Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 — PLANET4B

1.1.5 2 PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101082212. This project is funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee. This work has received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions are of those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland. The European Union, the European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland cannot be held responsible for them. iii Key deliverable information Deliverable number D1.3 Deliverable title Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis Task leader Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture (IFZ) Corresponding editor: Anita Thaler Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description Based on Winker and Degele’s (2011) eight-step model of intersectional multilevel analysis, this report outlines a refined methodological framework for context-specific intersectionality analyses, co-created through three online workshops with PLANET4B case study partners. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 01/05/2023 Authors: Anita Thaler (IFZ); Sandra Karner (IFZ) 0.2 Draft 03/05/2023 Reviewers: Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi; Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Torsten Wähler (MLU) 0.3 Draft 11/05/2023 Authors: Anita Thaler (IFZ); Sandra Karner (IFZ) 1.0 Final 17/05/2023 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) 1.1 Update 07/10/2025 Authors: Anita Thaler (IFZ); Sandra Karner (IFZ) Project acronym PLANET4B Project title understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Starting date 01st November 2022 Duration 36 months Website https://planet4b.eu/ Project coordination and scientific lead team Ilkhom Soliev; Alex Franklin; Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler iv Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Håkon Aspøy (NINA); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Katherine Despot-Belmonte; Roberto Gronda (UNIPI); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Giacomo Lampredi (UNIPI); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Subash Ludhra (DC); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); György Pataki (ESSRG); Mirjam Schleiffer (FiBL); Barbara Smith (CU); Simeon Vaňo (CG); Matteo Villa (UNIPI) Recommended citation Thaler, A. & Karner, S. (eds.) (2023). Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Recommended citations for individual chapters Thaler, A. (2023). Introduction. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 1, pp. 2–11. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Thaler, A. & Karner, S. (2023). Methodological approach: Transdisciplinary workshops to co-create a shared understanding of intersectionality in biodiversity research. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 2, pp. 11–17. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Thaler, A. & Karner, S. (2023). Results and discussion: Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 3, pp. 17–22. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Figari, H., Bredin, Y., & Gundersen, V. (2023). Children with disabilities and outdoor recreation in Greater Oslo, Norway. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 4.1, pp. 23–26. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Brown, G., Franklin, A., & Ludhra, G. (2023). Systemic exclusion: Ethnic minority communities and access to nature and the outdoors. Central England, UK. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 4.2, pp. 27–31. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Soliev, I., Podlaszewska, A., Saydaliev, Z., & Wähler, T. (2023). Urban youth, intersectionality, and nature in Germany. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 4.3, pp. 32–37. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 v Karner, S., Steinwender, D., & Thaler, A. (2023). ‚Bio-Diverse Edible City Graz‘: Urban food for biodiversity and inclusion in Graz, Austria. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 4.4, pp. 38–43. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Home, R. & Sabir, G. (2023). Agriculture, Religion and Biodiversity. Switzerland. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 4.5, pp. 44–47. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Thaler, A. & Karner, S. (2023). Limitations of the methodological framework. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 5, pp. 48. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Thaler, A. & Karner, S. (2023). Conclusion and outlook. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, chapter 6, pp. 48–49. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Thaler, A. & Karner, S. (2025). Intersectionality Mapping – Case Study „Bio-/Diverse Edible City Graz“, Austria. In: A. Thaler & S. Karner (eds.), Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis, annex, pp. 53–55. Report No D1.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14871142 Rights and license This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all PLANET4B team members, who participated and actively engaged in the workshops. Only thereby the co-creative process, which underlies the conceptual framework described in this report, was possible. 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information .............................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ v Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 2 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 The roots and ideas of intersectionality ................................................................................. 3 1.2 Methodological considerations of intersectionality ............................................................... 5 1.3 Intersectional perspectives in the biodiversity discourse ....................................................... 7 1.4 Practical considerations for doing intersectional biodiversity activities .................................. 9 2 Methodological approach: Transdisciplinary workshops to co-create a shared understanding of intersectionality in biodiversity research ............................................... 11 2.1 Background and context of co-creation workshops .............................................................. 11 2.2 Process and elements of co-creation workshops .................................................................. 12 3 Results and discussion: Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens ........ 17 3.1 Reflexivity of researchers informed by intersectionality ...................................................... 18 3.2 Approaching actors of biodiversity case studies using an intersectional perspective ............ 19 3.3 Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens .................................................. 20 4 Literature reviews on biodiversity case studies .............................................................. 22 4.1 Children with disabilities and outdoor recreation in Greater Oslo, Norway .......................... 23 4.2 Systemic exclusion: Ethnic minority communities and access to nature and the outdoors. Central England, UK ................................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Urban youth, intersectionality, and nature in Germany ....................................................... 32 4.4 ‚Bio-Diverse Edible City Graz‘: Urban food for biodiversity and inclusion in Graz, Austria ..... 38 4.5 Agriculture, Religion and Biodiversity. Switzerland .............................................................. 44 5 Limitations of the methodological framework ............................................................... 48 6 Conclusion and outlook ................................................................................................. 48 References ....................................................................................................................... 50 Annex ............................................................................................................................... 53 Intersectionality Mapping – Case Study „Bio-/Diverse Edible City Graz“, Austria ....................... 53 2 Executive summary The world is not on track for achieving most of the targets of the sustainable development goals, and rising inequalities and biodiversity loss are among the trends that move in the opposite direction, and the consequences of biodiversity loss on rising inequalities have to be addressed (Independent Group of Scientists, 2019). To tackle this interlinkage of inequalities in the field of biodiversity, PLANET4B aims at utilising the concept of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). 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 (Rice et al., 2019). The concept itself is not a theory with clear methodological considerations, thus, this report provides insight into relevant theories and methods, and documents a cocreation process of the PLANET4B consortium, in order to facilitate a shared understanding of using the intersectional lens for upcoming biodiversity case studies. This co-created framework for PLANET4B case studies comprises three elements: • Using intersectionality as a starting point of reflexivity of researchers. • Considering intersectionality and positions of privilege when approaching actors. • Doing case studies with an intersectional lens. Each element of this framework is introduced with a guiding principle, which stems out of the co-creation workshops, and useful questions. All five PLANET4B place-based case studies, where learning communities will be established to trigger transformative change, explored their intersectional focus through consortium workshops, and also by undertaking supporting literature reviews. A draft synthesis of findings is compiled in Section 3.4. 