Introduction

The environmental disorder(s) happening today are the "sins" against nature our
fathers committed. Don't do worse to your unborn child – Gino (2021)

One of the biggest issues that our planet is now confronting and will continue to confront for decades to
come is climate change. As a result of climate change, nature and its ecosystems are increasingly
experiencing catastrophic weather patterns and irreparable environmental damage. Large-scale social
shifts are needed to achieve international climate goals, such as those outlined in the Paris Agreement
and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Nilsson et al., 2013) but situations have not changed
much all this while. As a result of climate change, nature and the ecosystems it supports are more
subjected to catastrophic weather patterns and irreparable environmental harm. This makes climate
change one of the biggest problems that our planet confronts now and will face for decades to come. The
burning of fossil fuels, which results in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the deforestation of vital
carbon-capturing rainforests like the Amazon, and plastic pollution, which contaminates fragile marine
ecosystems, are among the countless other exogenous variables that are causing these anthropogenically-
caused, or human-induced, environmental threats. Nearly every country in the world is experiencing these
environmental dangers (Sachs, 2015). It is a generally held belief that the unsustainable lifestyles of the
world's wealthier minority, particularly those living in the so-called developed areas, are mostly
responsible for the emissions of greenhouse gases that are contributing to the phenomenon of global
warming (IEA 2011). At the same time, individuals who are poor and marginalised, especially those who
live in places with low incomes, are the ones who are the most exposed and susceptible to the negative
consequences of climate change. Furthermore, these groups often exhibit underrepresentation at all
levels of climate-related decision-making (Hemmati and Röhr 2009; Okereke and Schroeder 2009) just as
I witnessed at Conference of the Parties (COP) 26 and Conference of the Parties (COP) 27. Although the
academic sectors have recently begun to pay more attention to climate change, and social dimensions of
it are also being recognised more and more (Mearns and Norton 2010, Dempsey et al. 2011), concerns of
equality and intersectionality are still generally unaddressed.

Here, this paper seeks to investigate how intersectionality may be used as a theoretical framework for
comprehending the intricate aspects of climate change. But before considering intersecting power
relations in the context of climate change, first a quick overview of intersectionality is provided, followed
by a diagnosis of the issue and a solution.

Intersectionality Approach.

As a criticism of essentialism within mainstream emancipation movements, intersectionality was first

developed by black feminist activism in the 1970s and 1980s in the United States (Castan and Neves,
2018). Since then, the term has gained prominence and is often considered as a theory, methodology,
paradigm, lens, or framework. There have been many alternative definitions presented, most of which
have been proposed by academics and bureaucrats, and very few have been proposed by people who
have been most adversely affected by it (Crenshaw, 2015). It acknowledges the importance of social,
cultural, and relational elements in shaping individuals' experiences and outcomes. Patriarchy, ableism,
colonialism, imperialism, homophobia, and racism are only a few examples of how these interact to
generate privilege and oppression for different people in different situations and under different systems
of power (Hankivsky, 2014).

Figure 1: Intersectionality Wheel

In accordance with the theory's proponents, many forms of disadvantage and oppression result from the
interrelationship of several social identities and categorizations, including gender, race, socioeconomic
class, cultural and ethnic origin, age, and disability (Crenshaw, 1989; Crenshaw, 2017). Being a tool for
analysis, it serves as a challenge to examine the mechanisms that cause power inequalities across
numerous social drivers (such as racism and sexism) rather than focusing on the consequences of any one
driver. Owing of this, in his definition of the term, Davis (2008, p. 68) defines intersectionality as ‘the
interaction between gender, race and other categories of difference in individual lives, social practices,
institutional arrangements, and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these’

Although in a variety of disciplines, including gender and feminist studies (Ahmed, 2017; Nash, 2008;
Shields, 2008); psychology (Cole, 2009); and organisational studies, intersectionality has been more widely
accepted as an analytical framework (Acker, 2006) but in this study, we put a special emphasis on
intersectionality as a framework to direct justice-oriented changes and more especially, in climate change
assessments.

