Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Can Participatory Action Research Deepen the Understanding of
Intersectionality in the Field of Biodiversity Research?
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture, Austria
Anita.Thaler@ifz.at
Sandra.Karner@ifz.at
Abstract: Halting biodiversity loss and reducing inequalities are targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which
are not within reach. In 2022, the European Commission started to explicitly include gender with an intersectional
perspective in their Horizon Europe working programme. In this paper, research is presented that tackles the very
interlinkage of social inequalities in biodiversity studies. The first – conceptual – phase of an ongoing biodiversity project is
analysed, explaining the knowledge co-creation process within a transdisciplinary, international team of researchers and
practitioners, aiming to elaborate a methodological framework of intersectionality. Five intensive biodiversity case studies
from Norway, Germany, Austria, Great Britain, and Switzerland, and their specific understandings of the concept of
intersectionality are presented in detail and analysed with an action research approach. The outcome of this conceptual
project phase is a report, which was further analysed regarding the development of approaches to include intersectionality
in overall eleven biodiversity case studies, with a quantitative and qualitative content analysis. The main conclusion of this
research is that intersectionality is a hard to grasp concept outside gender studies. Thus, it is on the one hand used as a
synonym for terms like sociodemographic variables, and on the other hand closely related to diversity. It depends on the
definition of diversity, whether these terms can be used almost interchangeably. This paper argues that the general focus of
diversity – inclusion of all potential persons – is different to the focus of intersectionality, pointing towards discriminations
at the crossroads of social or political categories. The latter is of specific relevance for environmental justice issues by
addressing neglected, excluded or oppressed persons and their knowledges.
Key words: Intersectionality, Inequalities, Biodiversity, Food Justice, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Co-Creation
1. Introduction
1.1 Policy Background: why Intersectionality Came Into Biodiversity Research
The world is not on track for achieving most of the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For
instance, SDG 15 aiming at protecting terrestrial ecosystems and halting biodiversity loss
(https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal15) is not within reach. Furthermore, it has been stated that the world-wide
consequences of biodiversity loss on rising inequalities have to be addressed (Independent Group of Scientists,
2019).
In their new research funding programme, ‘Horizon Europe’, the European Commission (EC, the governing
executive of the European Union) asks to explicitly include gender with an intersectional perspective in
biodiversity research proposals since 2022:
“The proposals should explore intersectionality approaches and consider interlocking
systems of power between gender and other social categories and identities such as
religion, ethnicity and race (including migrants and refugees), social class and wealth,
gender identity and sexual orientation and disability to better address access to and
ownership of nature-based solutions.” (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/horizon-cl6-2022-
biodiv-01-09?tenders=false&callIdentifier=HORIZON-CL6-2022-BIODIV-01)
The project PLANET4B (“understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms,
behaviour and social learning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making”; 2022-2025;
https://planet4b.eu/) received EC funding in 2022 after submitting a successful proposal to the aforementioned
call, using the concept of intersectionality to tackle the interlinkage of social inequalities in biodiversity decision-
making. The project team comprises universities, NGOs, research and other organisations from Austria, Belgium,
Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, and the UK.
1.2 Theoretical Background: Intersectionality and its Relation to Biodiversity
Kimberle Crenshaw (1989) first introduced intersectionality – based on previous work, such as bell hooks’ (1981)
book “Ain’t I a Woman” – as an analysis of a legal case of discrimination of Black women in the US. Crenshaw
378
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
elaborated that frameworks using only one social or identity category are discriminating Black women because
the intersections of race, sex, and class-discriminations are ignored. She argued that by re-centring the “…
discrimination discourse at the intersection … we may develop language which is critical of the dominant view
and which provides some basis for unifying activity.” (Crenshaw 1989, p. 167)
Applying an intersectional approach to biodiversity means addressing issues of access to resources, differing
impacts on diverse groups of actors, and analysing privileges of knowledge and legitimisation (Mangelsdorf et
al., 2016). An intersectional perspective highlights potential intersections of discriminations for instance by
asking whose access is limited for instance by educational or economic background, and if certain experiences
and voices are under-represented. Thus, a critical reflection of knowledge production in biodiversity research
includes also postcolonial criticism (Schurr & Segebart, 2012). Biodiversity research can include discourses of
social justice, discrimination, postcolonialism, and the necessity to include various ‘situated knowledges’
(Haraway 1988) without using the term intersectionality. For instance, Cristina Yumie Aoki Inoue and Matías
Franchini (2020) refer to “socio-biodiversity” and argue that relations between society and nature must be
reconstructed by broadening our very notion of knowledge.