1 Introduction Author: Anita Thaler In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, seventeen goals and 169 targets have been defined to eradicate poverty and guarantee an equitable future for all. According to the expert report “The Future is Now” (Independent Group of Scientists, 2019), the world is not on track for achieving most of those targets. Moreover, the report names four trends which are moving in the opposite direction: rising inequalities, climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing amounts of waste (Independent Group of Scientists, 2019, p. 20). It has been recognised that: “Effective action in any of those areas requires acknowledging and addressing the links among them – the close ties between climate change and human health, for instance, or the ways in which biodiversity loss and deterioration of ecosystem services exacerbate inequalities.” (Independent Group of 3 Scientists, 2019, p. 23). Taking care of human well-being, and empower people’s capabilities is the key to bring about change towards sustainable development. Systems of oppression such as patriarchy, ableism, racism, ageism, colonialism and imperialism still marginalise people, often in multiple ways. Intersectionality is seen as a concept, which helps to understand these interlinked complexities of discrimination (Monjurul Kabir & Thomson, 2022). “Women occupy the front lines of the present ecological crisis, making up 80 percent of climate refugees. In the global South, they constitute the vast majority of the rural workforce, even as they also bear responsibility for the lion’s share of social-reproductive labor. Because of their key role in providing food, clothing, and shelter for their families, women play an outsized part in coping with drought,3ollution, and the overexploitation of land, likewise, poor women of color in the gobal North are disproportionately vulnerable. Subject to environmental racism, they constitute the backbone of communities subject to flooding and lead poisoning.” (Arruzza et al., 2019, p. 47 f.) This introduction provides an overview of the intersectionality discourse with a focus on publications with relevance for biodiversity research. The volume of scientific publications on intersectionality has grown rapidly in the last twenty years, with some articles also addressing how this rather vague concept can be tackled methodologically. Despite this growth, however, there are not so many papers which broach the intersectional issue of biodiversity, or how intersectionality can be practically applied by transdisciplinary research teams. Therefore, this report will utilise the concept of intersectionality for the field of biodiversity and provide an insight into relevant existing theories and methodologies. It will also document a co-creation process, which aimed at facilitating a shared understanding of using the intersectional lens for the biodiversity case studies of the PLANET4B consortium. 1.1 The roots and ideas of intersectionality In 1989, Kimberle Crenshaw published a “black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics” and introduced in this article an intersectional analysis of a legal case of discrimination of Black women in the US. Crenshaw’s legal argument builds upon previous work, like bell hooks’ (1981) famous book “Ain’t I a Woman”, in which she states: “… I voiced my conviction that the struggle to end racism and the struggle to end sexism were naturally intertwined, that to make them separate was to deny a basic truth of our existence, that race and sex are both immutable facets of human identity.” (ibid., p. 13) Crenshaw elaborated that single-axes frameworks are discriminating Black women, because race-discrimination cases tend to forget sexand class-under-privileged 4 Blacks, and in sex-discrimination cases she observed the neglect of raceand classunderprivileged women. “No other group in America has so had their identity socialized out of existence as have black women. We are rarely recognized as a group separate and distinct from black men, or as a present part of the larger group ‘women’ in this culture.” (p. 7) Thus, Crenshaw 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.” (1989, p. 167) Moreover, it has been substantiated by Crenshaw and further feminist scholars that intersectionality is more than adding up social categories: „An intersectional research project examines categories at multiple levels of analyses — not simply by adding together mutually exclusive analyses of the individual and institutional levels but by means of an integrative analysis of the interaction between the individual and institutional levels of the research question.” (Hancock, 2007, p. 251) Although intersectionality is rooted in structuralism1, individuals’ resistance against categorisation led to poststructuralist, queer and new materialism discourses seeking for anti-essentialist approaches (Rice et al., 2019). For instance, queer scholars address race and racism together with issues of heteronormativity, biphobia and the inclusion of trans* people. Elizabeth Evans and Éléonore Lépinard (2019) collected examples of how intersectionality has been taken up by queer movements in order to reveal and resist privilege. Common to these poststructuralist and postmodern perspectives is the social construction of social categories, which adds a process character to the intersectionality approach: “But to say that a category such as race or gender is socially constructed is not to say that that category has no significance in our world. On the contrary, a large and continuing project for subordinated people – and indeed, one of the projects for which postmodern theories have been very helpful – is thinking about the way power has clustered around certain categories and is exercised against others. This project attempts to unveil the processes of subordination and the various ways those processes are experienced by people who are subordinated and people who are privileged by them. It is, then, a project that presumes that categories have meaning and consequences. And this project's most pressing problem, in many if not most cases, is not the existence of the categories, but rather the particular values attached to them and the 1 In order to analyse inequalities based on social identities, identity markers like gender have to be defined. In structuralism and essential feminist theories ‘women’ and ‘men’ are seen as rather fixed categories, whereas new materialist, queer and post-structural theories are emphasising the fluidity of social categories like gender, and the processes of their social construction. 11 Finally, Simpson (ibid.) recommends asking participants for feedback, with four basic questions being asked in the context of evaluating intersectionality informed activities: 1. What worked and why? (Assessing accessibility) 2. What did not work and why? (Improving accessibility) 3. What could have been done differently? (Reflecting on inclusiveness) 4. What adjustments and changes are required now? (Improving the intersectional approach) 2 Methodological approach: Transdisciplinary workshops to co-create a shared understanding of intersectionality in biodiversity research Authors: Anita Thaler, Sandra Karner Based on the literature overview on intersectionality with a focus on biodiversity research in chapter 1 of this report, a series of online PLANET4B consortium workshops were then organised. The purpose of the workshops was to co-create a methodology for context specific multilevel intersectionality analysis, in order to identify vulnerable groups and inequity in biodiversity interventions. The co-creation of knowledge approach has been tested in other research projects (using various workshop formats, joined writing activities, etc.) as a useful methodology to mend the gap between scientific knowledge and policy or practice brought into action in various fields from sustainable food systems (Karner et al., 2011) to implementing gender equality plans in science and research organisations (Thaler et al., 2022). 2.1 Background and context of co-creation workshops During the kick-off meeting of PLANET4B (December 13–15th 2022 in Halle, Germany) the authors presented the concept of intersectionality and connections to biodiversity briefly. The tasks for partners comprised case study specific literature reviews as well as three co-creation workshops. On February 1st, February 20th, and March 1st 2023 three-hour long online consortium workshops were conceptualised and facilitated by the authors of this report, in order to co-create a shared understanding of intersectionality for the intensive case studies3 of PLANET4B. The workshops were hosted on the online platform Zoom, with the virtual whiteboard Miro used for plenary and small group activities. In sum, 22 PLANET4B team members from 12 organisations participated in the three workshops. Most of participants are affiliated with the five intensive, place-based, action-learning case studies, which aim at triggering pathways towards transformative change in various contexts: 3 PLANET4B works on intensive, local-based and extensive, global case studies. Intensive case studies are conceptualised as learning communities in specific biodiversity related research activities. 12 • Children with disabilities and outdoor recreation in Greater Oslo, Norway. • Ethnic minority communities and access to nature and the outdoors, Central England, UK. • Urban youth, intersectionality, and nature in Germany. • ‘Bio-Diverse Edible City Graz’: Urban food for biodiversity and inclusion in Graz, Austria. • Agriculture, Religion and Biodiversity agriculture-biodiversity, Switzerland Additionally, a fourth online workshop was organised for all interested partners of PLANET4B to share the co-created knowledge. 14 persons from eight organisations, including partners working on extensive case studies, participated in this three-hour long workshop on March 20th. 2.2 Process and elements of co-creation workshops All co-creation workshops followed the general concept of introducing the participants, followed by interactive core-activities, plenary discussions, and a reflection and feedback phase as closing element. The introduction element of all workshops pursued three goals. Firstly, to become familiar with each other, which is of utmost importance in order to share knowledge and experiences in the thematic field of intersectionality. Secondly, to give all participants an equal possibility to speak right from the beginning. This has been proven as a successful strategy in online settings to increase the general activity level of the group and especially of more introverted participants. Thirdly, the introduction exercise was biodiversity-themed (e.g. introducing oneself as a non-human actor), and thus sensitised the group to intersectional aspects of biodiversity like multispecies justice. The levels of previous experiences with the concept of intersectionality differed very much among the participants. Some transdisciplinary research teams already used various feminist, post-colonial and/or social justice theories, while others were relatively new to the thematic area4. Thus, the core-activities in the three workshops for the intensive case studies followed an adult education approach of meeting participants at their starting points and connecting the concept of intersectionality stepby-step with their case studies. Workshop 1 In the first workshop the transdisciplinary teams reflected on their planned case studies along seven areas and specific questions (see Figure 2): Description of the case study (1) and its context (2), explaining the relevance of transformative change (3), aspects of inclusion and expected problems with the learning communities of the case studies (4), the values behind the teams (5), the existing and needed capacities for setting up 4 This variety in gender knowledge was known before the workshop, due to the introduction and discussion of the topic at the first consortium meeting in December 2022 in Halle. After that all five intensive case study partners drafted literature reviews, connecting intersectionality to their specific topics. This phase of writing the drafts was accompanied by Anita Thaler, she was consulted by three teams respectively researchers, one team asked for advice face to face (after the meeting in Halle), another one by telephone and the third via e-mail. 13 learning communities (6), and the restrictions and expected resistances, and deduced needs (7). Figure 2. Case study reflection exercise in workshop one (Miro board by authors). 