An intersectional study of climate change sheds light on how various people and groups have diverse
relationships to climate change as a result of their situatedness in power systems that are founded on
context-specific and fluid social categorisations (Anna & Annica, 2014). Intersectionality is being used
more and more to analyse the interconnected and mutually reinforcing systems of disadvantage and
oppression that limit people's adaptive ability and produce or worsen social-ecological vulnerabilities in
the context of climate change justice (Djoudi et al., 2016; Anna & Annica, 2014). Therefore, an
intersectional shift in climate adaptation can open the door for more practical urban transformation
methods that confront social power disparities and diverge from prevailing political and economic
objectives. It does so by offering a criticism of current power relations and institutional practices that are
pertinent for climate challenges, and as a result, it contributes greatly to the overall framing and
understanding of climate change. In addition to this, intersectionality has the potential to provide
alternative knowledge, which is essential for the development of climate measures that are both more
effective and legitimate (Anna & Annica, 2014).

Diagnosis of Climate Change

Social structures based on traits like gender, socioeconomic level, ethnicity, nationality, health, sexual
orientation, age, and location may be considered accountable for the responsibility, susceptibility, and
decision-making power of people and groups in connection to climate change (Anna & Annica, 2014).
Everyone will be affected by climate change in some way, although to varied degrees. In addition to
variations in geography, this is mostly attributable to societal systems. More components of social
interactions are being discussed as social factors in climate change research become more widely
acknowledged - for example, a considerable corpus of literature has been written about gender and
climate change (Dankelman 2010; Denton 2002; Glazebrook 2011; Hemmati and Röhr 2009; Röhret al.
2008,). Being vulnerable to the repercussions of climate change is also dependent, to a significant degree,
on engaging in behaviors that are gender-conforming and on a resource distribution system that is gender-
unjust (Bauriedl, 2021).

The consequences of climate change have distinct impacts on women and men. The societal knowledge
of their duties and role behavior, as well as the social and economic disparity that is linked with these
positions, is one of the primary reasons for this phenomenon. As a result, gender justice is intricately tied
to both the challenges and solutions produced by climate change. The negative impacts of climate change
caused by humans include the rise of sea levels and an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe
weather. The 'externalities' of fossil fuels and other polluting sectors are the losses and damage that are
inflicted on the people and communities who have contributed the least to climate change. These people
and communities are the most vulnerable. The effects of climate change are felt most acutely in tropical
regions, particularly desert and coastal places. Here, we encounter a huge number of individuals who are
especially susceptible to harm as a result of the restricted access they have to the general prosperity of
the world. Those who are least able to defend themselves and have the fewest resources available will
suffer the most severe consequences. Because of this, it should come as no surprise that the populations
who are already at a disadvantage owing to factors such as gender, sexuality, color, social class, age, and
legal status are in the weakest position to cope with the effects of climate change (Bauriedl, 2021;
McCallum, 2017; Richards, 2018).

