Intersectional climate action: the role of community-based organisations in urban climate justice

ABSTRACT

With climate change increasingly threatening people in uneven and disproportional ways, community-based solutions and interventions have become critical to ensure equitable, just, and inclusive climate action in cities. This paper examines community-based climate action in San Francisco (USA) through the lens of climate justice and intersectionality. Through a qualitative analysis of community-based organisations (CBOs) and their justice-oriented adaptation and mitigation efforts, our research examines the contributing factors and pathways by which CBO climate action leads to intersectional climate justice. Our analysis examines how CBOs 1) recognise and rectify historical and compounding vulnerabilities; 2) plan and act in ways that are people-centric and place-based; and 3) work collectively with organisations and government through alliances, coalitions, and participatory processes. We find that CBOs have the potential to work collectively to ensure processes are just and outcomes are equitable for those most at risk of climate change.

KEYWORDS:

• Community-based action
• climate justice
• climate governance
• urban climate change planning
• intersectionality
• San Francisco

1. Introduction

Climate change is reshaping cities not only physically but economically, socially, and politically. The challenges cities face during this climate emergency are interconnected and made worse by growing urban populations, ageing infrastructure, multi-layered governance, and existing vulnerabilities of urban residents (Dodman et al. 2022). Depending on race, ethnicity, age, gender, ability, or class, specific communities are disproportionately effected by the negative impacts of climate change and the policies that follow (Adger 2006; Dodman et al. 2022; Pulido 2017; Virdee 2019). Historical urban injustices have resulted in exclusionary processes and harmful environmental practices that further exacerbate inequitable distribution of climate change impacts (Anguelovski et al. 2016; Sultana 2022).

In light of growing climate threats and the uneven distribution of risk, cities have begun to incorporate climate justice principles into adaptation and mitigation planning and policies (Chu and Cannon 2021; Strange, March, and Satorras 2024). However, recent research demonstrates that while municipal governments are beginning to plan for climate change in ways that are more inclusive, their actions and processes do not always result in equitable outcomes (Anguelovski et al. 2019; Castán Broto and Robin 2021; Planas-Carbonell et al. 2023). Conversely, government efforts to adapt or mitigate in cities can be harmful and unjust (Meerow, Newell, and Stults 2016). Government-led climate plans traditionally focus on the physical and built environment, relying on technical studies and scientific models (Amorim-Maia et al. 2022; Long and Rice 2019). While some cities are beginning to include principles of justice in their climate planning efforts (Strange, March, and Satorras 2024), government climate action does not often acknowledge the ways long-standing historic and systemic injustice contribute to climate vulnerability based on social, economic, or racial difference (Anguelovski et al. 2019; Chu and Michael 2019; Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi 2019; Planas-Carbonell et al. 2023; Siders, Ajibade, and Casagrande 2021).

To better understand existing climate injustice and identify a pathway towards inclusion and equity, scholars focus on three central aspects of justice: distributive, procedural, and recognitional. Climate justice is possible when: 1) outcomes, impacts, and resources are even distributed across all populations and geographies (distributive justice); 2) processes are representative, fair, and inclusive (procedural justice); and 3) actions address historical and systemic inequality and prioritise local leadership, knowledge, and experience (recognitional justice). An in-depth discussion of climate justice theory is beyond the scope of this article. However, there is a rich body of literature to refer to (Bouma et al. 2023; Malloy and Ashcraft 2020; Schlosberg and Collins 2014).

Scholars and practitioners have criticised climate justice theory and practice for being two-dimensional, focusing predominantly on procedural and distributive justice. Whereby recognitional justice is often absent from climate plans and implementation strategies (Bulkeley, Edwards, and Fuller 2014; Chu and Michael 2019). Recognitional justice goes beyond acknowledging differences to address economic and social structures that perpetuate inequality (Fraser 1997; Young 1990). Without a foundation built by and for those experiencing climate injustice, through recognition, processes struggle to be representative and inclusive and therefore fall short of truly equitable and just outcomes (Chu and Michael 2019; Fricker 2007; Schlosberg 2012; Shi et al. 2016; Young 2012).

Recent scholarship turns to the field of intersectionality to address the shortcomings of climate adaptation and mitigation efforts, overturn systems of oppression, confront racial and gender inequality, and focus on recognitional justice (Dodman et al. 2022; Mikulewicz et al. 2023; Revi et al. 2020). Intersectionality, introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 article “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex,” is a theoretical framework rooted in critical race theory and feminist studies (Crenshaw 1989). It emphasises the interconnectedness of social categories such as race, gender, class, and sexuality, recognising that individuals experience multiple forms of oppression and privilege simultaneously. Rather than isolating these categories, intersectionality highlights how overlapping and intersecting systems of power shape complex lived experiences (ibid; Collins and Bilge 2020). Intersectionality is both a theory and a practice that is continually evolving. Originally focused on race and gender, the concept has evolved to encompass a broader spectrum of identities and has been applied across disciplines (Collins 2019).

There is a growing emphasis on the importance of intersectionality in contemporary climate discourse. Scholars, activists, and policymakers are increasingly advocating for a more inclusive approach, emphasising the need to address social justice issues alongside environmental considerations (Anguelovski et al. 2020; Taylor 2016). To take a more intersectional approach to climate action, scholars highlight the need to address historical and systemic discrimination and identify specific actors and tactics to rectify long-standing injustices (Byskov et al. 2021; Mikulewicz et al. 2023; Robin and Broto 2021). Climate justice requires an intersectional and critical approach to climate action so as to be people-based through coalitions and partnerships moving beyond siloed thinking and action (Anguelovski et al. 2020; Sultana 2022).