The authors of this paper are responsible for providing a process of co-creating knowledge on intersectionality
in biodiversity within the transdisciplinary PLANET4B research team, which resulted in a methodological
framework on intersectionality (Thaler & Karner 2023). Based on existing theoretical work (Crenshaw, 1989;
Hancock, 2007; Walgenbach, 2012; Rice et al., 2019; Bauer et al., 2021), the authors defined the concept of
intersectionality for the project and its team members as follows:
“Intersectionality highlights that race, gender, disability, sexuality, class, age, and other
social categories are interrelated and lead to different levels of power and oppression
influenced by forces like colonialism and neoliberalism.” (Thaler & Karner 2023, p. 5).
The PLANET4B team agreed to broach the issue of intersectionality in all eleven case studies, and ask whether a
loss in biodiversity can potentially affect people at the intersections of social categories and identity markers
differently. In the next section, it is explained how the authors co-created a methodological framework with the
transdisciplinary team with five of the eleven biodiversity case studies, which are carried out within learning
communities – as so called intensive case studies – in Europe.
2. Methodology
Two methods will be presented in this paper. First, a participatory action research (MacDonald 2012) started
with the knowledge co-creation process in the PLANET4B project’s conceptualisation phase, aiming to retrace
the steps of including intersectionality in case studies. That includes this very paper, which has been distributed
among the project team, as an intervention, which generates questions, conversations, and insights:
Participatory action research (PAR) is considered a subset of action research, which is the
“systematic collection and analysis of data for the purpose of taking action and making
change” by generating practical knowledge (Gillis & Jackson, 2002, p.264).” (MacDonald
2012, p. 35)
Secondly, a content analysis will add insights on the impact of knowledge co-creation by assessing an outcome
of this project’s first phase with a gender perspective, a published report from Mendes and colleagues (2023)
conceptualising all empirical biodiversity case studies and their integration of intersectionality.
2.1 Process Level: Participatory Action Research
During the kick-off meeting of PLANET4B in December 2022 the authors – in their role as task leaders to make
‘intersectionality’ applicable outside the gender scholars’ community – introduced the concept of
intersectionality and connections to biodiversity to the transdisciplinary consortium. Then, based on the
literature overview on intersectionality with a focus on biodiversity, a series of online co-creation workshops
were organised between February and March 2023. The purpose of the workshops was to co-create a shared
understanding of intersectionality and a methodological framework, specifically to identify and include
vulnerable groups of actors in five – so-called intensive – biodiversity case studies.
22 PLANET4B team members from twelve organisations participated in three online workshops. The main group
consisted of members from five teams, who were supposed to work on intensive case studies together.
Additionally, further interested researchers from the consortium attended and brought in expertise on
379
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
biodiversity research. The authors of this article had multiple roles, as gender experts they conceptualised and
facilitated the co-creation process, as researchers of one of the five intensive case studies, the one based in
Austria.
The levels of previous experiences with the concept of intersectionality differed very much among the
participants. Individual members of two of five participating teams (from Austria, Germany, Norway,
Switzerland, UK) were already familiar with feminist, post-colonial and/or social justice discourses and theories,
while others were relatively new to the thematic area. This variety in gender knowledge (Wetterer 2009) came
already to our attention when intersectionality was first discussed at the kick-off meeting in.
All three online workshops followed the following didactical elements (Thaler & Karner 2023a):
• introducing the participants
• interactive core-activities
• plenary discussions
• reflection and feedback phase
After these workshops, the five case study teams summarised findings from literature reviews and drafted their
concepts, connecting intersectionality to their specific biodiversity research. One of the authors consulted the
three teams without any previous gender studies expertise (face to face, by telephone and via e-mail) and
accompanied all teams in the writing process alongside several feedback loops.
Between April and September 2023, the PLANET4B consortium exchanged theories of change and intervention
methods and further planned their case study activities. In May 2023 the result of the knowledge co-creation
process so far was published as a methodological framework on intersectionality (Thaler & Karner 2023).
Until October all case studies officially started their fieldwork by inviting relevant stakeholders and initiating
local learning communities. At the end of October, the whole consortium met at another face-to-face meeting
and reflected upon the actual relevant intersections of inequality applied to all eleven biodiversity case studies
in the course of a fishbowl discussion moderated by one of the authors. Finally, in November 2023, a project
report was published, comprising the conceptualisation of all eleven biodiversity case studies, and its application
of the intersectionality approach (Mendes et al. 2023).