14 Workshop 2 In the second workshop the ‘academic wheel of privilege’ (Elsherif et al., 2022) was introduced and used as an individual reflexivity exercise5, to illuminate own privileges and raise awareness for the diversity of social markers and categories, which can lead to multiple discrimination and systemic injustices (Figure 3). After a plenary discussion, the participants exchanged, in three small groups, starting points for intersectional perspectives (involving who, why and how) in their respective case studies. Figure 3. Academic wheel of privilege by Elsherif et al. (2022) (Supplementary Figure 2, adapted from Sylvia Duckworth). 5 All participants worked individually on their own wheel of privilege, placing themselves in the respective characteristics of each category. Afterwards, participants shared their experiences with the exercise, reflecting from an individual perspective and on a meta-level, about how useful the exercise is for the purposes of PLANET4B. 15 Workshop 3 For the third workshop, participants were asked to read two articles as a preparation: Mangelsdorf et al. (2016) and Kaijser and Kronsell (2016)6. In the workshop, all previous steps were summarised: from the presentation of the topic during the kick-off meeting and the draft versions of case study literature reviews7, to the reflection of case studies within the first two workshops, as well as the discussions around intersectionality as reflexivity tool. From here on, the core elements of this workshop were, firstly, small group discussions of dualistic constructions of ‘otherness’ (according to Kaijser and Kronsell 2016 these are processes of “backgrounding”, “exclusion”, “incorporation” and “objectification”, ibid. p. 46) in all case studies and ideas of overcoming them. Secondly, in a plenary discussion the most important insights were collected on a “doing biodiversity studies with an intersectional lens” board (see Figure 4). Finally, the multi-level analysis of Winker and Degele (2011) was discussed as a possibility to analyse empirical data, like interviews, with an intersectional approach (see chapter 1.2 of this report). 6 Participants asked to receive articles beforehand to not lose time in the workshops for explanations of theories and studies. The article by Kaijser and Kronsell (2016) about “Who gets to know about nature? Biodiversity and ecosystem services through an intersectional lens” was chosen because of its immediate relevance for PLANET4B. However, the immediate feedback was that the article is not easy to grasp and was then complemented by the editor’s introduction (Mangelsdorf et al., 2016) of the special issue Kaijser and Kronsell were published in. 7 The draft versions were sent in a time period between the first and shortly after the second workshop, then improved by all teams after completing the series of co-creation workshops, and then finalised for the final version of this report. 16 Figure 4. Doing biodiversity with an intersectional lens (Miro board by authors). Workshop 4: The fourth workshop was an additional workshop asked for by PLANET4B partners working on extensive case studies and interested in understanding the concept of intersectionality better also for their work. The workshop had two purposes, firstly to give new participants a good overview of the discussed topics and an insight in specific tools. Secondly, also participants from the three workshops before were invited to offer the possibility of discussing the previously co-created knowledge with ‘new participants’ offering a ‘critical friends’-perspective. For this workshop, participants were asked to read two papers as a preparation: Mangelsdorf et al. (2016) and 17 Haraway (2016, p. 15–29)8. In the workshop the outcomes of the three previous cocreation workshops were shared, and then all participants discussed in two groups (moderated by the two facilitators) the methodological considerations along their interest: • Group 1. “Analysing empirical material with an intersectional lens” (ref. to the eight-step model of interview analysis by Winker and Degele, 2011, see chapter 1.2 in this report). • Group 2: “Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens”9 (ref. to co-created knowledge of the three workshops before, using for instance Kaijser and Kronsell, 2016). The closing and reflection part of each workshop served to potentially improve following workshops, and to receive feedback on how useful the participants assessed elements of the workshop. 3 Results and discussion: Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens Authors: Anita Thaler, Sandra Karner The methodological approach discussed in this report followed an iterative cycle. It began with a literature review on intersectionality in biodiversity research, which informed the first co-creation workshop with partners of the five case studies (in the fields of inclusive nature recreation and outdoor activities, urban biodiversity and food, and biodiverse agriculture). Findings from the first draft case study specific literature reviews were integrated in the co-creation workshops on intersectionality (with literature informed inputs and experience-driven discussions on reflexivity, privileges, situated knowledges, etc.), which led to improved case study literature reviews, and an overall framework of doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens. This is why beside the key elements of the methodological framework, the refined case study specific literature reviews are presented in this results section, as they are another outcome of the described process. 8 The two papers, which should be read in advance, were the editorial article by Mangelsdorf et al. (2016) because it proved to be a good introduction, and the pigeon chapter of Haraway’s (2016) book “Staying with the trouble”, with examples of multispecies activities with intersectional relevance. 9 This is one of the articles, which informed the framework of the shared understanding of intersectionality in biodiversity case studies of PLANET4B, which will be explained in chapter 3. 18 Figure 5. Iterative cycle of co-creating a shared understanding of intersectionality in biodiversity case studies. The outcome of PLANET4B’s knowledge co-creation gives practical insights into how intersectionality can be used to highlight power and social justice issues in the realm of biodiversity. Our proposed three steps are in line with a theoretical process of embedding intersectionality in field research described by Rodriguez and Guenther (2025): recognition, adoption, analysis. 1. Reflexivity of researchers informed by intersectionality (recognition) 2. Approaching actors of biodiversity case studies using an intersectional perspective (adoption) 3. Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens (analysis) 3.1 Reflexivity of researchers informed by intersectionality “I am arguing for politics and epistemologies of location, positioning, and situating, where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard to make rational knowledge claims. These are claims on people's lives. I am arguing for the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity. Only the god trick is forbidden." (Haraway, 1988, p. 589) When research aims at using an intersectional approach, the guiding principle for the first methodological step of this process is to think about one’s own standpoint. Reflecting on one’s own privileges and experiences of discrimination and shame is a difficult exercise for researchers. It contests all ideas of objectivity and distance to the field by positioning oneself within one’s own research context, for instance the very learning community within the respective PLANET4B case study. One tool which can be used for academics is the academic wheel of privilege (by Elsherif et al., 2022), but in order to accurately fit the specific intersections of inequality within the respective First literature review on intersectionality in biodiversity Draft literature review on five case studies Co-creation workshops on intersectionality Overall framework of doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens Refined literature reviews on five case studies, 19 community, adjustments of this tool should be taken into consideration10. Some of those intersections might be known from previous research and even published in scientific articles; some might be known through conversations with community centres or other intermediary organisations11. Discrimination can be very deep, with prejudices and stereotypes affecting the learning community. Identifying potential intersections of discrimination and making them visible, will be a task for the case studies. Tools like an adapted wheel of privilege exercise (see Figure 3 in chapter 2.2 in this report) or other established community education activities for exploring intersectionality can be used. The latter includes, for example: • Intersectionality String Game • How Many of You.......exploring our own oppressions • Invisible Backpack of Privilege Activity (see Simpson, 2009). Useful questions to start biodiversity research with a self-reflexive intersectional lens are: • Where do I stand? • What are my privileges? • Where are my connections to the case study? • Where are my entry points? • Who can help us connecting to human and non-human actors? 3.2 Approaching actors of biodiversity case studies using an intersectional perspective "Situated knowledges require that the object of knowledge be pictured as an actor and agent, not as a screen or a ground or a resource, never finally as slave to the master that closes off the dialectic in his unique agency and his authorship of ‘objective’ knowledge." (Haraway, 1988, p. 589) The most important guiding principle for approaching actors, is the need to build trust with new learning communities. This means that the whole transdisciplinary research 10 The academic wheel of privilege is an adaption specifically for academics and researchers, discussing categories like career stage or funding situation, these categories are most probably not relevant to the biodiversity case study participants of PLANET4B. On the other hand, additional categories might be useful, thus it could be one type of exercise to work with interested participants to create their own meaningful wheels of privileges. 11 The relevant social categories, which lead to social inequities and discrimination in specific case studies should not be assumed, but be informed by empirical evidence and reported experiences from case study actors. 20 team must inform themselves about the context of the community, and prepare activities very carefully to avoid triggers12. Connecting to people in local learning communities is dependent on individual entry points of researchers and harmonised motives within each case study: • Which of the privileges or experienced discriminations are shared? • Which interests and activities do facilitators and local communities have in common? • What drives different actors, for example, are they motivated by environmental concerns, health related issues or social justice? • What are local communities gaining by planned biodiversity activities? To find good entry points means to reflect on one’s own standpoints as well as to analyse the intersections of potential and actual discriminations in the specific case. The motives of different actors have to be aligned with the intervention plans of each case study and its limits. The benefits for local communities have to be communicated clearly. Practically, cooperation with community representatives or groups and with existing initiatives can alleviate access. The knowledge about intersectional aspects of the biodiversity case studies will grow during the intervention activities. This is the action research part of these case studies. By doing the activities, the knowledge about the interlinkage of intersectionality and biodiversity in the respective community will get broader and deeper, activities might be adapted, new actors approached, new methods applied. Useful questions to approach and include actors of biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens are: • Who are we doing research with? • What knowledge is valued and how? • Who are we missing and why? • How diverse are the people we are missing? 