However, cities often fail to take an intersectional approach to climate action. This is partly due to the historical focus of cities and mainstream environmental movements on immediate ecological concerns, often sidelining social justice issues. Traditional environmental agendas have primarily concentrated on reducing carbon emissions, preserving biodiversity, and mitigating broader ecological challenges, thereby neglecting the multifaceted social dimensions of climate change (Schlosberg and Collins 2014). Additionally, the lack of diversity and representation within the environmental discourse and decision-making bodies contributes to the oversight of intersectional aspects (Yusoff 2019).

Structural inequalities within societies also play a significant role in the oversight of intersectionality in climate action. Vulnerable and marginalised communities, disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change, often lack the resources and influence needed for active participation in decision-making processes. As a result, their unique needs and concerns are frequently marginalised in the development and implementation of climate policies (McArdle 2021). Furthermore, governmental climate planning is often technocratic and siloed, dominated by hegemonic practices and values leading to unjust, unsustainable, and harmful outcomes (Kehler and Birchall 2021; Schlosberg and Collins 2014). This narrow approach, lacking local and community knowledge, can fail to address the needs of vulnerable populations and fall short of impactful resilience efforts (Granberg and Glover 2021).

While these concepts are often theoretical in nature, recent research has begun to identify climate projects, plans, and initiatives that take an intersectional approach. One notable example is the implementation of urban agriculture and food justice programmes in cities, such as community gardens or urban farms, which not only contribute to sustainable agriculture but also tackle food insecurity, provide economic opportunities, and reconnect communities with their cultural heritage (Horst, McClintock, and Hoey 2017). These initiatives aim to benefit diverse groups, including low-income residents and communities of colour, exemplifying a comprehensive approach to environmental and social issues.

Equitable access to green spaces is another crucial aspect of intersectional climate action in urban environments. Projects focusing on creating and maintaining parks, community gardens, and recreational areas in historically marginalised neighbourhoods can contribute to environmental justice and promote community well-being and social cohesion (Heynen, Kaika, and Swyngedouw 2006; Kotsila et al. 2020). Additionally, community-based renewable energy projects, transportation equity initiatives, and resilient, affordable housing efforts further demonstrate how intersectional approaches can promote a consideration of different urban communities’ needs and challenges (Castan Broto et al. 2022; Pulido 2016). A specific example of intersectional climate justice in practice is Barcelona, Spain, where their climate shelters in schools, public libraries and other public buildings, as well as public parks, strive to cross sectors and communities to provide resources and support during extreme temperature events (Amorim-Maia et al. 2023; Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2023).

Intersectional approaches to climate justice are increasingly turned to address the interconnected systems of oppression and environmental degradation. However, challenges and contradictions can arise due to the complex nature of intersecting identities and issues. Challenges can arise when determining which aspects or communities to prioritise in climate justice initiatives. For instance, prioritising one issue, such as racial justice, may unintentionally overshadow or neglect other dimensions of intersectionality, leading to tensions within the movement (Crenshaw 1991). Furthermore, divergent priorities and perspectives can be based on various identities and issues and may involve trade-offs (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014). Lastly, intersectionality emphasises the importance of diverse representation and voices at decision-making tables. However, challenges arise when power dynamics within movements reproduce existing hierarchies (Davis 2008). Nonetheless, an intersectional approach to climate justice offers insight and strategies on reaching across sectors and issues to work collectively in ways that benefit people and the places they live.

In the next section, we discuss the role of community-based organisations (CBOs) in climate action and intersectional climate justice in practice and theory. We present our methods and case study in Sections 3 and 4. Section 5 elaborates on our findings and analysis in an attempt to further refine how concepts of intersectional climate justice can be applied to climate action in cities. We offer examples and nuance to how these pathways are realised, as is discussed in detail in Section 6. We conclude in Section 7 with a discussion of the broader implications of our research and provide practical recommendations for cities and CBOs.

2. Community-based organisations and intersectional climate justice

In order to explore the ways an intersectional approach to climate action can promote climate justice in cities, we focus on community-based organisations (CBOs). CBOs are non-profit entities or groups that operate at the local level, focusing on addressing the needs and concerns of a specific community through various social, cultural, or economic initiatives. Scholars emphasise the significance of CBOs in ensuring urban climate action is just, equitable, inclusive, and more than aspirational (Malloy and Ashcraft 2020; Satorras 2022; Ziervogel et al. 2022). Community-based climate action focuses on participation and solutions that address the ways space and geography shape experiences of oppression, discrimination, and injustice and is aligned with the principles of intersectional climate justice (Amorim-Maia et al. 2022). Cities and scholars often look to CBOs to move beyond traditional climate governance and to recognise differential and compounding climate vulnerability (Bulkeley, Edwards, and Fuller 2014; Chu and Cannon 2021; Schlosberg and Collins 2014; Shi et al. 2016).

To ensure inclusive and caring processes and community access to resources, CBOs and local governments rely on partnerships, collaboration, and alliances in their climate justice work (Hofstad et al. 2022; Hughes 2020; Mees et al. 2019). CBOs pursuing equitable climate action, particularly in the USA, rely heavily on public and private partnerships for project funding and volunteer support (Rosol 2012; Urban Institute 2021). Many cities in the USA turn to CBOs as conduits to residents and hard-to-reach populations (i.e. immigrant, homeless, historically disinvested neighbourhoods). In order to support these community-based efforts and bypass cumbersome and bureaucratic government processes, local municipalities have developed small community grant programmes to facilitate this work (Berry 2005; Koontz et al. 2010). Scholars and practitioners have criticised government reliance on CBOs, stating that it is a form of out-sourcing and transfers responsibility from agencies to organisations without adequate funding or support (ibid; Light 2011).