2.2 Impact Level: Content Analysis
One aim of the knowledge co-creation process was to support the transdisciplinary teams, who had no or little
previous scientific gender knowledge, in order to prevent the application of everyday gender knowledge
perpetuating stereotypes and biases (Wetterer 2009). Another goal was to co-create a practical methodological
framework on intersectionality, which could be specifically used for the biodiversity case studies of PLANET4B
(Thaler & Karner 2023).
An outcome of the first conceptualisation phase of the project PLANET4B is a published report on all eleven
biodiversity case studies (“Learning Communities and sectoral Advisory Boards established for 5 intensive place-
based and 6 extensive sector-based case studies“, by Mendes et al. 2023), explaining planned activities within
all case studies, and the application of intersectionality, especially in addressing actors, stakeholders and
advisors.
With a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of this report (Mendes et al. 2023), the use of the
intersectionality approach within the planned biodiversity case studies can be assessed (Mayring 2014),
following the general research question:
How does the discourse on intersectionality within the PLANET4B team refer to the methodological framework
on intersectionality as an outcome of the co-created gender knowledge of the participatory action research
(described in Thaler & Karner 2023)?
3. Results
In this section, the results of both methodological steps will be presented. First, the participatory action research
process itself – analysing the co-creation of knowledge on intersectionality in biodiversity generally, and
integrating the methodological framework (Thaler & Karner 2023) using intersectionality in biodiversity case
studies specifically. Second, the quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the PLANET4B report (Mendes
380
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
et al. 2023) to explore the application of the co-created gender knowledge in planning biodiversity case studies
with an intersectional lens.
3.1 Process Level: Analysing the Co-Creation of the Methodological Framework on Intersectionality
The co-created methodological approach of using intersectionality in biodiversity case studies was the result of
an iterative cycle. The initial literature review on intersectionality in biodiversity research informed the first co-
creation workshop with transdisciplinary partners of five intensive biodiversity case studies (in the fields of
inclusive nature recreation and outdoor activities, urban biodiversity and food, and biodiverse agriculture).
Findings from partners’ specific literature reviews were integrated in the following co-creation workshops, which
led to improved case study concepts and literature reviews, and finally to a framework of “doing biodiversity
case studies with an intersectional lens” (Thaler & Karner 2023, p. 17 ff.):
1. Reflexivity of researchers informed by intersectionality – useful questions to start are:
a. Where do I stand?
b. What are my privileges?
c. Where are my connections to the case study?
d. Where are my entry points?
e. Who can help us connecting to human and non-human actors?
2. Approaching actors of biodiversity case studies using an intersectional perspective – useful questions
to include actors are:
a. Who are we doing research with?
b. What knowledge is valued and how?
c. Who are we missing and why?
d. How diverse are the people we are missing?
3. Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens – useful questions for doing intersectional
biodiversity research are:
a. How are we deciding on research topics and questions?
b. How can we enable research on eye-level with our actors/stakeholders?
c. How can we use creative research methods to tap into undervalued knowledge?
3.2 Process Level: Analysing Draft Concepts Using Intersectionality in Biodiversity Case Studies
The participatory action research addressed specifically those biodiversity case studies1, which are planned as
intensive case studies establishing learning communities in concrete European regions and participated the
knowledge co-creation process:
• Children with disabilities and outdoor recreation in Norway,
• ethnic minority communities and access to nature and the outdoors, in UK,
• urban youth, intersectionality, and nature in Germany,
• urban food for biodiversity and inclusion in Austria, and
• agriculture, religion and biodiversity, in Switzerland.
In spring 2023 the five teams initially planned their case studies and discussed the role of intersectionality within
their biodiversity research (see Thaler & Karner 2023):
Helene Figari, Yennie Bredin and Vegard Gundersen (2023) planned to support and research a nature connection
for children with disabilities in Oslo. During the first discussions of this case study, the basic idea was using
recreation activities as starting point for biodiversity research. By asking, who has access to those recreation
activities and who gets excluded, and then whose knowledge would be missing, if formerly excluded groups are
not included, the focus of the Norwegian case started to shift towards children with disabilities. But, although
green spaces are important for individuals’ wellbeing and health in cities, children are mostly excluded in
1 The following description of the five intensive biodiversity case studies focuses on the concept ualization of intersectionality.
Details on the theoretical background and planned research and intervention methods are described in the case study
chapters in the aforementioned report (Thaler & Karner 2023).
