and effective, systemic
change is needed to ensure intersecting
equalities are considered and that no
one is left behind.
Participants suggested that agencies
must be more propositional to donors
to ensure these approaches are taken into
account in a meaningful and realistic way;
the length of existing funding streams
was highlighted as a critical barrier
to achieving such change.
resilience intel 12april 2019
33
4. Opportunities for
intersectional approaches
Participants discussed the opportunity
for intersectionality to encourage
interdisciplinary research that ‘examines
the spaces in-between, through multiple
lenses, to generate something new’.
Such research would help us understand
intersecting inequalities. Relatedly,
intersectionality can help promote a more
social element in resilience policies and
programmes, presenting an opportunity
to change the narrative, as resilience is
often treated as a technical issue.
Intersectionality was recognised as
becoming increasingly important for
influencing governments and donors,
especially with respect to inclusion, as ‘it
allows you to demonstrate the relevance
of your issue in relation to other issues’,
resulting in more effective influencing.
Nevertheless, participants felt there was
still a lack of awareness among government
actors when it came to intersectional issues.
Intersectional approaches that address
the needs of one vulnerable or marginalised
group can support other marginalised
or at-risk groups. Organisations should
therefore consider the wider context
beyond their target groups and how
interventions could benefit everyone.
This would result in more effective and
inclusive development. Participants agreed
that intersectionality was useful as ‘it
allows people to understand that you are
not just talking about your own issues. It
allows you to demonstrate how your issue
affects their issue’.
Establishing consortia is necessary in
order to work on intersectionality, as
it is to work effectively on resilience.
Consortia should be supported by
organisational partnerships to influence
donors and should include organisations
that represent different vulnerable
and marginalised groups.
Intersectional approaches are useful
in understanding and supporting life
course approaches. Different intersecting
factors will influence individuals at
different periods in their lifetime and
will recognise the different needs and
the kind of approaches required. This
demonstrates the common ground of
organisations’ target groups. Participants
noted that many organisations were
implicitly using intersectional approaches
in their programmes and policies.
Organisations should link with
local organisations such as disabled
people’s organisations and older
people’s associations in communities
to ensure inclusivity and more effective
context analysis, programme design and
implementation. If organisations do not
have expertise in working with specific
vulnerable and marginalised groups, they
should partner with local organisations
that do. Participants questioned
why organisations should have to
be a ‘jack of all trades’.
5. Barriers to
intersectional approaches
Organisations target specific vulnerable
and marginalised groups as outlined
in their mandates. Participants gave
examples of organisations that, even when
supposedly collaborating on programmes,
focused on specific vulnerability factors
and did not consider how they intersected
with vulnerability factors targeted by
the partner organisations – the result of
an ‘organisational mind-set problem’.
Participants discussed how the
humanitarian system was not set up
to support intersectional approaches
resilience intel 12april 2019
34
in humanitarian crises, as organisations
that target specific groups are influential
in the cluster system. Organisations
are therefore at risk of excluding other
vulnerable and marginalised groups.
Space for organisations to utilise
intersectional approaches in vulnerability
reduction and resilience-building is
limited owing to donor structures. Donors
have their own mandates and interests
and, if these are not aligned with what
organisations identify as necessary
for a programme to be equitable and
inclusive, they will not receive funding
or they will not be able to give as much
prominence to the identified needs
or priorities in order to meet donor
demands. Participants described how
some donors were also not socially
progressive and did not recognise
the importance of intersectionality.
Identifying where intersectionality
fits within organisations is a challenge.
Relatedly, determining who from
the organisation would take the lead
in policies and programmes related
to intersectionality remains difficult to
clarify. Participants outlined the risk that
only the individual designated as the
lead on intersectionality would focus on
intersectionality. Conversely, participants
agreed that, in reality, the assumption
‘everyone can do it’ never works.
Time is a constraint in both
humanitarian and development contexts
and represents a barrier to intersectional
approaches, which require time to
understand the complexity of different
contexts. Especially in humanitarian
responses, there is often a ‘trade-
off between speed and complexity’.
Participants also criticised the length of
vulnerability reduction and resilience-
building funding streams and programmes
as often being too short in term.
Participants discussed how cost was
often cited as a barrier to addressing
intersectionality; however, there is a lack
of data and evidence to support the claim
that tackling intersecting inequalities
is too expensive: ‘It is an easy excuse’.