There are growing concerns, especially within the field of climate adaptation, that citizens are increasingly expected to take responsibility for climate action. Scholars have begun to question the assumption that community participation and citizen responsibilisation are beneficial and illustrate how despite their potential, it can also lead to further inequality and unsustainable solutions (Uittenbroek et al. 2019; Wamsler et al. 2020). Nonetheless, there is growing consensus that CBOs can play a significant role in ensuring climate adaptation and mitigation efforts in cities are inclusive, equitable, and just. In this paper, we build on critical research of climate justice and intersectional studies to discuss the role of CBOs in promoting just climate action while calling into question dominant policies and practices leading to injustices, market-driven techno-managerial solutions, and siloed action lacking recognition of underrepresented communities.

Scholarship on recognition justice and theories of intersectional climate justice are growing but still nascent (Mikulewicz et al. 2023). There is a need to move beyond theoretical concepts of intersectional climate justice and better understand how cities address these challenges in practice. While climate justice research has addressed the role of community-based climate planning and non-governmental stakeholders, literature often focuses on a single organisation's climate work (Bautista, Osorio, and Dwyer 2015), social movements at a national or international scale (McAdam 2017), or the government as the primary actor (Chu and Cannon 2021; Juhola et al. 2022). A closer examination of a city's ecosystem of CBOs, their climate justice work, and the partnerships they pursue can shed light on the ways cities can work collectively toward equitable and just climate action.

This research looks beyond government actors, policies, and actions and explores how CBOs take an intersectional approach to climate action to promote climate justice in collaborative ways and rooted in lived experiences and local history. In this paper, we set out to answer the question: In what ways do CBOs take an intersectional approach to climate action to advance urban climate justice? To do so, we operationalise intersectionality by applying its fundamental principles to climate justice, in line with a growing group of diverse scholars (Amorim-Maia et al. 2022; McArdle 2021; Sultana 2022). For this article, we focus on how climate action takes an intersectional approach and focus on three key strategies which informed our research objectives. Specifically, our research is guided by three research objectives informed by the literature: 1) To assess how CBOs recognise and rectify historical and compounding vulnerabilities; 2) To explore the ways CBO climate justice work is people-centric and place-based; and 3) To examine the partnerships CBOs rely on and the ways they promote collective action. These objectives are based on intersectional climate justice to shed light and provide examples of the ways CBOs pursue climate justice grounded in recognition, people, and collaboration.

Our objectives align with key pathways to intersectional climate justice and are informed by the framework of intersectional climate justice proposed by Amorim-Maia et al. (2022) (Figure 1). This article pays particular attention to how intersectional climate justice emphasises a collaborative, people-centric, and critical approach. In doing so, we are able to better understand how CBOs pursue climate action underpinned by recognitional justice. The three aspects of intersectional climate justice, identified in Figure 1, overlap conceptually and are all needed for climate action to be just.

Figure 1. Analytical framework to understand intersectional climate justice.

Source: own elaboration, adapted from Amorim-Maia et al. (2022).

Our research centres on the case of San Francisco, USA, which provides a rich history of environmental justice movements and active climate justice organisations that face challenges of overlapping social, economic, and physical vulnerabilities. Our qualitative analysis relies on interviews with CBOs and government agencies, triangulated with the review of grey literature focusing on specific projects, initiatives, and actions put forward by CBOs working in San Francisco. By applying an intersectional perspective to climate justice, we explore how CBOs address compounding risks and intersecting differences that influence historically marginalised people (Cardona et al. 2012; Thomas et al. 2019; Vancura and Leichenko 2015). The sections that follow explore these theoretical and practical concepts and offer analysis and discussion to further the debate and practice of intersectional climate justice in cities.

3. Methods

This article draws primarily on material from 25 semi-structured interviews and is supported by a review of online (e.g. social media posts, websites, and newsletters) and grey materials. Between October 2021 and January 2022, we interviewed 25 individuals from community-based organisations (CBOs) and government agencies working in San Francisco on climate planning, adaptation projects, and social and environmental justice. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted online. Interviewed participants working for CBOs (n = 14) came from organisations that vary in size and include neighbourhood community activists, regional advocates, urban greening, workforce development, and philanthropy. Interviews were conducted one-on-one with a staff member of the CBO. This was often someone in a leadership position who worked on climate justice-related programmes or projects. Of the CBOs interviewed (Table 1), half (7/14) have a staff of over 15 and focus on advocacy, fundraising, and grant distribution. Half (6/14) have a small team (less than five employees) and provide services or lead community organising efforts. The geographic scope of these CBOs also varies. Most organisations interviewed (9/14) focused solely on San Francisco, while the others (5/14) work regionally across the Bay Area or the State of California.

Table 1. Interviewed climate justice community-based organisations (CBOs) working in San Francisco.