381
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
planning processes of recreation areas in cities. The assumption of the Norwegian case study is that at the
intersection of age and (dis)ability a systematic exclusion leads to a specific disadvantage of disabled children in
the decision making of recreation areas:
“Since children with disabilities tend to be excluded from outdoor recreation, we suspect
that being both children and disabled also entails a double disadvantage when it comes to
influencing planning and prioritisation of outdoor recreation areas (Porębska et al., 2021).”
(Figari et al. 2023, p.23).
Geraldine Brown, Alex Franklin and Geeta Ludhra (2023) proclaimed to diversifying access to the outdoors
through bringing people from diverse backgrounds together and exchanging their biodiversity stories and
knowledge in the Chilterns Area of Natural Beauty, a White rural area outside of Oxford in the UK. The case study
centres around the shared experiences of people from ethnic minority communities serving as a vehicle to
connect to stakeholders from the environmental sector as a starting point for change. The case study team
states:
“An intersectional approach will enable us to capture similarities and differences within and
between participants and capture a nuanced understanding of how racialised communities’
experience nature and the outdoors.” (Brown et al. 2023, p.26).
The UK case study will co-produce knowledge about the relationship of ethnic minority communities to
biodiversity and will foster a dialogue with decision makers to engage with people from diverse backgrounds in
addressing biodiversity loss (ibid.).
Ilkhom Soliev, Ammalia Podlaszewska, Zafar Saydaliev and Torsten Wähler (2023) planned on researching how
experiential learning, behavioural games, and creative interventions can enable nature prioritisation in decision-
making of young people, including youth with less privilege in their case study in Germany.
The main assumption is that feeling powerless is a relevant barrier in prioritising biodiversity in young people’s
everyday lives. The German case study team states:
“The anxiety and the feeling of powerlessness might be stronger in young people with less
privileged intersectionality backgrounds (e.g. migration) (e.g. Borho et al., 2022), who might
have less access to various political systems (e.g. elections) and might face additional
challenges of social acceptance/inclusion/integration, all potentially explaining the level of
nature and biodiversity prioritisation.” (Soliev et al. 2023, p. 32).
Sandra Karner, David Steinwender and Anita Thaler (2023) planned initiating an edible city initiative, which
connects biodiversity, sustainable food and social justice issues in Graz, Austria.
The starting point of including intersectionality in this urban gardening related case study is the assumption that
in Austria inequality is the main driver of food insecurity, not the unavailability of ‘good food’ per se. These
mentioned inequalities are mostly area-based in cities, leading to poorer access to healthy food for residents of
low-income and ethnic minority neighbourhoods.
Alternative food and gardening initiatives aiming at overcoming prevailing problems of the corporate food
regime advocate more food justice. However, in practice, it turns out that these alternatives tend to be lacking
social diversity, and reproducing inequality and hegemonic domination. This is the communicated motivation
for setting up a “diverse foodscape” in Austria:
“The Bio-Diverse Edible City Graz will aim at establishing a diverse foodscape, which will not
only cover the food system in its narrow sense (food production and supply perspective), but
also green spaces as edible landscapes and areas for learning, recreation and social
interaction (societal perspective) as well. … to get in touch with different user groups to
identify their needs and to make green spaces more attractive for under-represented groups,
especially women at the intersection of gender, age and migrant background.” (Karner et
al. 2023, p. 40)
Robert Home and Ghezal Sabir (2023) described their case study as biodiversity-promoting farming practices in
Switzerland with a focus on the role of spirituality and religious beliefs. It is to be seen, whether certain spiritual
beliefs and practices in the context of farming are positively influencing behaviour change towards biodiversity
decisions like it could be shown for health. Discussing their starting point to include intersectionality in the
biodiversity case study in Switzerland, the team was advised to take a closer look at gender inequities in Swiss
382
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
farming and move along from there. As religion was an already set variable, the team concluded with their
concept:
“Religion and gender are the two axes along which intersectionalities will be included in this
study. … The majority of Swiss farmers being male is largely due to the social structures that
favour sons over daughters in questions of farm inheritance. Hence, males are more likely
to gain education in agriculture, which indirectly means that women have fewer knowledge
resources to participate in strategic discussions. Less is known about the relationship
between religion and biodiversity decisions.” (Home & Sabir, 2023, p. 44).