3.3 Doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens “We believe that an intersectional approach, profoundly rooted in feminist theorization, offers valuable possibilities for re-thinking – and, hopefully, re-enacting – human-nature relations, with attention to the diversity and changeability of such relations, without claims to universal truths, and with room for multiple knowledges, knowers, and voices.” (Kaijser & Kronsell, 2016, p. 60) A further guiding principle of doing biodiversity research with an intersectional lens is illuminating dualisms of nature and humans to understand power relations. This means instead of focusing only on certain aspects of social categories as sites of domination (e.g. masculinity vs. femininity), following Kaijser and Kronsell (2016, p. 46, referring 12 Triggers refer to words, images, narratives which could cause emotional harm by activating old painful memories and traumas. 27 4.2 Systemic exclusion: Ethnic minority communities and access to nature and the outdoors. Central England, UK Authors: Geraldine Brown, Alex Franklin, Geeta Ludhra This intensive case study will be co-produced, with Coventry University working collaboratively with DADIMA'S C.I.C. and participants attending their activities. The overarching aim is to engage participants in DADIMA'S C.I.C. nature walks through a process in which participants are encouraged to share their biodiversity stories and knowledge. DADIMA'S C.I.C. is a UK-based case study situated in the Chilterns Area of Natural Beauty (AONB), a White rural locality outside of Oxford city. The organisation, led by two South Asian Walk leaders, aims to diversify access to and engagement with the outdoors through creating a safe space that brings people from diverse backgrounds together to explore and support the development of biodiversity knowledge and understanding using creative and inclusive nature-informed activities. The case study will also capture a broader range of stories from participants from ethic minority communities engaging in community led nature-based initiatives. The overarching aim is to adopt a case study approach that will be centred around the lived experiences of people from ethnic minority communities, with the stories they share serving as a gateway to guide a wider dialogue with key stakeholders working across the environmental sector (NGOs, policy makers and practitioners), and serving as a tool for action and change. In the UK, the term ethnic minority usually refers to racial and ethnic groups that are in a minority in the population and thus it is used to categorise diverse populations (Dacosta et al., 2021). People from backgrounds of migration heritages have different life histories and levels of affluence, there are people from ethnic minority backgrounds across all socio-economic categories, sectors, and professions (Rishbeth et al., 2022). 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. The case study will explore: • Knowledge and hidden stories about biodiversity held within ethnic minority communities. • What biodiversity means to ethnic minority communities engaged in naturebased initiatives and the impact of these initiatives in engaging people with action associated with addressing biodiversity loss. • Barriers that ethic minority communities experience in gaining access to nature. • The role of creative intervention methods in understanding and responding to biodiversity loss and engagement in biodiversity decision making at the (micro, meso and macro level). • The impact of community led initiatives in engaging ethnic minority communities with biodiversity agendas. • Practical actions participants engaged in a community led nature-based initiative take to help improve biodiversity at a local level. • How decision makers can enhance ethnic minorities’ access and engagement with nature. 28 • Alternative ways of knowing ledge and how to make visible/explicit the stories that are often hidden or not considered as relevant. • The case study will adopt a multi method approach. Methods will be identified in consultation with research partners. Literature to support CASE study Systemic Barriers: Ethnic minority communities and access to nature and the outdoors Research shows that involvement in and attitudes towards issues related to biodiversity, such as soil conservation, biodiversity upkeep, water management, and communal or cultural practices are shaped by groups’ intersecting identities and their interactions (or lack of interaction) within social-ecological systems (Kaijsera & Kronsell, 2014; Gippoliti & Battisti, 2023; Htay et al., 2022; Dinh, 2020). This work illustrates the importance of multiple social locations, relations, and structures of power, and factors such as socio-economic circumstances, ethnicity, age (etc.) for the delivery of equitable resilience and the importance of engaging ethic minority communities. A starting point for this work is a pressing concern with ‘a green inequality’ (Howard Boyd, 2022). Such ‘green inequality’ is characterised by ethnic minorities encountering barriers leading to a disconnect from the natural environment. This concern is not unique to the UK; rather, disparities associated with access and engagement with and in the natural environment are a common trend reflected across a plethora of Western nations. This has ramifications for reversing biodiversity decline, strategies aimed at raising awareness, individual and policy prioritisation of biodiversity and understanding and responses to biodiversity loss. This intensive case study sets out to explore how biodiversity is understood, perceived, engaged with, and valued by ethnic minority communities. Ethnic minorities, exclusion, and the natural environment Research shows that the above-described pattern of exclusion is not new. There is a longstanding body of work conducted in North America exploring participation in outdoor recreational activities among populations divided by social and racial characteristic early as 1962, Mueller and Gurin’s publication highlighted variations in participation in the outdoors between White and Black Americans. Research in this area over time reaffirms disparities in access and engagement in the outdoor and recreational activities between groups (Walker, 2001; Krymkowski et al., 2014; Winter et al., 2019). This green inequality is also evident across Europe. Gentin (2019), for example, posits that, despite the increasing ethnic and racial diversity across European countries, persistent inequities exist in access and engagement to the natural environment across European nations, with a clear disparity between how majority and minoritised communities access the natural environment within urban and rural localities. In relation to the UK and of specific relevance to this case study, there is a small but growing body of evidence (research, policy, grey and community and statutory organisational reports) documenting disparities associated with ethnic minority communities’ access to the natural environment. Collier (2020) notes that ethnic minority communities are more likely to live in urban areas with a deficiency of access to green spaces, less access to private gardens and public parks and a higher 29 percentage of people from ethnic minorities living in areas most lacking in access to nature. Similarly, research by Natural England in 2017, showed Black and Asian people are less likely to regularly visit natural settings. This low presence means that people from ethnic minorities miss the pleasure, health benefits and involvement in caring for natural spaces. Moreover, the recent Coronavirus pandemic exposed and amplified how factors including age, ethnicity and socio-economic status seem to play a role in this picture (Rishbeth et al., 2022). There have been attempts by a range of stakeholders (researchers, NGO.s government actors) to identify and understand people’s access and engagement with the natural environment. Alongside exploring ethnic minority communities’ access to green spaces, research has also examined volunteering activity; there is considerable evidence that shows a lack of ethnic diversity amongst volunteers in the natural outdoors. For those who do engage in outdoor volunteering opportunities, there is variation in participation rates between ethnic groups (HOCS, 2003). Alongside this, there is also a lack of ethnic diversity across the wider environmental sector at all levels from accessing services, to opportunities, employment, board membership, etc. This is despite Black, Asian, and Ethnic groups being open to working within the sector, but also wanting leadership opportunities to be part of the change within communities (Johal & Brown, 2021). How is the problem understood? Gentin et al.’s (2019) research suggests that the relationship between race, ethnicity and leisure/outdoor has been primarily understood in terms of a marginality and ethnicity hypothesis used to explain differences. Hence, participation patterns are explained as an outcome of limited socio-economic resources resulting from historical patterns of discrimination (e.g. Stamps & Stamps, 1985) or ethnicity, whereby differences in participation are viewed in terms of different norms, values and social organisation between the minority and majority populations (e.g. Washburne, 1978). However, Gentin (ibid.) argues that more recently, researchers have questioned the validity of the marginality–ethnicity hypothesis and this has led to a shift to provide a more nuanced understanding that considers the intersection of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and social class in relation to leisure and outdoor recreation. Moreover, there is recognition that discrimination is a factor that should not be overlooked (e.g. Floyd & Gramann, 1995). The work of Bhardwaj (2023) calls for an alternative framework, including for example, by considering theories of the environment and a growing group of postcolonial, Indigenous, and Black geographers who are also theorising the relationship between racism and land. Our co-produced study offers an opportunity to contribute alternatives ways of understanding ethnic minority communities in the UK, relationship to biodiversity and, through intercultural dialogue with decision makers within the environmental sector in the UK, identify new and creatives ways of engaging with ethnic minority communities in strategies associated with addressing biodiversity loss. Through focusing attention on engagement in the natural environment facilitated by community self-organised initiatives, the study will advance and