Organisation	Year of foundation	Mission and vision	Primary funding sources	Scale
Greenbelt Alliance	1958	Work to ensure communities are resilient to a changing climate.	Private grants	SF Bay Area
California State Parks Foundation	1969	Support the long-term sustainability CA’s state park.	Private grants and individual donations	State
San Francisco Parks Alliance	1971	Partner with communities and city agencies to develop green and resilient spaces.	Government grants	San Francisco
Chinatown Community Development Center (CDC)	1978	Enhance public space and develop and manage affordable housing in San Francisco.	Programme services	SF Neighbourhood (Chinatown and Tenderloin)
People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Justice (PODER)	1991	Organize people-powered and locally-based environmental justice solutions.	Government and private grants	SF Neighbourhood (Mission and Southeast SF)
CA ReLeaf	1992	Support community-based groups through local granting programmes.	Government grants	State
Greenlining Institute	1993	Work to create healthy places, economic opportunities, and resilient communities of colour.	Government grants	SF Bay Area
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates	1994	Educate, advocate, and provide direct services to support neighbourhood capacity for change.	Government grants	SF Neighbourhood (Bayview Hunterspoint)
A Philip Randolph Institute	1994	Support social equality and economic justice for historically disenfranchised communities.	Programme services	SF Neighbourhood (Bayview Hunterspoint)
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice (Greenaction)	1997	Mobilize communities to protect health and to promote environmental, social, economic and climate justice.	Private grants	SF Neighbourhood (Bayview Hunterspoint)
Literacy for Environmental Justice (LEJ)	1998	Promote ecological health, environmental stewardship, and community development.	Private grants and individual donations	SF Neighbourhood (Bayview Hunterspoint)
Western Regional Advocacy Project	2005	Address the root causes of civil and human rights abuses of people experiencing poverty and homelessness.	Individual donations	State
Climate Action Now (CAN!)	2011	Increase ecological resilience through community-based programming and projects.	Government grants	San Francisco
Climate Resilient Communities	2016	Support economic and climate resilience through community planning and alliances.	Private grants	SF Bay Area

Source: own elaboration.

We selected organisations to interview through a stakeholder analysis of ongoing environmental and climate justice work; they all explicitly or implicitly take action toward climate justice. In particular, we selected CBOs that work at the intersection of social and environmental justice with frontline communities that have experienced historical injustices. We pre-selected organisations that work across sectors in people-centric ways so as to better understand their tactics and approaches to intersectional climate justice. Interviews with CBOs were combined with interviews with municipal and regional agencies (n = 11) working on climate adaptation or mitigation projects at the city and neighbourhood levels. These agencies included land owners such as the Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department and planning and policy departments.

Interviews with CBOs included questions to understand how their organisations had taken action towards climate change in the past 5–15 years. We also asked CBOs how they work with public agencies and their perceptions of the government process surrounding climate action in San Francisco. CBOs were also asked about their work with government agencies and other CBOs and in what ways these partnerships were successful or challenging. Interviews with government agencies focused on how City departments engage with community-driven climate action and what were some of the outcomes (both expected and unexpected) of community-led climate projects. Additionally, we asked CBO and government staff questions to understand better how and with whom the departments work on climate change action and which partnerships were most important to making equity, justice, and inclusion central to climate action in San Francisco. Lastly, interviews with CBOs and government agencies included questions aimed at better understanding how interviewees conceptualise climate vulnerability (who is at risk and where) and how these vulnerabilities reinforce pre-existing inequalities in San Francisco.

All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analysed using Atlas.ti. We reviewed data collected from interviews, online (e.g. social media posts, websites), and grey materials from the perspective of each element of the framework to assess if and how the selected CBOs address these factors. We developed a coding schema and analytical framework adapted from Amorim-Maia et al. (2022) and simplified in Figure 1. We began by coding the data based on the three primary pillars of climate justice (distributive, procedural, and recognition). Next, we coded and analysed the data based on the three components of intersectional climate justice (see Figure 1).

Furthermore, our research set out to examine a critical aspect of intersectional climate justice: alliances and collective action. Using Gephi, an open-source visualisation programme, we identified all organisations and agencies mentioned by interviewed participants and mapped the key stakeholders to better understand the overall ecosystem of CBOs working in the climate justice space in San Francisco.

4. Case study

San Francisco has a rich history of environmental justice activism and community-based organisations (CBOs) addressing the city's growing inequalities and increasing climate-related threats (Dillon, 2018; Pezzullo 2009; Solis 2020; Walker 2018). As shown in Table 1, CBOs have focused on environmental justice in San Francisco for decades and employ different tactics and approaches, from community organising and education to city or state-wide planning and advocacy. One of the many environmental justice successes in San Francisco's history was spearheaded by Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, a neighbourhood grassroots advocacy group in Bayview Hunters Point. In 2006, Greenaction and the community successfully rallied to close a toxic power plant in the southeast neighbourhood. Similarly, in 1993, People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Justice (PODER), an organisation based in the Latino and working-class Mission District, advocated for and passed environmental legislation on lead poison prevention addressing community-wide lead poisoning from ageing pipes and fittings (PODER 2024).

Like many cities in the United States, the City of San Francisco has focused its climate actions on mitigating its output of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reducing its carbon footprint. Primary contributors to the city's emissions come from natural gas in building infrastructure and private cars and trucks on the city's roads (SF Environment 2023). While San Francisco has reduced GHG emissions by over 40% since 1990, the city aspires to reach its net-zero goal by 2040 (SF Environment 2021). San Francisco is vulnerable to multiple types of climate hazards including storm surges, sea level rise, flooding, as well as extreme heat events. The city has recently experienced some of the worst heat waves in its history, with record-breaking temperatures in 2017 and 2022 (City of San Francisco 2022a). The winter storms of 2022 and 2023 also battered the city, resulting in widespread flooding, extensive damage to buildings and streets, and power outages across the region (US National Weather Service 2022).

