In a groundbreaking development that challenges long-standing paradigms of disaster risk reduction, a new study explores the critical importance of integrating gender diversity into global frameworks designed to mitigate disaster impacts. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), a vital international agreement adopted in 2015, has been instrumental in shaping policies to minimize disaster risks worldwide. However, until recently, its application often overlooked the nuanced experiences of gender-diverse communities. The research conducted by Sharan and Gaillard bridges this significant gap by focusing on the lived realities of gender-diverse populations in two highly vulnerable regions: India and the Philippines.
Disasters, both natural and human-induced, exert disproportionate burdens on marginalized groups, and the intersection of gender identity with social vulnerability adds layers of complexity that traditional disaster frameworks have yet to fully address. Sharan and Gaillard’s study underscores the imperative to reframe disaster risk reduction through an inclusive gender lens, examining not only cisgender men and women but also gender-diverse individuals whose needs and vulnerabilities are distinct and often invisible in policy-making circles. By situating their analysis within India and the Philippines—countries frequently challenged by typhoons, earthquakes, and floods—the authors offer concrete insights into how gender diversity shapes disaster response and recovery.
Historically, disaster risk reduction efforts have been gender-aware insofar as male-female binaries, often neglecting the spectrum of gender identities that defy these categories. This omission translates into a lack of tailored strategies that could effectively reach and support gender-diverse groups. Sharan and Gaillard argue that by ignoring non-binary, transgender, and other gender-diverse individuals, disaster preparedness measures risk perpetuating inequities, leaving these communities disproportionately exposed to harm and exclusion after disasters strike. Their findings emphasize that the Sendai Framework, while inclusive in rhetoric, requires substantive operational shifts to accommodate a broader conception of gender.
Through rigorous field research employing qualitative methodologies, including narrative interviews and participatory observations, the authors document firsthand accounts of gender-diverse individuals navigating disaster scenarios. These narratives reveal patterns of marginalization within relief and recovery systems, such as discrimination in shelter access, lack of recognition in official registries, and exclusion from decision-making processes. The study’s nuanced approach reveals that gender-diverse groups often experience compounding vulnerabilities—stemming from both their gender identity and structural social inequities—resulting in increased disaster risk exposure and diminished resilience capacities.
One of the critical technical contributions of this study lies in its analysis of institutional frameworks and policy mechanisms at the local and national levels. Sharan and Gaillard dissect the legal and administrative challenges faced by gender-diverse populations, highlighting gaps that persist despite progressive gender policies in some jurisdictions. For example, in the Philippines, despite legal recognition of certain gender identities, disaster response protocols rarely incorporate these provisions effectively. Similarly, in India, entrenched social stigmas often impede gender-diverse individuals’ access to essential disaster services, revealing a disconnect between policy intentions and practical implementation.
The dynamics of community support systems form another central theme in the study. Sharan and Gaillard examine how informal networks among gender-diverse people act as crucial lifelines in disaster contexts, compensating for institutional neglect. These networks facilitate information dissemination, resource sharing, and emotional support, fostering resilience in ways formal mechanisms often fail to achieve. The research highlights how acknowledging and integrating these community-based structures into official disaster risk reduction strategies could substantially enhance inclusivity and efficacy.
Technically, the study challenges disaster risk scientists and policy-makers to adopt an intersectional approach, advocating for the integration of gender diversity with socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and other identity factors. Such an approach insists that disaster risk assessments and mitigation strategies be calibrated to account for multiple, intersecting factors that influence vulnerability, rather than relying on monolithic categories. This perspective urges a paradigm shift towards bespoke interventions that recognize the heterogeneity of affected populations.
Importantly, Sharan and Gaillard propose methodological innovations to enhance data collection on gender diversity in disaster research. They critique conventional survey instruments for their binary gender constructs and offer alternatives, including inclusive questionnaires and participatory mapping, which accurately capture diverse gender experiences. These techniques promise more granular data, facilitating evidence-based policy adjustments that better reflect ground realities and community needs.
The implications of this research extend beyond academia and policy arenas into practical disaster management operations. For humanitarian organizations and government agencies, the study presents a compelling case for revising standard operating procedures to identify and address the specific needs of gender-diverse individuals proactively. This includes training frontline workers on gender sensitivity, ensuring non-discriminatory access to relief resources, and incorporating gender-diverse leaders in planning processes to foster representational equity.
Moreover, the authors underscore the transformative potential of embedding gender diversity within the Sendai Framework’s four priority areas: understanding disaster risk, strengthening disaster risk governance, investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, and enhancing disaster preparedness. By operationalizing gender diversity across these priorities, global disaster resilience efforts can become more equitable and effective. This alignment can catalyze broader social change, promoting recognition, dignity, and rights of gender-diverse people within disaster risk governance structures.
Sharan and Gaillard’s work also speaks to contemporary discourses on climate change adaptation, given the increasing frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters in the regions studied. They highlight that gender-diverse communities, often economically marginalized, confront amplified climate vulnerabilities. Mainstreaming gender diversity in disaster frameworks thus complements climate justice goals, ensuring that adaptation measures do not perpetuate exclusion or deepen inequalities.
From a theoretical standpoint, the study contributes to critical feminist and queer disaster studies by contesting normative assumptions embedded in disaster scholarship. By revealing how heteronormative policies and practices constrain inclusive disaster risk governance, the research encourages scholars and practitioners alike to rethink foundational concepts such as resilience, vulnerability, and recovery. This challenges the disaster research community to adopt more inclusive epistemologies and methodologies.
While the study primarily centers on India and the Philippines, its findings have far-reaching global relevance. Gender-diverse populations worldwide face analogous challenges in disaster contexts, suggesting that the recommendations offered hold value for disaster risk reduction policies internationally. The authors advocate for cross-national collaboration to share best practices and build inclusive resilience models that transcend local boundaries.
As the Sendai Framework approaches its second decade, Sharan and Gaillard’s research presents timely and urgent calls for recalibration. Their meticulous documentation of gender-diverse experiences serves as both evidence and inspiration for embedding inclusivity at the heart of global disaster risk management. By championing diversity and equity, their work exemplifies how disaster governance can evolve to meet the needs of all individuals, fostering safer, more just societies amid escalating disaster risks.
In conclusion, this seminal study reframes disaster risk reduction through a gender-diverse lens, highlighting both the human and technical dimensions vital for inclusive resilience building. By documenting empirical realities and proposing actionable strategies, Sharan and Gaillard offer a blueprint for transforming the Sendai Framework and related policies nationwide and worldwide. Their pioneering contributions underscore that true disaster resilience is unattainable without embracing and empowering all gender identities, effectively reshaping the future of disaster science and governance.
Subject of Research: Experiences and challenges of gender-diverse groups in disaster risk reduction frameworks in India and the Philippines, with implications for re-gendering the Sendai Framework.
Article Title: Re-Gendering the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences of Gender Diverse Groups from India and the Philippines.
Article References:
Sharan, A., Gaillard, J. Re-Gendering the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Experiences of Gender Diverse Groups from India and the Philippines. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 16, 92–102 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-024-00612-3
Image Credits: AI Generated