3.3 Impact Level: Analysing Final Concepts Using Intersectionality in Biodiversity Case Studies
To assess the impact of the knowledge co-creation process, the content of the report on “Learning Communities
and sectoral Advisory Boards established for 5 intensive place-based and 6 extensive sector-based case studies“
(Mendes et al. 2023), published in November 2023, was analysed. The leading research question of the content
analysis (Mayring 2014) was how the discourse on intersectionality in the 72 pages long report of Mendes and
colleagues (2023) refers to the co-created gender knowledge of the participatory action research (the
methodological framework on intersectionality described in Thaler & Karner 2023).
At first a quantitative content analysis could show that the concept of intersectionality was used 51 times in the
text, followed by 38 mentions of a related concept, “diversity”. It is important to state that not all references of
“diversity” or “diverse” were counted as related concept of intersectionality, as the term is also part of
epistemologically different concepts like “biodiversity” or “agrobiodiversity” etc. Likewise, all mentioned terms,
which were analysed and their frequency noted in table 1, are only those epistemologically connected to
intersectionality. To further contextualise the term “diversity” within this specific project, it is also important to
note that the semantically close term “biodiversity” – which is the core topic of PLANET4B – was used 171 times.
Table 1 shows that besides intersectionality and diversity also terms like “vulnerabilities”, “privileges”,
“ecofeminism” and “postcolonialism” were analysed as relevant concepts related to intersectionality, but they
were referred to only at six to eight instances, “feminism” and “postcolonialism” were never mentioned at all.
The lower part of table 1 comprises categories related to the concept of intersectionality, and here terms around
“age” were used predominantly, which can be explained as this is a category used in several case studies.
This most used term was followed by “disability”, “women”/”men”, “migration”/”immigration”/”emigration”,
“Black”/”White”/”Asian”, “gender”, “ethnicity” and “religion”. “Class” and “race” were only used two times and
once, “sexuality” and “LGBTQ” were never mentioned in the analysed report (Mendes et al. 2023).
Table 1. Frequency of the term „intersectionality” and connected relevant concepts as well as frequencies of
categories of intersectionality in the analysed document of Mendes et al. 2023
Analysed terms
Frequency
Ranking
Concepts
related to
inter
-
sectionality
„intersectionality“, „intersectional“
51
1
„diversity“, „diverse“
38
2
„vulnerable“
7
3
„privilege“, „privileges“, „privileged“
6
4
„ecofeminism“, „ecofeminist“
3
5
„feminism“, „feminist“
0
6
„Postcolonialism“, „postcolonial“
0
6
Social, political and identity
categories related to
intersectionality
„age“, „elderly“, „youth“, „young“
76
1
„disability“, „disabilities“, „disabled“
32
2
„women“, „men“
30
3
“migration”, “immigration”, “emigration”
26
4
„Black“, „non-white“, „White“, „Asian“
25
5
„gender“, „genders“, „gendered“
24
6
„ethnicity“, „ethnic“
24
6
„religion“, „religions“
21
8
„class“
2
9
„race“
1
10
„sexuality“, „sexualities“
0
11
„LGBTQ“, „queer“
0
11
While a quantitative analysis gives an overview of used terms, and their frequency, only a qualitative analysis
can bring a deeper understanding of how concepts and social or political categories are used epistemologically
(Mayring 2014).
383
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
In the project report of Mendes and colleagues (2023), the phrasing around intersectionality shows that the
concept is often not connected to its theoretical roots highlighting – intersecting – discriminations based on
social and political categories or identity markers (Crenshaw 1989). It is rather used as a term in the general
meaning of ‘social categories’ or ‘sociodemographic variables’ like these quotes suggests:
“In addition, other intersectionality dimensions were addressed, in particular, age, ablism & disabilities,
and varied ethnicities and geographies within and beyond Europe.”
(Mendes 2023, p. 2)
“Participants were selected based on the five-helix framework... We also followed the intersectionality
criteria.” (ibid., p. 26)
“How to work with the dimension of intersectionality in this case study?” (ibid., p. 27)
“The age of the participants falls between approximately 30 and 55 years. and the SB [Stakeholder Board]
consider gender parity (4 females and 4 males). Different experiences, skills, roles, and types and levels
(local, national, and international) of action and activation implemented are represented. Other criteria of
intersectionality will be considered in the next phase.” (ibid., p. 40).