There is a concentration of environmental burden in neighbourhoods like the Mission, Bayview Hunters Point, and Chinatown, which are also areas of the city most vulnerable to climate risks (SF Department of Public Health 2017). These vulnerable frontline neighbourhoods are home to a high population of immigrants, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of colour), and unhoused populations and have some of the highest concentrations of youth and seniors in San Francisco (SF Planning Department 2023).

The City of San Francisco has been working on climate plans since 2004 and is increasingly incorporating aspects of climate justice into adaptation and mitigation plans and policies (Strange, March, and Satorras 2024). San Francisco's climate planning efforts have mainly been collaborative and intend to bring community members and justice-oriented CBOs into the process to inform strategies and outcomes. Through an intersectional climate justice lens, the case of San Francisco allows us to examine the partnerships between CBOs and the relationships behind CBOs and city departments in rolling out climate action.

5. Results

In this section, we analyse how CBOs take an intersectional approach to climate justice work in San Francisco. We found that the CBOs we interviewed work towards climate justice in ways that 1) recognise and strive to rectify intersecting and systematic climate vulnerabilities; 2) advocate for change and climate action through people- and place-based strategies; and 3) rely on collaborative partnerships and coalitions in their pursuit of climate justice.

5.1. Tackling interconnected systemic injustice

5.1.1. Recognising and rectifying historical injustice

Many organisations we interviewed have been active in San Francisco and the Bay Area since the 1970s. Their work is firmly rooted in the environmental justice movements of the time and is often underpinned by a mission to address the underlying systemic drivers of inequity. Some show their commitment to rectifying historical injustices even in their name. For instance, the name of the Greenlining Institute, which works regionally to advocate for equitable climate solutions and social and environmental justice, refers to redlining in the United States and the lasting impact financial and land use policies have had on residents in the San Francisco Bay Area for decades. Other CBOs we interviewed work to raise awareness of the inequitable distribution of environmental hazards, advocate for affordable housing, increase awareness and education of land stewardship, and provide economic opportunities for historically disenfranchised communities.

To address such historical injustices, CBOs target specific communities and use different approaches, discourses, and strategies. For instance, through activism and advocacy at the local and State level, Greenlining Institute works to “find ways to bring investments and opportunities into communities of colour in California that have been historically marginalised and left out of those opportunities” (Interview #12). Greenlining Institute’s programmes include their leadership academy, advocacy for economic equity, and transformative communities grants. They argue that “those who will be most impacted are the least able to realise resilience and to deal with its impacts, which is usually due to historical issues like redlining and disinvestment in communities” (Interview #12).

In a similar vein, Climate Resilient Communities (CRC), which works on community-based climate adaptation projects in San Francisco and the larger Bay Area, focus on supporting “communities that have or are faced with many disparities and have been the frontline of a lot of the environmental injustice is the existing systems” (Interview #2). CRC works with residents providing funding and support for sustainable and resilient technology, such as solar panels and water catchment systems. They do so by acknowledging local traditions and listening to community priorities. This same approach of recognising the importance and necessity of local leadership and knowledge is applied to CRC’s approach to community planning and policy advocacy around waterfront development and open space access.

Another key CBO in San Francisco that has worked for over 30 years to rectify environmental injustices is People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Justice (PODER), an advocacy organisation based in the Mission district, a historically Latino and immigrant neighbourhood in San Francisco. PODER has been active in San Francisco for many years and emerged from the “growing recognition of environmental racism and the movement for environmental justice, and the interest in launching an organisation that engaged in grassroots community organising and leadership development base building” (PODER 2023). When the organisation began in 1991, PODER worked primarily on environmental justice advocacy. More recently, PODER has shifted its work to focus on climate justice topics and was a key partner to the City's Department of the Environment when drafting the Climate Action Plan (2021). These three examples illustrate the role of San Francisco CBOs in rectifying historical injustices intensified by the climate emergency.

5.1.2. Tackling intersecting drivers of vulnerability

The organisations we spoke with bring together affordable housing, sustainable transportation, public space planning, and green workforce development to address the interrelated historic and ongoing systemic injustices throughout the city's land use, environmental, and climate planning and policy. A PODER representative explained the interconnectedness of their work: “Coming from an environmental justice perspective, the environment and climate cannot be separated from fundamental justice considerations such as racial, social, economic justice concerns” (Interview #2). Similar to PODER, the neighbourhood organisation Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates acknowledges that their work is “still rooted in the movement around environmental justice, so not limited to climate justice, but social equity, and economic equity and policy equity as well as climate equity.” (Interview #7).

Similarly, Greenaction, a CBO which mobilises communities to protect health and to promote environmental, social, economic and climate justice, recognised that their advocacy around toxic shoreline clean-up, fossil fuel reduction, and public health are intricately connected to the environment and climate change. As a Greenaction representative said, “We can't look at just the physical environment without thinking about people and how the physical environment intersects and works with people” (Interview #12).

For many organisations, the interconnection between climate justice and housing security, affordability, and displacement is front and centre. Greenbelt Alliance, for instance, which works toward equitable development and nature-based climate solutions, shared this concern. “For us,” one staffer said, “climate equity is not just building the resilience of the physical environment where people live, but also ensuring they have access to good transportation, affordable housing, job security, and healthy food. Because if a community is protected from sea level rise but is under threat of displacement, that's not a resilient community” (Interview #12). We see this in their advocacy work which, “by offering a platform that allows people from all walks of life the opportunity to speak and be heard, climate-resilient, equitable policies will prevail” (Greenbelt Alliance 2024).