Ultimately, ‘if poverty is to be eradicated
it will probably be expensive’.
Participants highlighted that the
language of intersectionality was too
academic and often regarded as jargon –
that is, it is not an operative term.
Fundamentally, it is also a term that
does not come from the vulnerable and
marginalised groups it is seeking to assist.
6. Conclusions and next steps
There is a need to raise awareness
of intersectionality and intersectional
approaches in research, policy and
programmes targeting vulnerable and
marginalised groups. Intersectionality
is beginning to be more widely recognised;
however, leadership is required from
donors and organisations to bring
intersectionality into focus in vulnerability
reduction and resilience-building.
More collaboration between
organisations that target vulnerable and
marginalised groups is needed in order to
operationalise intersectional approaches.
In doing so, expertise on different elements
of intersectionality can be shared and
invisible groups identified and their needs
and priorities promoted in programme
design and implementation. Programmes
should be designed in an overlapping
way to target intersectional inequalities.
Currently, this is inhibited by the
rigidity of donor funding, organisational
mandates and existing politics.
Consortia can bring together likeminded
organisations and influence donors to
The BRACED Knowledge Manager generates evidence
and learning on resilience and adaptation in partnership
with the BRACED projects and the wider resilience
community. It gathers robust evidence of what works
to strengthen resilience to climate extremes and
disasters, and initiates and supports processes to ensure
that evidence is put into use in policy and programmes.
The Knowledge Manager also fosters partnerships
to amplify the impact of new evidence and learning,
in order to significantly improve levels of resilience
in poor and vulnerable countries and communities
around the world.
The views presented in this paper are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views
of BRACED, its partners or donor.
Readers are encouraged to reproduce material from
BRACED Knowledge Manager reports for their own
publications, as long as they are not being sold
commercially. As copyright holder, the BRACED
programme requests due acknowledgement and a copy
of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link
to the original resource on the BRACED website.
Designed and typeset by Soapbox,
www.soapbox.co.uk
Cover image: © UN Photo/Kibae Park
create space and promote an enabling
environment in which intersectional
approaches can be supported in wider
vulnerability and resilience research,
policies and programmes.
Universal design – that is, interventions
that are accessible by all and benefit
broader society – should be emphasised.
This is especially relevant with regard
to influencing donors. Universal design
approaches that benefit a specific
vulnerable group are not exclusive to that
group and can in fact benefit everyone
in society – meaning they can be more
inclusive and cost-effective.
The growing attention being given to
disability in international development
(e.g. the DFID-hosted Global Disability
Summit in 2018) is an opportunity to
bring intersectionality into the discussion
on equity and inclusion. It should be
highlighted that effective disability
programmes need to emphasise that ‘no
one is just someone with a disability’;
there will always be other intersecting
inequalities to consider.
Ultimately, if intersectionality is not
considered, objectives and goals are at risk
of not being achieved as vulnerable and
marginalised groups will be left behind.
references for annex 2
ADCAP (Age and Disability Capacity
Programme) (2018) Humanitarian inclusion
standards for older people. ADCAP. London:
HelpAge International
Samman, E. and Stuart, E. (2017) Defining “leave
no one behind”’. Briefing Note. London: ODI
Van Ek, V. and Schot, S. (2017) ‘Towards
inclusion: a guide for organisations and
practitioners’. Mission East, Light for the
World and ICCO. https://missioneast.org/
sites/default/files/2018-01/Towards%20
Inclusion%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20
organisations%20%26%20practitioners.pdf
... 46 Intersectional approaches take historical, cultural, social and political contexts into account, recognising that vulnerable and marginalised groups are not homogenous or static, and that different factors will influence people's ability to prepare for, cope with and respond to shocks and stresses. 47,43 Taking a people-centred and intersectional approach in policy and programming will enable policy-makers and development practitioners to move beyond a 'onesize-fits-all' approach, and to understand the trends and dynamics of people living in Malawi in relation to a range of shocks and stresses. 43 It will enable these actors to understand how different groups are affected by shocks and during lean seasons, 2 based on their social identities and geography, as well as what their self-identified needs, priorities and capacities are in order cope with, respond to and recover from these events. ...