promoting ways in which community led initiative(s) can be a site for citizen engagement in nature and a means of contributing to biodiversity decision making processes. Alongside this, it provides an opportunity to 30 capture similarities and differences within and between communities and how factors such as ethnicity, age, gender shapes individual’s experiences and what this may mean for addressing barriers to nature for ethnic minority communities and biodiversity decision making. This case study offers a way of critically examining – and potentially intervening with current thinking around ethnic minority communities and biodiversity – creating knowledge and action that support more inclusive policy making and practice. References Bhardwaj, Ankit (2023). The Soils of Black Folk: W.E.B. Du Bois’s Theories of Environmental Racialization. Sociologica Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/07352751231164999 Collier, Beth (2022). Not My Green Space? White Attitudes Towards Black Presence in UK Green Spaces. An Auto-ethnography. In: Whose Green City?. Contested Urban Green Spaces and Environmental Justice in Northern Europe. Bianka Plüschke-Altof & Helen Sooväli-Sepping (eds.). Cham: Springer, pp. 41–58. DaCosta, Chrissie, Dixon-Smith, Steven & Singh, Gurnam (2021). Beyond BAME: Rethinking the politics, construction, application and efficacy of ethnic categorization. Coventry: Higher Education Research Action Group (HERAG). Dinh, Thanh Sang (2020). Attitudes of ethnic minorities towards biodiversity conservation IN Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 32(3), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.26525/jtfs2020.32.3.305 Floyd, Myron F. & Gramann, James H. (1995). Perceptions of discrimination in a recreation context. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(2), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1995.11949742 Gentin, Sandra, Pitkänen, Kati, Chondromatidoua, Anna Maria, Præstholma, Søren, Dolling, Ann & Palsdottir, Anna Maria (2019). Nature-based integration of immigrants in Europe: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126379 Gippoliti, Spartaco & Battisti, Corrado (2023). The ‘humanised zoo’: decolonizing conservation education through a new narrative. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 23(1–5). https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00204 Howard Boyd, Emma (2022). Research and analysis. State of the environment: health, people and the environment. (Report, updated 26 January 2023). Bristol: Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-environment/stateof-the-environment-health-people-and-the-environment (accessed April 25, 2023). Htay, Thazin, Htoo, Kyaw Kyaw, Mbise, Franco Peniel & Røskaft, Eivin (2022). Factors Influencing Communities’ Attitudes and Participation in Protected Area Conservation: a Case Study from Northern Myanmar. Society & Natural Resources, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2032515 Johal, Pammy & Brown, Geraldine (2021). Changing Landscapes – Actioning Change 2021. A Report sharing key findings from Backbone CiC’s Symposium. Lochluichart: Backbone CIC. Available at: https://www.backbone.uk.net/newversion/wpcontent/uploads/2021/09/Changing-Landscapes-Actioning-ChangeSymposium-2021-Report.pdf (accessed April 26, 2023). 31 Kaijser, Anna & Kronsell, Annica (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835203 Krymkowski, Daniel H., Manning, Robert E. & Valliere, William (2014). Race, ethnicity, and visitation to national parks in the United States: Tests of the marginality, discrimination, and subculture hypotheses with national-level survey data. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7, 35–43. Mueller, Eva & Gurin, Gerald (1962). Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults. Washington, D. C.: US Government Printing Office. Rishbeth, Clare, Neal, Sarah, French, Morag & Snaith, Bridget (2022). Included outside: Engaging people from ethnic minority backgrounds in nature. (Report No Natural England Technical Information Note TIN185). York: Natural England. Available at: file:///C:/Users/PM/Downloads/TIN185%20Edition%201%20Included%20outs ide%20- %20Engaging%20people%20from%20ethnic%20minority%20backgrounds% 20in%20nature.pdf (accessed April 26, 2023). Stamps, Spurgeon M. & Stamps, Miriam B. (1985). Race, Class and Leisure Activities of Urban Residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1985.11969613 Walker, Gordon J., Deng, Jinyang & Dieser, Rodney B. (2001). Ethnicity acculturation, self-construal, and motivations for outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 23(4), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400152809115 Washburne, Randel. F. (1978). Black under-participation in wildland recreation: alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences, 1(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490407809512880 32 4.3 Urban youth, intersectionality, and nature in Germany Authors: Ilkhom Soliev, Ammalia Podlaszewska, Zafar Saydaliev, Torsten Wähler The case study in Germany will explore a) to what extent young people, including those with less privilege, are and feel empowered to influence biodiversity and nature prioritisation in decision making; and, b) if and how various intervention methods, including experiential learning and behavioural games, as well as creative and deliberative interventions, can have empowering effects to allow them to improve biodiversity decision making. The expected outcomes of the case study in Germany are: • Better understanding of to what extent young people (with intersectionality focus on age, migration, gender) in Germany feel empowered about influencing prioritisation of biodiversity and nature in decision making • Better knowledge of the status quo of regional policies and initiatives (SaxonyAnhalt & Thuringia) on youth participation and social-ecological transformation • Co-designed scalable experimental interventions that provide space for expressing (particularly previously marginalised) voices of youth in relation to biodiversity and nature • Lessons from experimental interventions to facilitate empowerment among young people to influence prioritisation of biodiversity and nature in decision making • Evidence on empowered groups of young people and particular factors that have facilitated this process of empowerment. Also, what makes them empowered. As the case study will trial experimental interventions, the subsequent steps following these trials can be adjusted to maximise impact with those interventions that yield the most promising results. Planned activities: • Exploratory workshop(s) and research (mapping actors) • Interviews with local experts and survey on how empowered young people feel in relation to biodiversity/nature decision making (with the possibility to analyse by migration background and gender, and scale to be decided) • An iterative work with the learning community: o Initiating and establishing a learning community and coordinating the activities and their timeline with the learning community o Co-creation of a methodology and in house co-development, testing of and planning of interventions o Continuously co-developing a strategy for deploying interventions in the field (beyond project team – selecting the most promising activities) o Institutionalisation of empowering and transformative intervention elements • Understanding transformative change through interviews and workshops on lessons with the involved participants 33 Methodologically, the case study in Germany is committed to exploring interventions that create space for expressing voices among young people (especially previously marginalised ones), for experimenting with and social learning about decision making in simulated environments, trying out creative and deliberative actions that facilitate improved decision making in relation to nature and biodiversity. The case study focus has been sharpened and updated based on the discussions in the intersectionality workshops (T1.3) and case study conversations between the project partners (T3.1 & T2.1). Inequalities – Intersectionality Youth are typically not well-represented in decision making and feel powerless about decision making, particularly in relation to nature (Hickman et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2020). We hypothesise that the feeling of powerlessness by young people is an important barrier in prioritisation of nature and biodiversity. In the last years, this process has been observed particularly in relation to dissatisfaction of urban youth with environmental policies (ibid.), with urban settings being the areas with most youthinspired environmental movements. 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. Yet, recent research from five multicultural cities in Europe (Fischer et al., 2018) found that higher valuation of biodiversity rich areas prevailed among different sociocultural groups, indicating some links between migration background and attitudes towards biodiversity. Thus, there are two guiding questions for the case study in Germany: 1) To what extent do young people, including those with less privilege, feel empowered to influence biodiversity and nature prioritisation in decision making? To address this question, we will use the empowerment theory (e.g. Zimmerman, 2000) that defines empowerment as “a process in which efforts to exert control are central” and highlights that “participation with others to achieve goals, efforts to gain access to resources, and some critical understanding of the socio-political environment are basic components” of empowerment (ibid. p. 44). We will distinguish between processes (empowering) and outcomes (empowered) and different levels of analysis – individual, organisational, community. 2) To what extent can various intervention methods, including experiential learning and behavioural games, as well as creative and deliberative interventions, have empowering effects on younger age groups? The empowering effects are here understood both as processes (e.g. learning decision-making skills, working with others, opportunities to participate in decision making, understanding towards diversity) and as outcomes (e.g. sense of control, critical awareness, participatory behaviours, policy influence, building coalitions, leadership). We hypothesise that empowerment of young people could facilitate prioritisation of nature and biodiversity in decision making, both in terms of processes and outcomes. 