In the context of climate change effect and gender, a research that was conducted by the London School
of Economics looked at fatalities that were caused by severe weather events and categorised them
according to gender and socioeconomic position. Between the years 1981 and 2002, a total of 4605
disasters were reported in 141 different countries and the number of women who passed away as a result
of natural catastrophes was noticeably greater in nations where there was a particularly large gap in the
social and economic standing of men and women (Neumayer & Plümper, 2007). Also, according to Robine
et al. (2007), extreme cardiovascular stress brought on by the heat wave that hit southern Europe in the
summer of 2003 resulted in an extra 70,000 fatalities, which came to be known as "heat deaths," across
the nations that were impacted by the heat wave. People of advanced age and those with preexisting
health conditions were hit the hardest. During the whole of the heatwave, the gender ratio of those who
passed away was equal; however, on the days with the highest temperatures, women accounted for sixty
percent of the cases. These claims and statistics further justify why climate change needs to be viewed
from an intersectional perspective as well as implying that women suffer greater damage than men which
is why in a study published on January 16, 2018, the European Parliament acknowledged the significance
of the issue and noted that “women are many times more likely to die in natural disasters than men”
(European Parliament, 2017, p. 5). Even those repercussions of climate change that do not immediately
endanger human life have a disproportionately negative impact on women compared to men. Because of
the high heat or the flooding, diseases spread more quickly. In many countries, women are the primary
caregivers, which results in an increase in the amount of unpaid labor that falls on their shoulders. During
prolonged heat waves in dry areas, it is possible to observe that women and girls are forced to deal with
a much higher additional workload for the energy and water supply of their families, as well as the
necessity of walking long distances to reach water points and sources of firewood. This is because women
and girls are more likely to be the primary caregivers in their households (Dankelmann, 2010). Women
are responsible for more than 90 percent of the agricultural production in Africa. On the other hand, they
often lack the financial resources necessary to respond to climate change and modify their output in
response to shifting climatic circumstances (European Parliament, 2017).

Although the claims above are valid, Anna & Annica (2014) argue that the effects of climate change and
mitigation and adaptation measures may encourage existing structures and taxonomies/classifications
(for example, the gender perspective is often confined to slim man-woman binaries) which will risk not
considering how distinctions are socially constructed, context-specific, and how they could evolve in the
face of climate change reality. Along with this, it excludes individuals who do not fit into these fixed
categories and ignores social conflict, contestation, and the complexity and fluidity of identities (Alaimo,
2009). Therefore Lykke (2009) recommends using intersectional analysis in regard to climate change to
solve these problems.

A person's perspective on climate change, from an intersectional understanding will vary depending on
where they stand in the social categories that form the basis of the context's power structures. Tuana
(2005) presents an instructive example of how climate change is interwoven with power relations,
eliminating the illusory borders between 'social' and 'natural' in the process. In her analysis of Hurricane
Katrina, which struck New Orleans in 2005, she offers insight into the ways in which the hurricane was
mediated through materialised and non-materialized power systems. In the event of the disaster, those
on the margins had a worse chance of evacuating safely and a lower ability to relocate to safer areas.
Hurricane Katrina served as a wake-up call to the Western world by highlighting the potential interactions
between climatic change and social structure.

Policy Document

Analyzing the representation of different groups in the decision-making process is one mechanism that
may be used to study the intersections of power at the government level (Anna & Annica, 2014). It is
essential that debates of inclusive climate solutions take into account how gender and other social
categories are reflected within climate agencies. If there is a disproportion in the representation of women
and men in climate authorities, it may be an indication of a democracy that is not working properly or a
democratic deficit, which precludes the establishment of gendered climate policies that really are
inclusive (Magnusdottir and Kronsell, 2021). In most cases, talks regarding international climate policy do
not incorporate the perspectives of gender considerations. Only a very small fraction of women, according
to Rohr et al. (2008)'s findings, are able to have a say in the formation of climate policy. From Anne Philip's
(1995) theory of the politics of presence, we may deduce the existence of two fundamental categories of
representation: descriptive and substantive redundancy (Lovenduski, 2005; Chaney, 2012). According to
Wangnerud (2009), descriptive representation is a term that describes the ratio of male to female
decision-makers in political organisations. Quotas, whether formal or informal, are frequently to credit
for the increased visibility of women in positions of power (Dahlerup and Leyenaar, 2013). It is argued
that having just a small number of women in political office would not make a significant effect; hence
gender equality recommendations suggest having between 40 and 60 percent female representation
(Lovenduski, 2005). However, others say that there must be a critical mass of women present before they
can have any substantial impact (Dahlerup, 1988, 2006). There are more and more women holding
political and policymaking positions thanks to critical mass and other gender quota methods, but this
progress may be problematic if it is reduced to mere numbers (Magnusdottir and Kronsell, 2021).