5.2. People-centric and place-based solutions to foster climate justice

5.2.1. Trust building and connecting with residents

The CBOs interviewed work to build trust amongst their community members so that residents are open and comfortable working with them on issues impacting their homes, health, incomes, and quality of life. As mentioned above, Climate Resilient Communities worked closely with residents to obtain funding and support for solar panels or water catchment installation in people's homes. They would “build [trust] over the years. And now most people are comfortable with us, supporting them through the application process” (Interview #1). Similarly, through their trust and community-building work, Bayview Community Advocates “have become the go-to organisation when community members are having problems. We can link up community members to the resources they need” (Interview #7).

This trust-building and direct connection with residents is particularly relevant when sharing information by word of mouth and informal neighbourhood networks. Residents make phone calls, talk in passing, or share on social media about the climate-related risks and extreme weather, such as flooded streets, dangerous areas, and available resources (Interviews #7 and #11). The care and support these organisations provide are underpinned by a desire to advocate for and support community health through health monitoring, outreach, and education programmes.

CBOs work to foster close relationships with residents to provide direct services such as training for jobs that address climate solutions or financial assistance for solar energy or water catchments. Furthermore, CBOs support residents so they are prepared to advocate for themselves. One CBO in Bayview Hunters Point described their work as “getting the community ready to fight on its behalf around policy issues” (Interview #7). A representative from PODER emphasised the importance of “engaging neighbourhood residents to be the agents in advocating and organising for the kind of change that's needed to address the root causes of the issues and conditions affecting their families and neighbourhoods” (Interview #2). Similarly, Greenaction works with various communities in San Francisco to “amplify their voices and bring them in to talk about their specific community demands” (Interview #5).

5.2.2. Place- and community-based climate action

Ensuring access to land and a community-defined sense of place is central to many climate justice CBOs’ work in San Francisco. These organisations pursue climate justice through urban greening and gardens, place-making programmes, and reclaiming public land for community benefit. Advocacy led by regreening programmes like those of Climate Action Now!, an organisation dedicated to replacing concrete with green spaces, is founded on the desire to connect vulnerable and marginalised communities with the surrounding environment.

Similarly, PODER has spent decades advocating for the City to transfer public lands into the hands of the community, such as the city-owned property at 17th Street in the Mission that was developed into a public park and affordable housing (City of San Francisco 2022b). PODER's work continues to be “focused on advocating and organising with members to ensure that that city-owned land is being used for community-based priorities” (Interview #2). Efforts like those at 17th Street are at the centre of many organisations’ mission and goals, ensuring that access to healthy environments, green space, and housing benefits local residents (Interviews #1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #11, #13).

Throughout this paper, we present various initiatives that offer insight into what intersectional climate justice looks like in practice. PODER’s recent project at Hummingbird Farm exemplifies how climate action can address all three aspects of intersectionality (Figure 2). ⁣⁣Hummingbird Farm, situated in the southeast neighbourhood of San Francisco, is managed by PODER and Urban Campesinxs, a youth-led food justice programme. The Farm's mission involves the transformation of underutilised land into a community farm with the primary objective of enhancing the health and wellness of local residents (PODER 2024). Functioning as a community hub, Hummingbird Farm looks to urban agriculture to confront social injustices and climate threats. Through the provision of sustainable food, educational opportunities, and leadership programmes, the initiative strives to connect individuals with the land, fostering resilience in the face of climate challenges. In doing so, it actively contributes to the development of a more equitable and sustainable urban environment.

Figure 2. Hummingbird Farm (PODER): incorporating key aspects of intersectional climate justice.

Source: own elaboration.

The need to connect climate justice with people's relationships and access to land is exemplified by many CBOs’ efforts to ensure residents can remain in place after climate adaptation or mitigation solutions are implemented (Interviews #1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #12). The collective efforts to plan for equitable development in the context of the India Basin Waterfront Park are centred around reducing green gentrification and displacement. The San Francisco Parks Alliance is working to implement the Park's Equitable Development Plan by “looking at how [the park development] affects jobs and housing and cultural activities and the immediate community” (Interview #11). However, it takes more than sustainable solutions and equitable plans to ensure just outcomes. Many CBOs rely on partnerships and collective action to ensure their programmes and strategies are impactful.

5.3. Coalitions, alliances, and partnerships for climate justice

Climate justice work in San Francisco is collaborative and relies on alliances, coalitions, and partnerships to support community resilience and challenge mainstream approaches to climate action (Interviews #1, #4, #11). Our research found that CBOs work with many organisations and government agencies, as seen in Figure 3. The CBOs we interviewed expressed how vital collaboration is to their work, particularly collective action amongst CBOs working on climate justice.

Figure 3. Collaborations between climate justice stakeholders in San Francisco. Source: own elaboration.

Our research also shows the intricate and essential role government-CBO partnerships play in planning and implementing climate justice. However, we also found that these relationships are often complex and can come at a cost. Partnerships support advocacy efforts for CBOs and the government, whereby they work together to make a case for funding or advocate for priorities with decision-makers beyond single agencies or organisations. Furthermore, these partnerships can be primarily administrative and financial.