... While many of the policy documents highlight the need to take into account different disadvantaged groups, there is limited information about how they aim to understand the different needs, priorities, vulnerabilities and capacities of different people, and how these change over time. 43,47 This is a critical gap in implementing inclusive resilience policies and programmes, and will likely mean that the information, communication, technology, wellbeing and resource needs of the most marginalised are not met. ...
... It is important that resilience is not 'detached from the underlying causes of vulnerability'. 47 The focus on poverty within the National Resilience Strategy, without adequate analysis of the different social, economic, cultural, political and environmental contexts which influence people's vulnerability, capacity and exposure to different shocks and stresses is a severe limitation. 43 As a new initiative which has not yet finalised implementation arrangements, it is unclear to what extent the Government of Malawi and its various sectoral ministries will implement or consider the GESI components of the National Resilience Strategy. ...
Technical Report
This paper presents a synthesis of existing evidence on gender equality, social inclusion and resilience in Malawi, including persisting issues, trends and changes; knowledge and evidence gaps; and policy implementation and capacity gaps. It aims to identify key themes and lessons, as well as potential areas for further research, policy and programming, recognising the need to build intersectional approaches to build resilience to a range of shocks and stresses. The paper aims to inform a wide audience of policy-makers, development practitioners, civil society organisations, think tanks and researchers. The paper has been developed as part of the Building Resilience and Adapting to Climate Change (BRACC) Programme, for which gender equality, social inclusion and intersectionality are core themes.
... It means considering the historical, social, and political context and recognizing the unique experience of the individual based on the intersection of all relevant grounds and allows the experience of discrimination, based on the confluence of grounds involved, to be acknowledged and remedied (Crenshaw, 2019). Intersectional approaches also allow a better understanding of the factors that promote vulnerability reduction where resilience building is required to fully understand how inequalities intersect and affect people in different contexts (Chaplin, Twigg and Lovell, 2019). This requirement could not be more adequate to help us to face and reflect on the current challenges, where so many people continue to be discriminated regarding their access to water in healthy conditions to promote satisfaction of even the most basic needs (water access) for a decent life. ...
... intersectional approaches, multidimensional challenges, regional contexts, water policy (Chaplin, Twigg and Lovell, 2019) ...
Article
We are facing increasing challenges in today’s world. After 2 years of pandemic that turned all our habits upside down and forced us to adopt new attitudes in social, family, and individual spheres, we now face a real war situation in Europe, and the threats are not becoming lighter. Water must be one of our ways to bridge people, minds, and practices across the world. World Water Policy journal stood from the first day towards promoting leadership thinking and innovative attitudes that any of us can have to implement a refreshed way to cope with the multidimensional water problems and how they impact and interconnect into our lives. We have been publishing articles written by senior and younger water professionals, academics, and practitioners from all regions of the world. We have praised the UN flags (e.g., leaving no one behind) in the water world, and we have incentivized our authors (and reviewers) to look beyond the written shapes or formats, to seek the more comprehensive and more ambitious aims of agency for a change. In the recent past, an integrated approach was mandatory to achieve good levels of water services and water resources protection. But the world evolved (negatively) towards more interconnected challenges and less clear solutions from a singular perspective. Therefore, we can accept that intersectional approaches are necessary today to allow us to firstly understand complexity and secondly to act accordingly to address the failures. Intersectionality emerged from the ideas debated in critical race theory (Crenshaw, 1989). It means considering the historical, social, and political context and recognizing the unique experience of the individual based on the intersection of all relevant grounds and allows the experience of discrimination, based on the confluence of grounds involved, to be acknowledged and remedied (Crenshaw, 2019). Intersectional approaches also allow a better understanding of the factors that promote vulnerability reduction where resilience building is required to fully understand how inequalities intersect and affect people in different contexts (Chaplin, Twigg and Lovell, 2019). This requirement could not be more adequate to help us to face and reflect on the current challenges, where so many people continue to be discriminated regarding their access to water in healthy conditions to promote satisfaction of even the most basic needs (water access) for a decent life.