“This system characteristic (as well as scientific literature pointing to differences in the environmental
attitudes of girls and boys) led us to consider gender as one of our most important intersectionality
dimensions to be included in our study.” (ibid., p. 43)
“Nonetheless, in the next steps of the research, we are trying to include more women, and other colleagues
with varied intersectionality backgrounds (Indigenous peoples, black or quilombolas communities in Brazil;
farmers in the Netherlands, and others).” (ibid., p. 46)
“We do not address intersectionality with the SB. We do not have the freedom to choose the
intersectionality characteristics of our SB [Stakehoder Board].” (ibid., p.56)
In comparison, the definition of intersectionality discussed in the knowledge co-creation process and the
published methodological framework of PLANET4B emphasises the intersection of categories as well as the
issues of power and oppression:
“Intersectionality highlights that race, gender, disability, sexuality, class, age, and other
social categories are interrelated and lead to different levels of power and oppression
influenced by forces like colonialism and neoliberalism.” (Thaler & Karner 2023, p. 5).
In other parts of the analysed report from Mendes and colleagues (2023), intersectionality was used as a
synonym or closely related to diversity. This quote represents an example, where fostering diversity is discussed
as a value, which drives the inclusion of a broad variety of actors, along “a wide range of intersectionality
dimensions”:
“In line with our commitment to fostering diversity and inclusion, our LC [Learning
Community] embraces a wide range of intersectionality dimensions. Participants hail from
various corners of the world, including India, Central Russia, and West Asia, offering a
multicontinental perspective. We represent different ethnicities, religions, and genders, with
a balanced ratio of three females and six males.” (Mendes et al. 2023, p. 30).
4. Discussion and Conclusions
This paper explores how the discourse on intersectionality in an ongoing EU project refers to the co-created
methodological framework on intersectionality from this very project (described in Thaler & Karner 2023).
We present the participatory action research of the project’s knowledge co-creation process, and the content
analysis of the discourse – the use of the intersectionality concept in planning the PLANET4B biodiversity case
studies case studies, which was synthesised in a project report (Mendes et al., 2023).
The content analysis of this report, published in November 2023, showed that the definition of intersectionality
was not in line with the definition, which was co-created earlier in the project (Thaler & Karner 2023):
“intersectionalities”, “intersectionality dimensions”, “intersectionality backgrounds”, this wording represents a
use of the concept as a placeholder for ‘social variables’ or ‘socio-demographics’, and does not acknowledge the
interlinkage of social or political categories, leading to different levels of power and discrimination. According to
the European Commission, it is the consideration of “… interlocking systems of power between gender and other
384
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
social categories and identities”, which should enable biodiversity research “to better address access to and
ownership of nature-based solutions.”
(https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/horizon-
cl6-2022-biodiv-01-09?tenders=false&callIdentifier=HORIZON-CL6-2022-BIODIV-01)
The qualitative content analysis of the project report showed that intersectionality was used as a synonym or as
closely related to diversity, which can be defined as:
„Some alternative definitions of diversity extend beyond race and gender to include all types
of individual differences, such as ethnicity, age, religion, disability status, geographic
location, personality, sexual preferences, and a myriad of other personal, demographic, and
organizational characteristics. Diversity can thus be an all-inclusive term that incorporates
people from many different classifications. Generally, “diversity” refers to policies and
practices that seek to include people who are considered, in some way, different from
traditional members. More centrally, diversity aims to create an inclusive culture that values
and uses the talents of all would-be members.“ (Herring, 2009, p. 209).
This motivation to include various actors from different backgrounds was found in many case study descriptions,
but does it follow the same aim as the intersectionality approach? There are scholars who refer to both concepts,
like Mangelsdorf et al. (2016):
“Environmental justice and the biodiversity crisis must include an intersectional lens, because ‘… looking at
biodiversity is inseparable from looking at the diversity of human communities …’“ (ibid., p. 7)
Is the direction of diversity – inclusion of all potential persons – different to the focus of intersectionality pointing
towards discriminations at the crossroads of social or political categories – addressing specifically neglected,
excluded, or oppressed persons?
The following definition distinguishes “critical diversity” from “colourblind diversity”, and this could settle the
debate, because while the first has undoubtedly an overlapping with intersectionality, the latter has not:
„… critical diversity is about more than embracing cultural differences that exist between
groups and appreciating those differences. It also includes examining issues of parity, equity,
and inequality in all forms. It confronts issues of oppression and stratification that revolve
around issues of diversity. A theory of critical diversity includes an analysis of exclusion,
discrimination, and it challenges hegemonic notions of colorblindness and meritocracy.
Critical diversity is in stark contrast to other notions of diversity such as ‘colorblind diversity’.
A colorblind diversity understanding of the social world is based on the premise that it is
sufficient to embrace cultural differences among various racial and ethnic groups without
acknowledging disparities among these groups in power, status, wealth, and access.“
(Herring and Henderson 2011, p. 632).
