Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

==== 6.4.3.5 Addresses Inequalities through Intersectional Perspectives ====

<div id="h3-49-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Inclusive and sustainable adaptation can address the causes of systemic vulnerability ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). This points to the fundamental requirements of adaptation action in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Climate justice theories draw on the environmental justice movement experiences at the local level ( [[#Bickerstaff--2012|Bickerstaff, 2012]] ; Bickerstaff, Walker and Bulkeley, 2013; Perez et al., 2015; Hall, Hards and Bulkeley, 2013). Slogans such as ‘leave no one behind’ embedded in international policy for cities and settlements recognise the connection between systems of oppression and exclusion that reproduce and perpetuate urban inequality and the delivery of urban services and security ( [[#Kabeer--2016|Kabeer, 2016]] ; [[#Stuart--2016|Stuart and Woodroffe, 2016]] ).

Intersectional strategies of action seek to consider the multiple forms of structural oppression experienced at the local level ( [[#Grunenfelder--2015|Grunenfelder and Schurr, 2015]] ) and, in the context of adaptation, explain how they produce or exacerbate vulnerabilities. For example, intersectionality ties with the idea of how multiple deprivations shape access to services (from sanitation to health and education) and the exposition to environmental risks ( [[#Sicotte--2014|Sicotte, 2014]] ; [[#Lau--2016|Lau and Scales, 2016]] ; [[#Van%20Aelst--2016|Van Aelst and Holvoet, 2016]] ; Lievanos and Horne, 2017; [[#Raza--2017|Raza, 2017]] ; [[#Yon--2017|Yon and Nadimpalli, 2017]] ; [[#European%20Environment%20Agency--2020|European Environment Agency, 2020]] ) (see Box 6.6 on the participation of women in local decision making bodies). For example, fisherwomen in the western coast of India rely on a complex arrangement of relationships around categories of class, caste and gender that shapes their possibilities to draw political resources to maintain their livelihoods and, hence, influence the dynamics of transformation ( [[#Thara--2016|Thara, 2016]] ). Intersectionality is central to build resilience across communities, rather than in particular areas ( [[#Khosla--2010|Khosla and Masaud, 2010]] ; Reckien et al., 2017). Including intersectionality deliberately in partnerships with communities can empower socially excluded groups and highlight justice issues while aligning agendas with local development priorities (Castán Broto et al., 2015a). Despite the ''high confidence'' on the growing importance of intersectionality concerns in the delivery of just environmental policies, there is ''limited evidence'' of its explicit inclusion in adaptation policies.

<div id="box-6.6" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 6.6 | Invisible Women: Lack of Women’s Participation in Urban Authorities'''
<div id="h2-22-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Women are under-represented internationally in governance structures ( [[#Prihatini--2019|Prihatini, 2019]] ; [[#Gonzalez-Eiras--2018|Gonzalez-Eiras and Sanz, 2018]] ; [[#Rashkova--2017|Rashkova and Zankina, 2017]] ; Koyuncu and Sumbas). This situation is reflected in urban authorities where participation by those who identify as women is low (Williams, Devika and Aandahl, 2015; [[#Kivoi--2014|Kivoi, 2014]] ). [[#Das--2014|Das (2014)]] reports deep-rooted economic inequalities are barriers for women’s participation in Indore, India, and that women’s collective empowerment could increase their bargaining power within households as well as in the community and state. [[#Kivoi--2014|Kivoi (2014)]] draws a similar conclusion presenting experiences from Kenya. The big question is how to make women more visible in the urban governance process?

What are the barriers women face and how do we increase their participation so that urban governance become more inclusive? Escalante and Valdivia (2015) show the participatory tools that can be used at different stages of planning for women’s empowerment using bottom-up planning models. Using these tools makes planning processes more inclusive. Araujo and Tejedo-Romero (2016) show from Spanish local councils that women’s political representation in municipalities has a positive influence on the level of transparency, increasing information transparency and reducing information asymmetry. In Myanmar, [[#Minoletti--2014|Minoletti (2014)]] increased levels of women’s participation in urban authorities helped to improve the quality of governance such as reducing corruption and conflicts, and improving service delivery.

People traditionally excluded from climate change governance, such as children, are also more likely to have their needs and priorities considered in urban planning for adaptation where there are national advocacy bodies, for example, Commissions for Future, or Children’s commissions ( [[#Nordström--2019|Nordström and Wales, 2019]] ; Watts et al., 2019; [[#Hayward--2021|Hayward, 2021]] ). An emphasis on procedural justice in decision-making has potential to produce transformational outcomes where these are defined as significantly reducing inequality ( [[#Holland--2017|Holland, 2017]] ). In this light, emerging evidence suggests transformative adaptation is more likely to occur if people have the agency to influence decisions and enact change ( [[#Archer--2015|Archer and Dodman, 2015]] ). Cities are also more likely to build and develop infrastructure that serves the needs of disadvantaged groups when urban climate governance encourages wider community participation and inclusion ( [[#Ziervogel--2019a|Ziervogel, 2019a]] ; Hölscher et al., 2019; Anguelovski et al., 2016). This can help to stimulate innovation, shift power relations and address diverse needs (Martel and Sutherland, 2019; Chu, Schenk and Patterson, 2018). Experiments in including marginalised groups in adaptation planning are starting to emerge in places such as Quito (Ecuador), Lima (Peru), Manizales (Colombia) and Surat (India), where disadvantaged youth, informal settlers and other vulnerable communities are included in discussions of short-/long-term adaptation needs and fair distribution of adaptation resources (Chu, Anguelovski and Carmin, 2016; Sara, Pfeffer and Baud, 2017; Hardoy and Velásquez Barrero, 2014). These processes can also support citizens to manage risks as they encounter them in their everyday life (Ziervogel et al., 2017).

To respond to urban injustices, attention needs to be paid to both the local level and to broader system-wide governance issues (that are unpacked further in [[#6.4|Section 6.4]] ). At the local level, it is important to understand who is most vulnerable to climate risk, which is likely to be related to class, race, gender, ability and age ( [[#Wilby--2012|Wilby and Keenan, 2012]] ; [[#Ranganathan--2019|Ranganathan and Bratman, 2019]] ; Thomas, Cretney and Hayward, 2019). Factors such as age and levels of ability, as well as those pursuing outdoor livelihoods, have a direct link to higher vulnerability to heat stress (Conry et al., 2015). In least-developed countries, less than 60% of the urban population have access to piped water which impacts on health and well-being, and emphasises the importance of alternative resources for these households (World Health Organization, Nations and Fund, 2017).

<div id="6.4.3.6" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="supports-visionary-and-imaginative-design"></span>