Adopted in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) excludes any
mention of gender but no until the Global Gender and Climate Alliance (GGCA) was founded during COP13
in Bali, 2007, with the goal of aiding the UNFCCC and promoting gender understanding in climate change
policy at all levels (Anna & Annica, 2014; WEDO, 2008). However, this move can be termed as a mere
formality as in more recent international conventions, gender is treated primarily via the recognition of
women as a marginalised population which validates the argument of Magnusdottir and Kronsell (2021)
as noted in the concluding sentence of the paragraph above. It was discovered by Magnusdottir and
Kronsell (2013) that women held a significant number of positions in decision-making bodies throughout
the Nordic countries; nevertheless, neither gender nor intersectional implications were given any
attention in the policy texts pertaining to climate change. Even while differences in mobility and
consumption patterns according to gender and socioeconomic status are well-documented, the climate
plan does not address any of these factors, nor does it consider the possible distributional effects of the
policies.

To resolve this, the next chapter will provide possible solutions to the issues above.
Intersectional Climate Justice.

The fight against climate change has resulted in the use of activism as a tool to question the status quo or
make a demand. Protests and climate demonstrations were organised by millions of young people
throughout the globe in 2019, and they took place in hundreds of cities and towns across the world. Years
of increasing, visible evidence of environmental catastrophe, solid scientific study, and a long-standing
grassroots movement pushing for equitable and sustainable solutions by frontline communities led to the
so-called Fridays for Future demonstrations (AWID, 2019). The protesters worked in tandem with anti-
colonial, indigenous, and racial justice groups, as well as Black and People of Color liberation
organisations, environmental justice groups, and groups of former slaves (Bauriedl, 2021) as they noticed
the connection between climate change gender. In similar fashion, the 13th Conference of the Parties that
was held in Bali, Indonesia, from December 3rd to 14th, 2007 had during this time, feminist lobbyists
protest and were heard chanting; "No climate justice without gender justice" (Terry, 2009) but as Leah
(2019) said, absence of intersectionality in climate activism does not suffice. There is a need to address
the structural roots of racial and gender inequalities.

The phenomenon of intersectionality is an effort to bridge the divide that has existed between feminism
and antiracism, a divide that has resulted in the experiences and difficulties faced by women of colour
being neglected (Crenshaw, 1989). The first constituent of the intersectional framework for climate justice
acknowledges this criticism and proposes paying close attention to the ways wherein racial and gender-
based violence in the past have helped contribute to the (re)production of social inequalities. For instance,
by normalising the systematic devaluation of female and nonwhite bodies and their incorporation into
economic processes, racial and gender-based violence from the past have contributed to the
(re)production of social inequalities (Pulido, 2017; Robinson, 2000). In light of the fundamentally racist,
sexist, and colonial character of capitalism, this component proposes adopting a more intersectional view
of capitalism than classic Marxist theory (Federici, 2004; Pulido, 2016; Virdee, 2019). This involves
admitting that, in addition to proletarian exploitation and dispossession, capitalism has relied on the
persistent marginalisation of racial minorities and the undervaluing and invisibilization of women's work,
thereby converting them from coproducers of commonwealth into reproducers of the capitalist workforce
(Federici, 2004; Melamed, 2015).

How well modern societies can deal with and adapt to climate change reflects the deeply ingrained
inequities of racism and sexism in the past. Women, people of colour, indigenous peoples, and those living
on low incomes are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and this fact is becoming
more widely acknowledged (Costello et al., 2009; IPCC, 2012). According to studies by Alston and
Whittenbury (2013), Denton (2002), Nelson (2012) and Rohr (2006), these communities are more at risk
from climate change because they are less likely to own land and resources, have lower levels of education
and training, have lower access to institutional support, health services, and information, and have fewer
opportunities to participate in decision making.