5.3.1. Coalition building and silo-busting

The organisations we interviewed formed coalitions to push for climate justice practices and development. For example, in 2022, Greenaction convened the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Contamination Clean-up Coalition, an alliance of 16 organisations to mobilise to clean up toxic land near the shoreline where sea level rise threatens groundwater contamination. A staff person at Greenaction praised the success of collective action: “Going forward in any sort of climate justice work, coalitions between community groups is the most effective strategy I've seen and been a part of” (Interview #5). Through collaborations and partnerships with other CBOs working toward climate justice, organisations move beyond the silos of their constituents, neighbourhoods, or vulnerabilities. One CBO staff member emphasised that working with other groups builds solidarity across the city: “We've been most effective around advocacy issues and policy changes when we stand shoulder to shoulder with other neighbourhoods and other communities” (Interview #3).

While many organisations saw a great benefit to working collaboratively with other CBOs, there was also shared frustration in some of the limitations of these relationships and the challenges of having and maintaining extensive networks. One organisation described how funding scarcity and reliance on public and private grants could drive organisations apart and limit their capacity for networking and change (Interview #9). Limited funding is particularly relevant when government grants and private donations are scarce and unreliable due to changing political support, philanthropic trends, and unpredictable global economic factors.

5.3.2. Strategic and financial partnerships with government agencies

The organisations we interviewed also collaborate with local and regional governments on projects such as green space, transition policy, heat and public health concerns, and neighbourhood adaptation projects such as water catchment, concrete removal, and carbon sequestration (Interviews #1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #11). CBOs often work with the city on research, policy, and planning projects and advocacy efforts to obtain, distribute, and manage funding for climate adaptation and mitigation projects.

Both public agencies and CBOs instigate these projects and connections. However, agency staff and CBO representatives agree that managing their partnerships can be difficult. While discussing the challenges of engaging with local communities, an SF Recreation and Park Department staff member noted that the participatory process can be political. They emphasised that “it's a political system, so if there's a supervisor that gets hounded by dozens about their local park, often in more affluent neighbours, that supervisor might breathe down our neck more, and that can lead to an imbalance” (Interview #19). Conversely, CBOs share a similar sentiment when it comes to engaging with City Departments. One CBO interviewee admitted, “we have a love-hate relationship with a lot of government agencies. We want to work with them, and sometimes they want to work with us, but not always” (Interview #5).

While the overall strategy or approach of government agencies may not align with those of CBOs, partnerships are often relied upon with specific goals, strategies, or desired outcomes. Regarding work done on the Climate Action Plan to make residential building electrification equitable, one CBO acknowledged that their relationship with the Department of the Environment “is more tactical. Because it's not always that we are fundamentally aligned. But we recognise by working together, we can advance policies that benefit our community” (Interview #2).

Historically, city-led climate programmes and plans have attempted to bring community members into the planning and policy-making process through traditional outreach forms. According to many interviewees, this conventional approach to outreach and engagement erodes trust and is a barrier to climate justice (Interviews #5, #7, #13, #17, #20, #21, #23). For instance, the city's approach to sea-level rise planning, climate action strategies, and adaptation projects has been technocratic and often top-down in the past. City department climate planning traditionally includes stakeholder outreach, informational town halls, surveys, and community meetings to solicit feedback and public comment (Interviews #2, #3, #4, #11). However, many organisations were frustrated with the public engagement process and overwhelmingly criticised the city departments for participation's superficial, ineffective, and extractive nature (Interviews #1, #5, #7, #9, #10, #12).

Some public agencies agreed that the city's approach to community engagement needs to be more inclusive, accessible, and authentic (Interviews #18, #21, #22, #24). Along those lines, an interviewee from SF Environment acknowledged precisely that:

We can't keep saying, okay, the city is going to come out with this program without talking to people first, without figuring out what their concerns are, and what those impacts might be to them and figuring out how to mitigate those impacts upfront (Interview #15).

The challenge of meaningful community participation is seen across departments, especially as they attempt to coordinate outreach and engagement efforts. As a manager from the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning noted,

[the city departments] realise it's important to engage the community early and often. But what it looks like on the ground is something that they're trying to work out. They would love to have a unified approach as departments. But that presents a challenge as well (Interview #24).

In our interviews, staff from PODER and Bayview Community Advocates spoke of the importance of creating equitable partnerships between government agencies and CBOs that recognise the legitimacy and value of community members. Recognition of the community as a planner, leader, and expert is essential, according to an interviewee from Climate Resilient Communities. Interviewees from PODER, Chinatown CDC, and Greenaction agree that this recognition is needed for equitable participation, collaborative city processes, and funding allocation. One organisation we spoke with emphasised the need to “move into a model where they have ownership over decision-making and can play more of an active role in how decisions are being made” (Interview #5). CBOs in San Francisco rely heavily on city and government funding and spend significant time advocating for, securing, and managing grants for their climate justice work. One staff person stressed the importance of the city having a stable budget because “a lot of [climate-related] nonprofits depend on city money” (Interview #2). Many CBOs spoke about a lack of funding, a cumbersome reporting process, and funding restrictions (Interviews #1, #6, #7, #9, #10).

Restrictions on available grants are one of the significant challenges these organisations face. As one CBO stated, “the biggest barrier right now for us is finding money to implement tangible projects for climate justice,” and the “need for unrestricted funding that will allow me to hire people. Because most of the funding that comes from government, only a certain percentage can be allocated for staff time” (Interview #1). Overwhelmingly, CBOs stressed the need for financial compensation and, more so, a sharing of power and decision-making between the city and the community. Many government agency staff acknowledge the need to compensate participating CBOs (Interviews #14, #18, #21, #26).

