In the summer of 2023, several days of 35-degree temperatures forced Germany and Austria to issue extensive heat warnings, advising residents—especially those in high-risk groups—to stay indoors. While these immediate responses helped in a crisis, they also highlighted the urgent need for long-term climate adaptation strategies that account for intersecting risk factors. As climate change intensifies, these strategies are only becoming more critical. The summer of 2024 was already marked as the hottest on record in the U.S., and both average temperatures and heat waves are rising globally. Developing and implementing effective heat plans is crucial for addressing both the short- and long-term effects of climate change. The growing severity of climate impacts underscores the importance of adapting policies and communities to better withstand extreme heat, both now and in the future.
Effective heat plans aim to address the short- and long-term effects of climate change by preparing communities for more frequent and intense heat waves. These plans include a variety of measures, such as multi-stage warning systems, emergency protocols, and local adaptations to provide relief, especially for high-risk groups. They also encourage long-term strategies, like urban planning, that incorporates green spaces and heat-resistant infrastructure. While most heat plans try to address the needs of diverse groups, they often lack a true intersectional approach—one that recognizes how different kinds of marginalizations can combine to create unique vulnerabilities for certain groups.
An intersectional approach to climate adaptation acknowledges that climate events affect different sectors of society in distinct ways, especially for marginalized communities with multiple layers of disadvantage. For example, people with low socioeconomic resources, often living in poorly insulated, densely populated urban areas, are particularly vulnerable during extreme heat events. These individuals are less likely to have access to cooling systems or private transportation, and their jobs may expose them to heat more directly. Other factors like race, age, disability, or sexual orientation can also impact someone’s ability to cope with climate emergencies. Studies have shown that elderly people, pregnant individuals, and those from marginalized backgrounds often face heightened risks, particularly if they lack strong community support networks.
Qualitative research has highlighted that social isolation is a key factor that exacerbates these risks, pointing to the need for heat plans that address not only specific vulnerabilities but also the compounded effects of structural inequalities. People living alone in poor conditions—such as those without air conditioning or a local support system—are at much higher risk. Scientific studies reinforce the need for intersectional frameworks in adaptation strategies.
Public health research and social science studies show that groups facing multiple manginalizations have fewer resources to cope with extreme heat or other climate impacts. For example, environmental justice experts, like Cam Humphrey from Race Forward, explains that “LGBTQIA+ communities experience higher social stigma, higher unemployment, and housing insecurity, making them more vulnerable to environmental disasters.” People with both chronic illnesses and experiencing poverty are also at higher risk, and may struggle to find adequate shelter or healthcare during extreme heat events. This was seen during the devastating hurricanes Milton and Helene in 2024, where marginalized groups faced disproportionate impacts. Even small increases in body temperature can worsen conditions like multiple sclerosis or Alzheimer’s, which can, in turn, lead to greater social isolation and reduced ability to adapt.
Reports from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasize the need for inclusive measures in heat planning, ones that consider how social inequalities worsen climate impacts. These reports call for intersectional approaches that account for different levels of vulnerability. In this context, understanding the difference between equity and equality is crucial. Equality aims to treat everyone the same, regardless of background, while equity recognizes that people start with different resources and opportunities. Equity prioritizes support for those with the highest need, ensuring they receive the assistance necessary to reach the same outcomes as others. This approach acknowledges existing systemic inequalities and aims to correct them. By incorporating intersectionality into heat plans, communities can ensure that strategies address the needs of diverse groups, promoting both climate resilience and social justice.
Intersectionality should guide not only the outcomes of climate adaptation measures but also the processes used to create them. A recent evaluation by Yarrow Global of heat plan creation in Germany highlights the need for more inclusive design processes. While policymakers recognize the importance of involving marginalized groups, there are often barriers to making this participation truly inclusive. These barriers include limited funding and time, as well as a lack of clear ways to engage marginalized communities. When diverse voices are not fully integrated into the planning process, participants may feel tokenized or lose trust, leading to disengagement. It’s also crucial to identify and support affected groups without overlooking important intersectional perspectives.
Some promising examples of inclusive, intersectional approaches to climate adaptation are already emerging. In 2024, Stuttgart launched a round table called “Future for Population Safety,” inviting active stakeholders from marginalized groups to participate in ongoing discussions. Participants continue to bring in new voices, creating a dynamic space where policymakers act as facilitators, supporting an evolving exchange of ideas. This round table allows policies and specific measures to be informed directly by the community.
There is a growing shift toward viewing marginalized groups not just as vulnerable populations, but as experts in their own experiences. By moving from “speaking-about” to “listening-with” these communities, policymakers can create climate strategies that are informed, supported, and even designed by those most affected. Where direct participation is difficult, partnering with organizations that represent these groups can be a practical alternative. Recognizing the importance of intersectionality in climate adaptation means rethinking traditional policy-making processes, especially in the Global North, to ensure that those most affected are integral to the solutions. This shift will require significant structural support, including financial resources, training, and time for policy teams. While challenging, it is a vital step toward building inclusive, equitable systems that respond effectively to climate crises without perpetuating social inequalities.
Feature Image by Tim Reckmann/Flickr Creative Commons
Yarrow Global 