There is also a need to foster community resilience and climate action across identities and levels of
vulnerability. In order to encourage community responses to social injustices and boost activism,
intersectionality is intrinsically related to a study of power relations and subordination systems (Collins
and Bilge, 2020; Johnson et al., 2020). It is permissible and essential to encourage cross-identity and cross-
vulnerability climate action in order to combat the isolating effects of different forms of activism (for
example, environmentalism, LGBTQI+ rights, #BlackLivesMatter, and #MeToo) (Di Chiro, 2008; Terry,
2009). This element places special emphasis on providing mobilisation and intervention tools to enhance
disadvantaged communities' long-term empowerment and adaptive ability in light of their unique
vulnerabilities across social identities. An example of such a mechanism is the idea of urban climate
experiments, which refer to "purposeful interventions" with the goal of creating resilient cities by
providing arenas for community-focused experimentation in order to develop new knowledge and skills
in the area of climate governance (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Caprotti and Cowley, 2017). There should be
collaboration between municipalities and non-profits/cooperatives that provides alternatives to the
state-versus-market framework (Hinton and Maclurcan, 2017) to encourage the development of new
abilities, jobs, companies, and interpersonal connections by enlisting local organisations in the training
and employment of citizens and in building their own adaptation initiatives from inside the
neighbourhood and the community (Amorim-Maia et al., 2022)

As a theoretical framework, intersectionality is concerned not just with identity categories but also with
political and structural inequities (Cho et al., 2013) which is perceived as a potential sources of climate
risk (Shi et al., 2016). Consequently, it is crucial to address the factors that contribute to
differential vulnerability. Differential vulnerability is not an inherent quality of some populations but
rather the result of interlocking axes of social differences (such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status)
and accumulating risks (such as war, natural disasters, and pandemics) that can coexist and amplify one
another. (Cardona et al., 2012; Soares et al., 2012; Thomas et al., 2019; Vancura & Leichenko, 2015).
Therefore, it is crucial to include an intersectional perspective in order to evaluate and comprehend how
many axes of social inequality interact with climatic effects, dangers, and crises to produce unique
experiences of oppression and vulnerability (Kuran et al., 2020; Ravera et al., 2016). The majority of the
world's population lives in cities, making it crucial to comprehend the various ways in which urbanites are
vulnerable to the effects of climate change on their homes, workplaces, and communities. These threats
can manifest in a variety of ways, including disruptions to vital infrastructure, networks, services, and even
economic and health systems (Tapia et al., 2017). Prioritizing social vulnerability in urban resilience
necessitates that cities take into consideration the legacy of historical environmental and social injustices,
such as uneven zoning laws and rights to land and housing (Connolly, 2018; Connolly and Anguelovski,
2021). This demands for more stringent guidelines for private finance-driven resilience efforts, including
planning and policy instruments that support stable and affordable housing, as well as an increase in the
availability and accessibility of social services (BCNUEJ, 2021).

Amorim-Maia et al. (2022) in their article provides five (5) sub-components of Intersectional Climate
Justice as shown in Figure 2 below. They also provided approaches to realise intersectional climate justice
as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2: Sub-components of Intersectional Climate Justice

Figure 3: Pathways of Intersectional Climate Justice

A shift toward intersectional thinking could make it possible for previously fragmented ideas, guidelines,
and strategies to become more conscious of addressing the other aspects of climate justice, thereby
opening the door to adaptation strategies that are more cohesive and socially transformative. This
framework has significant ramifications for the future of climate adaptation and development as a result
of its ability to articulate a plan for accomplishing this objective.
Conclusion

Complex conceptualizations are required as the basis for multi-scale agreements, collaborative efforts,
and feasible solutions in order to address the issue of climate change. In general, the causes and
consequences of climate change are inherently uneven, and it is difficult to implement solutions because
of competing judgments and priorities at different scales about the utilisation of resources, the pace and
nature of societal change, and who should bear the costs of these transformations. This transforms it into
a potent phenomenon with the potential to further entrench current disparities and create new ones.
Who gets to interpret and express the needs and wishes of others must also be considered if we are
interested in the ways in which material disparities connect with discursive difficulties (Dahl et al., 2004;
Nightingale; 2009).