... Instead, if policy interventions are to inclusively target that population's needs, decision makers and development practitioners will need to focus on identifying context-specific assemblages of vulnerabilities within target populations. Methodological innovation to support and include intersectional approaches in vulnerability analysis and interventions will also be required, since we currently have limited tools to address this challenge in research or policy domains or within vulnerability assessments and indices (see e.g., Acosta et al., 2021;Chaplin et al., 2019;Kaijser & Kronsell, 2014;Ravera et al., 2016;Van Aelst & Holvoet, 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
The ability of businesses to adapt effectively to climate change is highly influenced by the external business enabling environment. Constraints to adaptive capacity are experienced by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) across sub‐Saharan Africa, regardless of the gender of the business owner. However, gender is a critical social cleavage through which differences in adaptive capacity manifest and in Africa most entrepreneurs are women. We conduct a systematic review to synthesize existing knowledge on differential vulnerability of female entrepreneurs in Africa to climate risk, in relation to their sensitivity to extreme climate events and their adaptive capacity. We synthesize this literature using a vulnerability analysis approach that situates vulnerability and adaptive capacity within the context of the wider climate risk framework denoted in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. In doing so, we identify gendered barriers and enablers to private sector adaptation and suggest women entrepreneurs face a “triple differential vulnerability” to climate change, wherein they: (1) are often more sensitive to climate risk, as a result of their concentration in certain sectors and types of enterprises (e.g., micro SMEs in the agricultural sector in remote regions); (2) face additional barriers to adaptation in the business environment, including access to finance, technologies, (climate and adaptation) information and supportive policies; and (3) are also often concurrently on the frontline of managing climate risk at household levels. Since various forms of inequality often create compounding experiences of discrimination and vulnerability, we pay particular attention to how factors of differential vulnerability intersect, amplify, and reproduce. This article is categorized under: Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Institutions for Adaptation
... Holding misconceptions deterred uptake of safer practices such as VMMC. Intersectionality informs us that individuals and groups can experience both power and oppression simultaneously (Chaplin et al., 2019). While marginality was associated with vulnerability, participants also enjoyed some degree of freedom and independence to make decisions on SRHR, such as uptake and use of contraception without fear of questioning from significant others such as parents. ...
Article
Drawing on interviews and focus group discussions with 26 participants aged between 10 and 17, the paper describes sexual reproductive health problems, health-seeking behaviour, access to and utilisation of sexual reproductive health services among children living on the street in Harare. An intersectionality approach showed how participants’ social location, age and gender created vulnerabilities leading to STIs, maternal complications and sexual violence among others. Additionally, these factors contributed to challenges in accessing sexual reproductive health services among children living on the street. Thus there is need for tailor-made interventions to influence better health outcomes among children living on the street.
... Values are socially and culturally constructed and vary across contexts, shaping people's aspirations and worldviews. SDG 6 calls for safe water and sanitation for all; in practice, this means working towards greater water equity and taking intersectional approaches to reduce inequalities in vulnerability 16 . Placing values at the centre of climate resilience offers a politicised and human approach that acknowledges the importance of contextual working for vulnerability reduction and understanding that climate resilience means different things to different people. ...
Article
Full-text available
Climate resilient development has become the new paradigm for sustainable development influencing theory and practice across all sectors globally—gaining particular momentum in the water sector, since water security is intimately connected to climate change. Climate resilience is increasingly recognised as being inherently political, yet efforts often do not sufficiently engage with context-specific socio-ecological, cultural and political processes, including structural inequalities underlying historically produced vulnerabilities. Depoliticised approaches have been shown to pose barriers to concerted and meaningful change. In this article, world-leading water specialists from academic and practitioner communities reflect on, and share examples of, the importance of keeping people and politics at the centre of work on climate resilient water security. We propose a roadmap to meaningfully engage with the complex politics of climate resilient water security. It is critical to re-politicise climate resilience to enable efforts towards sustainable development goal 6—clean water and sanitation for all.
... Very rarely have disaster interventions addressed the risk and resilience of women in a holistic and cohesive fashion that recognizes their diverse economic, political, legal, occupational, familial, ideological, and cultural backgrounds. The adoption of an intersectional lens for the study of women and disasters has spurred progress in rectifying essentialist approaches to risk [29], but highly aggregated policy frameworks such as the SFDRR still fail to fully address structural forms of social inequality and the underlying risk dynamics that produce differences (with)in observed female and male vulnerability trends. ...