Thus, using diversity could also be a valuable and useful path for biodiversity research. Yet this requires that the
concept is defined and understood by all involved researchers as critical diversity. Similar to intersectionality,
critical diversity highlights discriminations and power imbalances to address excluded or oppressed persons.
Environmental justice and biodiversity loss deal with structural barriers in participation and systematic
discrimination of specific persons, therefore policies calling for an intersectional or critical diversity approach
seem both to address the same important issue.
This paper could not only provide insights into a knowledge co-creation process and the difficulties in
communicating the concept of intersectionality and implementing it in biodiversity research, moreover, the
paper serves the participatory action research itself. The presented data and arguments were and will be used
for deeper debates around intersectionality within the PLANET4B team itself. The feedback from project
colleagues not only helped to improve this paper but also triggered further discussions and reflections on taking
an intersectional approach in our case study work. The PLANET4B team might have “overlooked the deeper
political and social meanings of intersectionality” as our colleagues, who had compiled the report, which was
analysed for this paper, concluded. The PLANET4B team is still in a learning phase, and colleagues emphasise
our intention to apply intersectionality “to strengthen the critical edge of the analysis within case studies” as
well as the final goal to “explore intersectionality’s full potential to trigger transformations towards socio-
environmental justice”. However, to achieve this, further steps in translating intersectionality as a critical social
theory to our specific case study contexts will be necessary.
385
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
It must be stated that the presented challenges to integrate intersectionality in empirical research and case
studies are not limited to the project at hand, it can be assumed that the core ideas and methodological
consequences of using intersectionality have generally not been made fully accessible outside gender studies.
The authors – and their colleagues of PLANET4B – will go on to work towards their aim, to provide knowledge
on using intersectionality as a practical concept, which helps to understand interlinked complexities of systems
of oppression such as patriarchy, ableism, racism, ageism, colonialism, which marginalise people and their
knowledges, also in the discourses and decision-making processes in biodiversity research and policy making.
Acknowledgement
We want to thank the reviewers of ICGR, who gave us valuable feedback on the first version of this paper. We
are grateful for the wonderful project team of PLANET4B, and all partners involved in the intersectionality
workshops. A special thank you goes to Marta Bonetti, Cristina Y.A Inoue, Vinícius Mendes, György Pataki,
Ilkholm Soliev, and Lina Tennhardt, Torsten Wähler for their kind words, critical questions, comments and
support, which all helped us to improve this paper.
The project PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 101082212, by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK
government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee, and from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research
and Innovation (SERI).
References
Bauer, Greta R., Churchill, Siobhan M., Mahendran, Mayuri, Walwyn, Chantel, Lizotte, Daniel & Villa-Rueda, Alma Angelica
(2021). Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory
and methods. In: SSM – Population Health, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798.
Borho, Andrea, Morawa, Eva, Schug, Caterina & Erim, Yesim (2022). Perceived post-migration discrimination: the
perspective of adolescents with migration background. In: European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-02084-6.
Brown, Geraldine, Franklin, Alex & Ludhra, Geeta (2023). Systemic exclusion: Ethnic minority communities and access to
nature and the outdoors. Central England, UK. In: Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis.
(Report No D1.3). Anita Thaler & Sandra Karner (eds.). Project 101082212 — PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research
Executive Agency, chapter 4.2, pp. 26–30.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of
Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. In: The University of Chicago Legal Forum (1),
139–168.
Figari, Helene, Bredin, Yennie & Gundersen, Vegard (2023). Children with disabilities and outdoor recreation in Greater
Oslo, Norway. In: Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis. (Report No D1.3). Anita Thaler & Sandra
Karner (eds.). Project 101082212 — PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency, chapter 4.1, pp. 22–
25.
Gillis, Angela, & Jackson, Winston (2002). Research methods for nurses: Methods and interpretation. Philadelphia: F.A.
Davis Company.
Hancock, Ange-Marie (2007). When multiplication doesn't equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research
paradigm. In: Perspectives on politics 5.1, 63-79.
Haraway, Donna (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial
perspective. Feminist studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.
Herring, Cedric (2009). "Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity." American sociological
review 74.2 (2009): 208-224.
Home, Robert & Sabir, Ghezal (2023). Agriculture, Religion and Biodiversity. Switzerland. In: Methodological framework for
intersectionality analysis. (Report No D1.3). Anita Thaler & Sandra Karner (eds.). Project 101082212 — PLANET4B.