The topic of climate change and an intersectional approach to the problem have both been discussed in
this article. In addition, a climate adaptation paradigm that puts intersectional thinking into action has
been presented. The approach of intersectional thinking in climate justice encompasses more variables
than climate justice. Intersectional climate justice allows for more comprehensive plans for urban
adaptation, and a shift toward this approach is necessary to address the overlapping socioeconomic
inequities that are exacerbated by climate change.
Reference.

Nightingale, A. (2009). Warming up the climate change debate: A challenge to policy based on adaptation.
Journal for Livelihood, 8, 84–89.

Dahl, H., Stoltz, P., and Willig, R. (2004). Recognition, redistribution and representation in capitalist global
society: An interview with Nancy Fraser. Acta Sociology, 47, 374–382.

Caprotti, F., and Cowley, R. (2017). Interrogating urban experiments. Urban Geography, 38, 1441–1450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1265870

Bulkeley, H., Broto, V., and Edwards, G. (2014). An Urban Politics of Climate Change: Experimentation and
the Governing of Socio-technical Transitions.

Di Chiro, G., 2008. Living environmentalisms: coalition politics, social reproduction, and environmental
justice. Environmental Politics, 17, 276–298. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09644010801936230.

Collins, P., and Bilge, S., 2020. Intersectionality, 2nd ed. Polity.

Johnson, W., Han, J., Knight, A., Mortensen, S., and Aung, M. (2020). Intersectionality and energy
transitions: a review of gender, social equity and low-carbon energy. Energy Research & Social Science,
70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101774.

Hinton, J., and Maclurcan, D. (2017). A not-for-profit world beyond capitalism and economic growth?
Ephemera 17, 147.

Alston, M., and Whittenbury, K. (2013). Research, Action and Policy: Addressing the Gendered Impacts of
Climate Change.

Denton, F. (2002). Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: why does gender matter?
Gender Development, 10, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070215903

Rohr, U. (2006). Gender and Climate Change. Tiempo: A Bulletin on Climate and Development.

Nelson, S. (2012). Gender and Climate Change Research in Agriculture and Food Security for Rural
Development the Cgiar Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Food
and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations (FAO) 2012.

Amorim-Maia, A., Anguelovski, I., Chu, E., and Connolly, J. (2022). Intersectional climate justice: A
conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity. Urban
climate, vol. 41, 101053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101053

Pulido, L. (2016). Flint, environmental racism, and racial capitalism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 27, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1213013

Virdee, S. (2019). Racialized capitalism: an account of its contested origins and consolidation. The
Sociological Review, 67, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118820293

Melamed, J. (2015). Racial Capitalism. Critical Ethnic Studies, vol. 1, pp. 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.5749/jcritethnstud.1.1.0076
IPCC (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Costello, A., Abbas, M., Allen, A., Ball, S., Bell, S., Bellamy, R., Friel, S., Groce, N., Johnson, A., Kett, M., Lee,
M., Levy, C., Maslin, M., McCoy, D., McGuire, B., Montgomery, H., Napier, D., Pagel, C., Patel, J., de
Oliveira, J.A.P., Redclift, N., Rees, H., Rogger, D., Scott, J., Stephenson, J., Twigg, J., Wolff, J., and Patterson,
C. (2009). Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change. Lancet and University College London Institute
for Global Health Commission. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60935-1

Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the Witch. Autonomedia.

Terry, G. (2009). No climate justice without gender justice: an overview of the issues. Gender and
Development, 17(1), 5–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27809203

Pulido, L. (2017). Geographies of race and ethnicity II. Progress in Human Geography, 41, 524–533.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516646495.

Robinson, C. (2000). Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. The University of North
Carolina Press.