Article
Full-text available
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) is the guiding international policy structure for disaster risk reduction activities, shaping DRR strategies and practices across the world. Its targets, priorities, and supporting documents are critical in influencing the direction of programming and funding streams for national and local level DRR interventions, and its indicators play a vital role in setting benchmarks and monitoring progress. The Framework has made progress by drawing attention to the diverging ways in which women experience disasters, and highlighted their increased vulnerability in certain disaster situations. But how far does the Sendai Framework really go towards delivering a gender responsive strategy for disaster risk reduction? Five years into its implementation, this paper analyses the relevance of the SFDRR for women in the context of disasters. It argues that although the framework has made headway in promoting the inclusion of women and girls in disaster policy and programming, on the whole it represents a missed opportunity for addressing fundamental gender based issues in DRR. Recommendations are offered for mitigating several SFDRR shortcomings during its current process of implementation. These include outlining a more refined conceptualization of gender, improved inclusion of women and sexual minorities in its indicators and implementation documents, and greater alignment with parallel policy frameworks and other indicator systems.
... This adds another layer to recent research on intersectional disaster vulnerabilities. Individuals may simultaneously belong to multiple groups or identities, leading to complex patterns of vulnerabilities [83], and the experiences, needs, and priorities of individuals may not be adequately captured when DRR aggregates "vulnerability" into a single category [84]. Even the most marginalized and vulnerable people are not just victims of circumstance, but they also possess capacities [93] and practice individual and collective coping strategies in the face of disaster [85]. ...
Article
From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, we see evidence of an ever tighter coupling between natural hazard-related disasters (“disasters”) and violent social conflict (“conflict”), but scholarship often focuses on conflict only as a consequence and not a driver of disaster. Disaster studies scholarship has established that conflict can create or exacerbate disaster vulnerabilities and that disasters and their impacts are concentrated in conflict-affected and fragile contexts. Yet, research at the intersection of disaster and conflict has not comprehensively investigated the causal mechanisms that lead from conflict to disaster beyond the creation of vulnerabilities, and in global policy and practice, conflict is conventionally considered outside the purview of disaster risk reduction (DRR). To better understand how conflict drives disaster risk, this research gathers qualitative empirical evidence from 32 in-depth interviews with DRR experts in 25 conflict-affected countries across South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa experiencing diverse internal conflict conditions, from violent protests to civil war. The findings show that conflicts do not just comprise the context for disasters, but also contribute to disaster risk creation and amplification through diverse causal pathways related to hazards, exposure, vulnerabilities, and coping capacities, and do so at multiple institutional and temporal scales. This research provides a new foundation built on DRR practitioner expertise for more comprehensive and targeted DRR strategies and approaches in conflict-affected regions with the goal of ensuring that those experiencing the disaster-conflict nexus are not left behind by DRR programming.
Thesis
Full-text available
The number of wildfires occurring globally is increasing, exacerbated by urbanisation and changes in weather patterns. People’s safety is threatened by this growing problem. Consequently, researchers have conducted studies of wildfires and human behaviour in response to wildfire evacuations in regions such as Australia and the USA. Regions in Europe have received less attention, despite facing the same issues. In addition, due to the different methods and focuses applied in existing disaster research, it proves challenging to compare and utilise results of multiple studies when developing tools for community safety (e.g. evacuation simulation models, for use in planning and training). This research addresses these gaps by: • devising a framework for data collection and organisation (CIBER-t) • applying mixed methods and a research focus shaped by this framework • collecting data from various sources (media, professionals involved in wildfire management, residents) in wildland-urban interface/intermix (WUI) areas in the European region of southern France • identifying, quantifying and contextualising aspects of individual and group behavioural responses to wildfires in these WUI areas • comparing the French data with new data from Australia, thereby building an understanding of behaviours that may be generalised or regionally-specific • using the combined data to create regression models that predict behavioural outcomes such as the decision to evacuate and evacuation delay times • considering the potential for regression and evacuation models to assist researchers, practitioners, policy-makers, and the public in improving community safety
Book
Full-text available
This guidance provides a tool governments and development co-operation can draw on in their efforts to strengthen the resilience of human and natural systems to the impacts of climate change. It highlights three aspirations to consider when planning and implementing action to build climate resilience (country ownership; inclusiveness; and environmental and social sustainability). The guidance also outlines four mechanisms (governance; sector-level approaches; finance; and monitoring, evaluation and learning) and three enablers (data and information; capacity; and technologies) in support of climate resilience, proposing concrete actions in the form of checklists.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.