34 Understanding the continuum of decision making The question is how we can understand nature and biodiversity-relevant decision making. The scholarship on environmentally significant behaviour offers a useful categorisation for conceptualising decision making that is relevant here (e.g. Stern, 2000; Soliev et al., 2021). This scholarship argues that one can categorise behaviour by its impact: into those with direct impact (private decisions, e.g. consumption decisions) and indirect impact (decisions e.g. affecting public policies). Additionally, the same scholarship suggests that it is useful to acknowledge environmentally significant behaviour by its intent. This highlights that having or lacking an intent, rather than impact, can be a cause of environmental change; and that sometimes intent might not coincide with impact. The latter can be explained, among others, for example by path dependencies from the existing behaviour of individuals (habits, preferences), social norms (peer pressure), and institutional arrangements (infrastructure, policies, laws, opportunities) that might create constraints for the intent to materialise into impact. Overall, biodiversity and nature relevant decision making (and behaviour), where individuals are primary agents, can be categorised as follows: • Individuals’ intentions/decisions to make own behavioural adjustments (e.g. consumption decisions) – private sphere decision making; • Individuals’ willingness/decisions to support or oppose stricter policies (e.g. have attitudes in support or opposition of various policies) – non-activist decision making/behaviour in public sphere; • Individuals’ willingness/decisions to influence others more directly (discussions with family, friends, engagement in the community, joining a demonstration, running for political office, etc.) – activist decision making/behaviour in public sphere; • Individuals’ willingness/decisions to integrate own beliefs in relation to nature/biodiversity in workplace (e.g. architects designing sustainable buildings, teachers integrating nature/biodiversity in their classes, etc.) – integrative decision making/behaviour at the intersection of private and public sphere. Interventions for empowering youth with focus on biodiversity and naturerelated decision making Our hypothesis is that experiential learning, games, exhibitions, or other events will create space and tools for the participants to 1) experience the impact of individual decisions on others in a simulated environment (for example, games), which is otherwise very difficult to experience or observe in real life as we usually do not see the impact of our decisions on biodiversity and others directly – and then how that can impact us can take years and decades (see e.g. Falk et al., 2023); 2) understand the relationships between case-specific intersectionality (age, migration, gender) and biodiversity (see e.g. Zhang et al., 2022); 3) facilitate knowledge sharing, awareness raising, critical discussions on the perceptions of young people in cities (CampbellArvai, 2018) particularly related to the ongoing biodiversity crisis; and 4) influence participants’ intent to make improved decisions on nature and biodiversity in the future. Overall, the participants are expected to become more empowered both directly (having interactions with peers and decision-makers) and indirectly (learning knowledge and skills that can facilitate more civil action in the future). 35 Generally, there is growing evidence that experiential learning, particularly through role-playing games (e.g. see a review of over 50 games by Edwards et al., 2019) and framed experiments (e.g. see a narrative review by Janssen et al., 2023), improves knowledge, increases social capital, and empowers communities in dealing with socialenvironmental dilemmas. One of the reasons cited is the creation of a safe environment, where participants can experiment with decisions and institutional arrangements which in real life would be very difficult to try, thereby letting participants develop the first imagination and experiences of change. Understanding and impacting policies Policy developments in urban settings are also particularly important in terms of whether they encourage inclusive decision making – with direct access for young people in urban settings. Urban use policies can differ in how far they integrate inclusive and participatory governance overall, but also specifically in policies related to biodiversity in urban settings. As an example, Campbell-Arvai (2018) provides an aggregate analysis of the different approaches to address biodiversity in urban setting. The initiatives, actions, strategies and policies are categorised by three types of subcomponents: education and enjoyment, landscaping for biodiversity in urban settings and systematic city planning (see Table 1). Table 1. Classification of approaches of biodiversity policies in urban settings (Germany). Source: adapted from Campbell-Arvai (2018). Education and engagement (formal + non-formal) Landscaping for biodiversity in urban settings Systematic city planning • Access to parks and greenspace • Biodiversity education and • Informative programs: awareness • Involvement residents and visitors • Tourism engagement with biodiversity use. • School programs e.g. raingardens, wildlife gardens • Activities with indirect benefits, e.g. recycling • Interactive programs: art and educational games • Planting trees • Low impact development • Creating healthy soil • Water features, e.g. ponds, bird and bee baths • Permaculture • Constructed wetlands • Re-meandering rivers and streams • Accountability in decision making • Involve communities in decision making • Incorporate biodiversity into all aspects of city decision making • Longer time frame for decision making • Identify high value areas and permanently protect green areas in the city • Data collection and monitoring • Identify less valuable areas for multi-use These essentially represent a set of policies that may or may not encourage participatory and inclusive approaches for young people in urban settings. Few empirical investigations have been conducted on the public perception of biodiversity 36 in urban settings in Germany. Mathey et al. (2016) demonstrate that the number of investigations on the perception and valuation of biodiversity is increasing rapidly since 2010. Yet, in urban settings, they identify that the research focus is predominantly on formalised urban forests and parks, while important informal greenspaces (social processes around them) are largely neglected. Another gap in this field is that throughout the evaluation of public perception hardly any study addresses the cultural diversity of urban inhabitants, including socio-economic and cultural differences (Fischer et al. (2018) being a rare example), even less so with focus on age groups. Literature on this is even more scarce when it comes to the academic analysis of youth perception of biodiversity, in Germany (with some existing studies focusing on climate – Bundesumweltministerium/Umweltbundesamt, 2020), and overall. Nonetheless, multiple non-governmental organisations and think tanks state that children and youth are increasingly interested in the theme of urban biodiversity, characterised by a strong affinity for nature and a desire to protect it (Nöske & Zedda, 2013). Since first-hand experience with green spaces and wildlife can be a source for experiential learning about and developing appreciation towards nature and biodiversity, lessons from the interventions should be considered for institutionalisation particularly within the policies that shape urban green spaces. However, urban areas often present barriers to the appreciation of urban biodiversity. For example, air and noise pollution, lack of green spaces, and high-density housing can make it difficult for children and youth to experience and appreciate the natural world. In addition, urban areas can be dangerous for wildlife (and vice versa), with many species facing threats from habitat loss, climate change, and other human activities, while cases of wildlife posing threat to urban residents are also well-known. Despite these challenges, there is evidence to suggest that children and youth are interested in and motivated to learn about nature and biodiversity in urban settings (Diels et al., 2022). Within this case study we will explore to what extent some of the findings can be institutionalised particularly within the policies on urban biodiversity. References Borho, Andrea, Morawa, Eva, Schug, Caterina & Erim, Yesim (2022). Perceived postmigration discrimination: the perspective of adolescents with migration background. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-02084-6 Bundesumweltministerium/Umweltbundesamt (2020). Zukunft? Jugend fragen! Umwelt, Klima, Politik, Engagement – Was junge Menschen bewegt. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU). https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/publikationen/zukunft-jugend-fragen Campbell-Arvai, Victoria (2019). Engaging urban nature: improving our understanding of public perceptions of the role of biodiversity in cities. Urban Ecosystems, 22, 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0821-3 Diels, Jana, Münsch, Marlene & Thorun, Christian (2020). Jugend und Konsum II: Beteiligungsformate für nachhaltigen Konsum. (Report No 79/2022). Project 3720163010/FB000864. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen Edwards, Peter, Sharma-Wallace, Lisa, Wreford, Anita, Holt, Lania, Cradock-Henry, Nicholas A., Flood, Stephen & Velarde, Sandra J. (2019). Tools for adaptive 43 factors and coronary heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 659–669. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.38. Renting, Henk, Marsden, Terry K. & Banks, Jo (2003). Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 35(3), 393– 411. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3510 Reynolds, Kristin & Cohen, Nevin (2016). Beyond the Kale: Urban Agriculture and Social Justice Activism in New York City. New York City: University of Georgia Press. Rose, Donald, Bodor, J. Nicholas, Swalm, Chris M., Rice, Janet C., Farley, Thomas A. & Hutchinson, Paul L. (2009). Deserts in New Orleans? Illustrations of urban food access and implications for policy. New Orleans: School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, University Tulane. Shaw, Hillary J. (2006). Food deserts: towards the development of a classification. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 88(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2006.00217.x Steinwender, David, Exner, Andreas, Karner, Sandra & Raith, Dirk (forthcoming 2023). CoopsForFood: Addressing social exclusion of alternative food provision schemes. In: Critical Issues in Science and Technology Studies. Conference Proceedings of the 22nd STS Conference, 8–10 May 2023. Graz: Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz. Steinwender, David & Kienreich, Michael (2021). RESISTIRÉ: Green Space of vivid diversity in the Triester Neighbourhood. (Unpublished Final Report). Walker, Renee E., Keane, Christopher R. & Burke, Jessica G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States. A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place, 16(5), 876–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013 Wilkins, Jennifer L. (2005). Eating Right Here: Moving from Consumer to Food Citizen. Agriculture and Human Values, 22, 269–273. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-005-6042-4. Winter, Michael (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00053-0 44 4.5 Agriculture, Religion and Biodiversity. Switzerland Authors: Robert Home, Ghezal Sabir Farmers, by virtue of their non-mediated engagement with nature through agricultural activities, play a direct role in biodiversity preservation. There are currently over 50 thousand farms in Switzerland covering an area of 10,500 km2 (Federal Statistical Office (FSO), 2019). However, only 14% of the farms were organic farms in 2018, covering an area of less than 15% of total agricultural land (FSO, 2019). Despite policies to promote organic farming, conversions from conventional to organic farming have stagnated over the last decade (Home et al., 2018). This indicates that there is more at play than simply external factors influencing farming decisions (Celio & GretRegamey, 2016). The centrality of motivations in influencing individuals’ behaviour has been established (Michie et al., 2011). Moon and Cocklin (2011) write that motivation will be more successful in leading to the desired behaviour if incentives or directives are tailored to both complement existing or intrinsic motivations and to remove barriers, which requires aligning measures with the worldview of farmers. This in turn requires gaining an understanding of their worldview. Siebert et al. (2006) wrote that most analyses of biodiversity protection by agriculture are dominated by neo-classical or rational choice behaviour, while less attention has been given to broader study that combines individualist approaches with constructs describing the influence of social norms and expectations. Home et al. (2018) suggested the importance of countering the perception among farmers that nature conservation is equal to non-productivity, which can be achieved by expanding the definition of production so that providing the conditions for nature is perceived by farmers to be producing nature, rather than simply not producing. In that study, they found that the non-farming partner (usually the wife) in the typical family run Swiss farm is not included in the day-to-day decisions on the farm, but they are strongly involved in the major decisions, such as whether to convert to organic production (Home et al., 2018). Furthermore, Lokhorst et al. (2011) have criticised the observed tendency of researchers to measure only farmers’ attitudes, rather than other constructs that might influence behaviour. An example of such a construct is the ideology of the farmer, which can be expressed in their religion. This value-based case study will investigate the application of religion as a higher value factor influencing motivation (Minton et al., 2015) to the framing of biodiversity or biodiversity promoting farming practices. Mikusiński et al. (2014) call upon the scientific community to attend to the potential of engaging faith communities in nature conservation via the moral and ethical obligations embedded in religious teachings. More elaborately, as per Hartmut Rosa’s Theory of Resonance (López-Deflory et al., 2022), people’s experience of a good life is attained when their experiences have horizontal resonance along their relationship with their peers, family members and community, diagonal resonance along objects, institutions, acts like consumption, sport, work, and school, and vertical resonance along religion, art, music and history. Biodiversity and its various extensions or components have been in public discourse for decades with increased prevalence in the last two decades. How this discourse has been framed and presented in politics, academia, and the public media needs an indepth examination. Specifically, the role of spirituality and religious beliefs on biodiversity has not been adequately explored. This lays the ground for the case study. 45 It should be noted that certain spiritual practices have been employed for behaviour change interventions with promising effect regarding health (Isaac et al., 2016) including dietary behaviours (Mason et al., 2016). How it is and can be embedded in biodiversity promoting behaviours, especially in the context of farming practices in particular, require further inquiry. With Christianity being the world’s religions with the largest number of followers, 32% of the global population, respectively (Jenik, 2021), discovering effective ways of leveraging faith to encourage biodiversity promoting practices can have substantial reach. The case study shall be guided by the following ambitions: • Leveraging religious or spiritual beliefs in establishing vertical resonance for enhancing the adoption of biodiversity promoting behaviours and farming practices among farmers. • Creating a platform that can bring different spiritually driven groups together for a common beneficial purpose. • Contributing to better understanding of effective behaviour change techniques in promoting biodiversity in value-based communities. An in-depth understanding of faith-based motivations related to biodiversity promoting behaviours will be explored to discover leverage points for its strengthened uptake. To achieve this the following activities are planned: 1. Discover the underlying motivations and religious/spiritual beliefs related to biodiversity related farming practices and personal behaviours of farmers; 2. Utilise an Appreciative Inquiry approach (Cram, 2010) in conducting this study allowing for the participants to share their practices and to reflect on how they can be strengthened to support biodiversity. 3. By way of intervention, we propose using deliberation theory (Bächtiger et al., 2018) by inviting a member of each religious group to present their position on biodiversity to other groups (so that each group hears three alternative positions). Each group can then reflect on their interpretations of their moral code and think about whether and what practices they might want to adapt in light of the newly heard perspectives. Inequalities – Intersectionality Religion and gender are the two axes along which intersectionality will be included in this study. In Switzerland, the majority of farms are managed by male farmers. Home et al. (2018) identified a gender dimension in on-farm biodiversity conservation. 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. Switzerland’s population is predominantly Christian, with catholic and protestant the dominant doctrines, depending on the region. Mennonites are a minority group with a history of persecution in Switzerland (Osborne, 2008). Mennonite farmers who were forced to settle in high altitudes may have a different view of biodiversity and agricultural practices, which can provide valuable findings in this study. 46 The identified farmer groups that will be approached to further our understanding of how the aforementioned dimensions influence biodiversity-related behaviour, include the following: 1. Christlicher Bauernbund Kanton St. Gallen, which is a Catholic farmers’ association (https://katholische-bauernvereinigung.ch/) 2. Bauernkonferenz Schweiz. A non-denominational Christian farmers association, (but mainly reformed) (https://www.bauernkonferenz.ch/startseite/) 3. The group of nature interested farmers in Fricktal region in Switzerland. This group is not overtly religious and include a mix of organic and conventional farmers who are interested in the topic of practices that promote and/or protect biodiversity. (www.ig-nundl-ag.ch/) 4. Mennonite farmers. This study shall explore pervasive beliefs, intertwined with gender norms, in relation to biodiversity decisions and practices. References Bächtiger, Andre, Dryzek, John. S., Mansbridge, Jane & Warren, Mark (2018). Deliberative Democracy. An Introduction. In: The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge & Mark Warren (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–31. Celio, Enrico & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne (2016). Understanding farmers' influence on land-use change using a participatory Bayesian network approach in a preAlpine region in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(11), 2079–2101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1120713 Cram, Fiona (2010). Appreciative inquiry. Mai Review, 3(1), 1–13. Edwards, Peter J., Kollmann, Johanens & Wood, David (1999). The agroecosystem in the landscape: implications for biodiversity and ecosystem function. In: Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, Utilization and Management. David Wood & Jillian M. Lenné (eds.). Wallingford: CABI, pp. 183–210. Federal Statistical Office (2019). Food and Agriculture. Pocket Statistics 2019. Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA). Swiss Confederation. Available at: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/cataloguesdatabases/publications.assetdetail.1112-1900.html (accessed April 26, 2023). Home, Robert, Indermuehle, Annina, Tschanz, Anna, Ries, Elke & Stolze, Matthias (2018). Factors in the decision by Swiss farmers to convert to organic farming. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 34(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170518000121 Isaac, Kathleen, Hay, Jennifer & Lubetkin, Erica (2016). Incorporating spirituality in primary care. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(3), 1065–1077. DOI: 10.1007/s10943-016-0190-2. Jenik, Claire (2021). The World's Largest Religious Groups Over Time. Available at: https://www.statista.com/chart/25572/worlds-largest-religious-groups-overtime/ (accessed March 21, 2023). 47 Lokhorst, Anne Marike, Staats, Henk, van Dijk, Jerry, van Dijk, Eric & de Snoo, Geert (2011). What's in it for me? Motivational differences between farmers' subsidised and non-subsidised conservation practices. Applied Psychology, 60(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00438.x López-Deflory, Camelia, Perron, Amélie & Miró-Bonet, Margalida (2022). Social acceleration, alienation, and resonance: Hartmut Rosa's writings applied to nursing. Nursing inquiry, 30(2), e12528. DOI: 10.1111/nin.12528. Mason, Ashley E., Epel, Elissa S., Kristeller, Jean, Moran, Patricia J., Dallman, Mary, Lustig, Robert. H., … & Daubenmier, Jennifer (2016). Effects of a mindfulnessbased intervention on mindful eating, sweets consumption, and fasting glucose levels in obese adults: data from the SHINE randomized controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 39(2), 201–213. DOI: 10.1007/s10865-015-9692-8. Michie, Susan, van Stralen, Maartje M. & West, Robert (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42. Mikusiński, Grzegorz, Possingham, Hugh P. & Blicharska, Malgorzata (2014). Biodiversity priority areas and religions – a global analysis of spatial overlap. Oryx, 48(1), 17–22. DOI: 10.1017/S0030605312000993. Minton, Elizabeth A., Kahle, Lynn R. & Kim, Chung-Hyun (2015). Religion and motives for sustainable behaviors: a cross-cultural comparison and contrast. Journal of Business Research, 68(9), 1937–1944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.003 Moon, Katie & Cocklin, Chris (2011). Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(3), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.04.001 Osborne, Troy David (2008). Worthy of the Tolerance They’d been Given: Dutch Mennonites, Reputation, and Political Persuasion in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Archive for Reformation History, 99(1), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2008-0111 Robinson, Robert A. & Sutherland, William J. (2002). Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(1), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00695.x Siebert, Rosemarie, Toogood, Mark & Knierim, Andrea (2006). Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis, 46(4), 318–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00420.x 48 5 Limitations of the methodological framework Authors: Anita Thaler, Sandra Karner The methodological framework is specifically co-created for PLANET4B biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens. This means the intervention level in this report addresses predominantly the individual respectively local learning community level. As the case studies have not been carried out now, the translation of case studies results into policy interventions, which are informed then by intersectionality, is not part of this report. Another limitation is the potential lack of analysis of systemic causes of inequities based on intersectionality (this lies within the respective case studies, and can only be evaluated at a later point of the project). A weakness identified during the co-creation workshops, the missing connection of the nature-based case studies to a biodiversity intervention, could be addressed in the upcoming local learning community activities. The openness of the case studies in this regard could also work as a possibility for participants of the local learning communities to shape the research questions and scope, and gain co-ownership in the process. Lastly another limitation of the proposed methodological framework is the vagueness how (using which theory of change) exactly the intersectional lens can support changes in behaviour and systems concerning biodiversity. 6 Conclusion and outlook Authors: Anita Thaler, Sandra Karner Rising inequalities, climate change, and biodiversity loss are named as trends which are currently moving further away from the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Independent Group of Scientists, 2019). The recognition of interconnections between biodiversity loss and rising inequalities is at the centre of PLANET4B and this methodological framework for intersectional analysis. The knowledge co-creation approach presented in this report began with a literature review on intersectionality in biodiversity research, which informed co-creation workshops with partners of five case studies (in the fields of inclusive nature recreation and outdoor activities, urban biodiversity and food, and biodiverse agriculture), which led to improved case study literature reviews, and an overall framework of doing biodiversity case studies with an intersectional lens. On a process level, the co-creation workshops helped not only to get a greater awareness on intersectional issues, but also to plan the case studies in more detail. Using our proposed intersectional perspective to establish biodiversity learning communities and policy discourses aiming at environmental and social justice can also be used by other research projects. The first methodological step in this framework is the use of intersectionality for the self-reflexivity of researchers. Reflecting on one’s own privileges and experiences of 49 discrimination and shame is a difficult exercise for researchers. It contests all ideas of objectivity and distance to the field by positioning oneself within one’s own research context. A second step in case studies establishing local learning communities, is using an intersectional perspective for approaching actors by connecting to potential participants and building trust. Being aware of the situatedness of knowledges means to value all knowledges and enable co-creation within the case study. A third step is the actual biodiversity case study research with an intersectional approach, which uses multiple knowledges and thus offers possibilities for re-thinking and potentially changing relations between humans and nature. The overview of literature on intersectionality in and useable to biodiversity research and the co-created framework will be used in the upcoming PLANET4B case studies, and also build a solid basis for future publications on the very topic: How can biodiversity research use intersectionality as a practical approach to include diverse actors and aim for multispecies justice? 50 References Arruzza, Cinzia, Bhattacharya, Tithi & Fraser, Nancy (2019). Feminism for the 99%. A Manifesto. London, New York: Verso. 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. SSM – Population Health, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798 Chao, Sophie, Bolender, Karin & Kirksey, Eben (eds.) (2022). The Promise of Multispecies Justice. Durham, London: Duke University Press. Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–168. Crenshaw, Kimberlé (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241– 1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Davis, Kathy (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700108086364 Elsherif, Mahmoud M., Middleton, Sara L., Phan, Jenny Mai, Azevedo, Flavio, Iley, Bethan J., Grose-Hodge, Magdalena … & Dokova, Marie (2022). Bridging Neurodiversity and Open Scholarship: How Shared Values Can Guide Best Practices for Research Integrity, Social Justice, and Principled Education. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/k7a9p Escobar, Arturo (1998). Whose Knowledge, Whose nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements. Journal of Political Ecology, 5(1), 53–82. https://doi.org/10.2458/v5i1.21397 Hankivsky, Olena (ed.) (2012). An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework. Vancouver, BC: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy. Simon Fraser University. Hankivsky, Olena, Grace, Daniel, Hunting, Gemma, Ferlatte, Olivier, Clark, Natalie, Fridkin, Alycia … & Laviolette, Tarya (2012). Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis. In: An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework. Olena Hankivsky (ed.), Vancouver, BC: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy. Simon Fraser University, pp. 33–45. 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 Haraway, Donna (2016). Staying with the Trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. hooks, hell (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. 51 Inoue, Cristina Yumie Aoki & Franchini, Matías (2020). Socio-environmentalism. In: International Relations from the Global South. Arlene B. Tickner & Karen Smith (eds.). Oxon, New York: Routledge, pp. 296–314. IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Bonn: IPBES secretariat. Kaijser, Anna & Kronsell, Annica (2016). Who gets to know about nature? Biodiversity and ecosystem services through an intersectional lens. FZG – Freiburger Zeitschrift für GeschlechterStudien, 22(2), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.3224/fzg.v22i2.27056 Karner, Sandra, Rohracher, Harald, Bock, Bettina B., Hoekstra, Femke & Moschitz, Heidrun (2011). Knowledge brokerage in communities of practice. Synthesis report on literature review. (Report No D2.1). FOODLINKS – Knowledge brokerage to promote sustainable food consumption and production: linking scientists, policymakers and civil society organisations. Available at: https://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents/Commoncontents/publications/D2.1_Synthesis_report_DRAFT_uploadHP_March2012 .pdf (accessed April 26, 2023). Mangelsdorf, Marion, Pregernig, Michael & Kuni, Verena (2016). (Bio-)Diversity, Gender, and Intersectionality. FZG – Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien, 22(2), 5–15. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade (2003). “Under Western Eyes” Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through Anticapitalist Struggles. Signs, 28(2), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.1086/342914 Monjurul Kabir, Abul Hasnat & Thomson, Teresa (eds.) (2022). Intersectionality resource guide and toolkit. New York: UN Women. Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/Intersectionalityresource-guide-and-toolkit-en.pdf (accessed April 26, 2023). Nagar, Richa & Geiger, Susan (2007). Reflexivity and Positionality in Feminist Fieldwork Revisited. In: Politics and Practice in Economic Geography. Adam Tickell, Eric Sheppard, Jamie Peck & Trevor Barnes (eds.). London: SAGE Publications, pp. 267–278. 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 Rodriguez, Jenny & Günther, Elisabeth. (2025). Recognizing and Working with Intersectionality in Field Research. In: The Routledge Handbook of Field Research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003404903-11 Roig, Emilia, Aced, Miriam & Mohammed, Sara (2020). Factsheet: Intersectionality at a Glance in Europe. Berlin: Center for Intersectional Justice. Available at: https://www.intersectionaljustice.org/img/2020.4.14_cij-factsheetintersectionality-at-a-glance-in-europe_du2r4w.pdf (accessed April 26, 2023). Routledge, Paul & Derickson, Kate Driscoll (2015). Situated solidarities and the practice of scholar-activism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(3), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775815594308 52 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 Simpson, Joanna (2009). Everyone Belongs. A Toolkit for Applying Intersectionality. Ottawa: Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW). Available at: http://also-chicago.org/also_site/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/Everyone_Belongs-A-toolkit-for-applyingintersectionality.pdf (accessed April 26, 2023). Stadler, Gertraud & Chesaniuk, Marie & Haering, Stephanie & Roseman, Julia & Straßburger, Vera & Schraudner, Martina & Lazaridou, Felicia & Group, Diversity. (2023). Diversified innovations in the health sciences: Proposal for a Diversity Minimal Item Set (DiMIS). 33. 101072. Statistik Austria (2023). „2022 waren 2,3 % der Bevölkerung erheblich materiell und sozial benachteiligt“. Pressemitteilung 13 049-077/23. https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2023/04/20230420Armut202 2.pdf Statistik Austria (2025). Armut und soziale Eingliederung– FAQs. EU-SILC 2024 . https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/pages/338/FAQs_zum_Thema_Armut_und_ soziale_Eingliederung.pdf Thaler, Anita, Dahmen-Adkins, Jennifer & Karner, Sandra (2022). Co-producing gender equality knowledge – the CHANGErs’ approach. In: Customised CHANGE. Co-Producing Gender Equality Knowledge in Science and Research. Jennifer Dahmen-Adkins & Anita Thaler (eds.). Aachen, Graz: RWTH Aachen University, Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology (ITZ), pp. 12–19. Available at: https://www.change-h2020.eu/bilder/CustomisedCHANGECoProducingGenderEqualityKnowledgeinScienceandResearch-2022.pdf (accessed April 26, 2023). Turnhout, Esther, Waterton, Claire, Neves, Katja & Buizer, Marleen (2013). Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters, 6(3), 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00307.x Vadrot, Alice B. M. (2014). The Politics of Knowledge and Global Biodiversity. London, New York: Routledge. Walgenbach, Katharina (2012). Intersektionalität – eine Einführung. Available at: http://portalintersektionalitaet.de/theoriebildung/ueberblickstexte/walgenbacheinfuehrung/ (accessed April 26, 2023). Wall Kimmerer, Robin (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass. Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teaching of Plants. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions. Winker, Gabriele & Degele, Nina (2009). Intersektionalität. Zur Analyse sozialer Ungleichheiten. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. Winker, Gabriele & Degele, Nina (2011). Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: Dealing with social inequality. European Journal of Women's Studies, 18(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506810386084