Leah, T. (2019). CLIMATE ACTIVISM WITHOUT INTERSECTIONALITY ISN’T ENOUGH. Available at:
https://www.blackwomenradicals.com/blog-feed/leahthomas [Accessed 15 December 2022]

AWID. (2019). We Need an Anti-Colonial, Intersectional Feminist Climate Justice Movement. Available at:
https://www.awid.org/news-and-analysis/we-need-anticolonial-intersectional-feminist-climate-justice-
movement [Accessed 15 December 2022]

Magnusdottir, G. and Kronsell, A. (2013). The (in)visibility of gender in Scandinavian climate policymaking.

Dahlerup, D. (1988). From a small to a large minority: Women in Scandinavian Politics. Scandinavian
Political Studies, 11(4), pp. 275–97.

Dahlerup, D. (2006). The story of the theory of a critical mass. Politics & Gender, 2(4), pp. 511–522.

Dahelrup, D. and Leyenaar, M. (2013). Breaking Male Dominance in Old Democracies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Wängnerud, L. (2009). Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review
of Political Science, 12, pp. 51–69.

Chaney, P. (2012). Critical actors vs. critical mass: The substantive representation of women in the Scottish
Parliament. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14(3), pp. 441–457.

Lovenduski, J. (2005). State Feminism and Political Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press

WEDO. (2008). Launch of the Global Gender and Climate Alliance. Available at: https://wedo.org/wp-
content/uploads/global-gender-and-climate-alliance.pdf [Accessed 15 December 2022]

Magnusdottir, G.L., and Kronsell, A. (2021). Gender, Intersectionality and Climate Institutions in
Industrialised States. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003052821
Lykke, N. (2009). Non-innocent intersections of feminism and environmentalism. Women, Gender and
Research, 18 (3–4), 36–44.

Alaimo, S. (2009). Insurgent vulnerability and the carbon footprint of gender. Women, Gender and
Research, 18 (3–4), 22–35.

Denton, F. (2002). Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: why does gender matter?
Gender and Development, 10 (2), 10–20.

Röhr, U., Meike, S., Elisabeth, S., and Uta, V. (2008). Gender justice as the basis for sustainable climate
policies: a feminist background paper. German NGO Forum on Environment and Development.

Hemmati, M., and Röhr, U. (2009). Engendering the climate-change negotiations: experiences, challenges,
and steps forward. Gender and Development, 17 (1), 19–32.

Glazebrook, T. (2011). Women and climate change: a case-study from Northern Ghana. Hypatia, 26 (4),
762–782.

Richards, J. (2018). Climate and Gender Justice. What’s Needed to Finance Loss and Damage? Available at:
https://www.rosalux.de/en/publication/id/39802/climate-and-gender-justice [Accessed 18 December
2022].

Robine, J., Siu-Lan, C., Sophie, L., Herman, V., and François, R. (2007). Report on Excess Mortality in Europe
during Summer 2003. Available at:
http://www.regionalclimateperspectives.com/uploads/4/4/2/5/44250401/petkovaetal2014histheatmor
talitynyc.pdf [Accessed 18 December 2022].

Neumayer, E., and Thomas, P. (2007). The gendered nature of natural disasters. The impact of catastrophic
events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 97: 551–66.

Bauriedl, S. (2021). Gender and Intersectional Climate Justice. Transitioning to Gender Equality,
Transitioning to Sustainability Series, p.213.

McCallum, E. (2017). Climate Change and Migration: The Intersection of Climate Change, Migration, and
Gender through Policy.

Anna, K., and Annica, K. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environmental
Politics, 23:3, 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203

Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., Vaast, C., Asher, K., Brockhaus, M., and Basnett Sijapati, B. (2016). Beyond
dichotomies: gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio, 45, 248–262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0825-2

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender Sociology, 20, 441–
464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499

Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Duke University Press.

Shields, S. (2008). Gender: An Intersectionality Perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8.
Cole, E. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564

Nash, J. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.4

Hankivsky, O. (2014). Intersectionality 101. Vancouver: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy,
Simon Fraser University.