Brussels: European Research Executive Agency, chapter 4.5, pp. 43–46.
hooks, bell (1981). Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press.
Independent Group of Scientists (2019). The Future is Now. Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. Global
Sustainable Development Report. New York: United Nations.
Inoue, Cristina Yumie Aoki & Franchini, Matías (2020). Socio-environmentalism. In: Arlene B. Tickner & Karen Smith (eds.).
International Relations from the Global South. Oxon, New York: Routledge, pp. 296–314.
Karner, Sandra, Steinwender, David & Thaler, Anita (2023). ‚Bio-Diverse Edible City Graz‘: Urban food for biodiversity and
inclusion in Graz, Austria. In: Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis. (Report No D1.3). Anita Thaler
& Sandra Karner (eds.). Project 101082212 — PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency, chapter 4.4,
pp. 37–42.
MacDonald, Cathy (2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. In: The
Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13.2, 34-50.
386
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
Anita Thaler and Sandra Karner
Mangelsdorf, Marion, Pregernig, Michael & Kuni, Verena (2016). (Bio-)Diversity, Gender, and Intersectionality. FZG –
Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien, 22(2), 5–15.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution.
Klagenfurt. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
Mendes, Vinícius; Kelemen, Eszter; Inoue, Cristina Y.A.; Franklin, Alex; Aas-Hanssen, Alexander Engen; Podlaszewska,
Ammalia; Motschiunig, Andreas; Thaler, Anita; Lipka, Borbála; Vergamini, Daniele; Barton, David; Steinwender, David;
Ludhra, Geeta; Brown, Geraldine; Sabir, Ghezal; Lampredi, Giacomo; Brunori, Gianluca; Pataki, György; Figari, Helene;
Soliev, Ilkhom; Hval, Johan; Czett, Kármen; Tennhardt, Lina; Bonetti, Marta; Bykova, Maryna; Villa, Matteo; Navarro
Gambin, Pedro; Bolsø, Reidun; Home, Robert; Gronda, Roberto; Karner, Sandra; Ludhra, Subash; Bredin, Yennie &
Saydaliev, Zafar (forthcoming 2023). Learning Communities and sectoral Advisory Boards established for 5 intensive
place-based and 6 extensive sector-based case studies. (Report No D3.1). Project 101082212 — PLANET4B. Brussels:
European Research Executive Agency.
Porębska, Anna Ewa, Barnaś, Janusz & Gajewski, Piotr (2021). Invisible barriers: excluding accessibility from the field of
interest of architecture and urban planning in Poland. In: Disability & Society, 36(6), 1021–1025.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1902281.
Rice, Carla, Harrison, Elisabeth & Friedman, May (2019). Doing justice to intersectionality in research. Cultural Studies <->
Critical Methodologies, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619829779.
Schurr, Carolin & Segebart, Dörte (2012). Engaging with feminist postcolonial concerns through participatory action
research and intersectionality. Geographica Helvetica, 67(3), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-67-147-2012.
Soliev, Ilkhom, Podlaszewska, Ammalia, Saydaliev, Zafar & Wähler, Torsten (2023). Urban youth, intersectionality, and
nature in Germany. In: Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis. (Report No D1.3). Anita Thaler &
Sandra Karner (eds.). Project 101082212 — PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency, chapter 4.3,
pp. 31–36.
Thaler, Anita & Karner, Sandra (eds.) (2023). Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis. (Report No D1.3).
Project 101082212 — PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. https://planet4b.eu/project-
documents/methodological-framework-for-intersectionality-analysis/
Thaler, Anita & Karner, Sandra (2023a). Methodological approach: Transdisciplinary workshops to co-create a shared
understanding of intersectionality in biodiversity research. In: Methodological framework for intersectionality
analysis. (Report No D1.3). Anita Thaler & Sandra Karner (eds.). Project 101082212 — PLANET4B. Brussels: European
Research Executive Agency, chapter 2, pp. 11–17.
Walgenbach, Katharina (2012). Intersektionalität – eine Einführung. Available at: http://portal-
intersektionalitaet.de/theoriebildung/ueberblickstexte/walgenbach-einfuehrung/ (accessed April 26, 2023).
Wetterer, Angelika (2009). Geschlechterwissen & soziale Praxis: Grundzüge einer wissenssoziologischen Typologie des
Geschlechterwissens. In: Angelika Wetterer (Hg.). Geschlechterwissen und soziale Praxis. Theoretische Zugänge –
empirische Erträge. Königstein/Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag: 39-63.
387
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gender Research