Castan, V., and Neves, S. (2018). Intersectionality challenges for the co-production of urban services:
Notes for a theoretical and methodological agenda. Environment and Urbanization, 30(2): 367–386.

Crenshaw, K. (2015). Why Intersectionality Can’t Wait. Washington Post.

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 Forum.

Crenshaw, K. (2017). On Intersectionality: Essential Writings.

Gino, O. (2021). World Environment Day. Available at:

https://twitter.com/ovalsfoundation/status/1400556430390878209?s=46&t=vla1tomsx1vs6L-XNLtDtQ
[Accessed 29 November 2022]

Nilsson, L., Khan, J., Andersson, F., and Klintman, M. (2013). I ljuset av framtiden. Styrning mot
nollutslapp ar. 2050. Lund: Lunds Universitet.

IEA. (2011). CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. International Energy Agency, 2011 Editions. Available
from: www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf [Accessed 25 November 2022].

Sachs, D. (2015). The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press.

European Parliament. (2017). Report on Women, Gender Equality and Climate Justice. Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0403_EN.html [Accessed 25 November
2022].

BCNUEJ. (2021). Policy and Planning Tools for Urban Green Justice.

Tapia, C., Abajo, B., Feliu, E., Mendizabal, M., Martinez, J.A., Fernandez, J.G., Laburu, T., and Lejarazu, A.
(2017). Profiling urban vulnerabilities to climate change: an indicator-based vulnerability assessment for
European cities. Ecological Indicators, 78, 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.040

Connolly, J. (2018). From systems thinking to systemic action: social vulnerability and the institutional
challenge of urban resilience. City Community, 17, 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12282

Connolly, J., and Anguelovski, I. (2021). Three histories of greening and whiteness in American cities.
Frontline Ecological Evolution, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.621783.

Ravera, F., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Martín-Lopez, B., Pascual, U., and Bose, P. (2016). Gender perspectives in
resilience, vulnerability and adaptation to global environmental change. Ambio, 45, 235–247.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0842-1
Kuran, C.H.A., Morsut, C., Kruke, B.I., Krüger, M., Segnestam, L., Orru, K., Nævestad, T.O., Airola, M., Ker¨
anen, J., Gabel, F., Hansson, S., Torpan, S., 2020. Vulnerability and vulnerable groups from an
intersectionality perspective. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50, 101826 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJDRR.2020.101826

Soares, M.B., Gagnon, A.S., Doherty, R.M., 2012. Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability
assessments: a review. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 4, 6–35.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691211200191

Thomas, K., Hardy, R.D., Lazrus, H., Mendez, M., Orlove, B., Rivera-Collazo, I., Roberts, J.T., Rockman, M.,
Warner, B.P., Winthrop, R., 2019. Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: a social science
review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 10 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.565.

Vancura, P., Leichenko, R., 2015. Emerging equity and justice concerns for climate change adaptation: a
case study of New York state. In: The Adaptive Challenge of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
pp. 98–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139149389.007

Cho, S., Crenshaw, K.W., McCall, L., 2013. Toward a field of intersectionality studies: theory, applications,
and praxis. Signs (Chic) 38, 785–810. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/669608

Shi, L., Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., Aylett, A., Debats, J., Goh, K., Schenk, T., Seto, K.C., Dodman, D., Roberts,
D., Roberts, J.T., Van Deveer, S.D., 2016. Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research.
Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2841

Cardona, O.D., Van Aalst, M.K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., Mc Gregor, G., Rosa, P., Pulwarty, R.S.,
Schipper, E.L.F., Sinh, B.T., D´ecamps, H., Keim, M., Davis, I., Ebi, K.L., Lavell, A., Mechler, R., Murray, V.,
Pelling, M., Pohl, J., Smith, A.O., Thomalla, F., 2012. Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In:
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–108.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245.005.