Government funding comes with reporting requirements, includes complex application processes, and is often reimbursable. Organisations must have money to pay upfront for materials, staff, supplies, and services before being reimbursed by the city agencies. The reimbursement process can take many months and leave organisations scrambling to cover costs (Interview #9, #10, and #15). Because of these challenges, many organisations turn to private funding and State grants, which include national funds distributed by the State (Interview #9, #10, #12). Furthermore, while funding from the State can be easier to access, funding from foundations can be unreliable and change with the interest of foundation leadership and politics. Grant funding will prioritise resilience and the environment one day and community health and housing the next (Interview #6).

6. Discussion

Recent research indicates that adopting an intersectional approach to climate action is essential for processes and outcomes to be inclusive, equitable, and just (Anguelovski et al. 2020; Mikulewicz et al. 2023; Perkins 2018; Sultana 2022). This approach ensures that climate action effectively tackles procedural and distributive justice by acknowledging past injustices and valuing community voices (Amorim-Maia et al. 2022). In this paper, we set out to better understand the ways CBOs take an intersectional approach to advance urban climate justice. By examining community-based climate action through an intersectional climate justice framework (Figure 4), we found that CBOs promote climate justice by focusing on recognitional justice.

Figure 4. Community-based intersectional climate justice.

Source: own elaboration.

CBOs approach urban climate action through three intersectional pathways: 1) Recognise and rectify historical injustice and compounding vulnerabilities; 2) Focus on people-centric and place-based solutions and processes; and 3) Promote collective action, collaboration, and partnerships. They do so through advocacy and capacity development, trust-building and a people-centred approach, as well as strategic and collaborative relationships with other CBOs and local government agencies. The section that follows discusses our findings in relation to our three objectives and the evolving literature on intersectional climate justice.

6.1. Recognition of historical injustice and compounding vulnerability

Our findings support the growing body of literature emphasising the critical role of historical injustice and interconnected vulnerabilities in shaping current climate injustice (Pulido 2017; Virdee 2019). As we outline in Figure 4, CBOs focus their climate action on solutions, initiatives, and partnerships that seek to rectify long-standing environmental and social injustices in cities. Because climate vulnerability is interconnected with many social, economic, and environmental injustices, CBOs take an intersectional approach to their climate action through 1) advocacy, 2) investment, and 3) leadership. CBOs advocate and educate through the lens of historic injustices and the ways existing social and economic vulnerabilities worsen the impacts of climate change for certain groups of people (based on race, gender, class, ethnicity, age, ability, or sexuality). In order to correct decades of disinvestment CBOs support local communities through grants, capacity development, and advocacy for the redistribution of resources and benefits. Their programmes and services are geared to residents and marginalised community members. By building trust, CBOs bring voices, leadership, and knowledge into the city’s planning, design, and decision-making for climate action (Joshi, Agrawal, and Welegedara 2022a).

These findings add to the existing literature stressing the need to bring systematic discrimination to the forefront and identify specific actors and tactics to rectify these historical injustices (Byskov et al. 2021; Robin and Broto 2021).

6.2. People- and place-based climate action

With a foundation built on recognition, these organisations further advance procedural justice by building trust to support participation and community planning (Figure 4). Their programmes are designed to be collaborative, working with residents to ensure climate solutions are grounded in lived experiences (Schlosberg 2012). Distributive justice is also a goal of CBOs, which they pursue by questioning and rectifying inequitable access to land, resources, and housing. Organisations like SF Parks Alliance, Climate Action Now!, Literacy for Environmental Justice, and PODER work to connect people with the land through greening programmes, park development, urban agriculture, and nature-based resilience projects.

As housing affordability, displacement, and gentrification continue to put pressure on marginalised residents, CBOs work to maintain the community’s right to stay and ensure they benefit from climate solutions. The organisations we spoke with do so by advocating for and developing affordable housing, funding for resilience projects, and workforce development programmes. Their work calls for community empowerment through insurgent planning to reshape power dynamics while reducing climate risks (Amorim-Maia et al. 2022; Fox, Ziervogel, and Scheba 2021). By building trust and centring the community in climate planning, CBOs are able to facilitate more inclusive processes and avoid social interest and political capital leading to inequitable and unjust outcomes (Joshi, Agrawal, and Welegedara 2022b). The organisations we examined address inequitable land use and exclusionary practices by empowering marginalised communities to be climate leaders, knowledge creators, and change makers. We found that CBOs advocate for community and place-based decision-making and climate action, further emphasising the importance of community knowledge to address the needs of vulnerable populations (Granberg and Glover 2021).

6.3. Silo-busting and collaborations

We found that these organisations strive to address climate injustices through place-based and community-driven strategies in a way that is collective and based on partnerships. Their approach is connected to a broad network of community, organisational, and government partners in San Francisco and the Bay Area breaking down geographic and issue-based siloes. Our research supports recent climate justice literature and intersectional studies, claiming that partnerships are critical to funding and advancing CBO's climate justice work but come with challenges and limitations (Hofstad et al. 2022; Mees et al. 2019).

Inspired by their environmental justice origins, collaboration was central to many of the CBOS and climate strategies reviewed in this article (Schlosberg and Collins 2014). The organisations we spoke with form, lead, and participate in coalitions across sectors (parks, housing, transportation, and energy), identity (race, gender, class, sexuality, etc.), or scale (neighbourhood, city, region, or state). Many organisations working toward climate justice are in close connection with other environmental and social organisations (Daniel and Dolan 2020). However, as previous research points out, these partnerships are not without complications and challenges. Competition for limited funding, for example, can further entrench power dynamics and silos (Colenbrander, Dodman, and Mitlin 2018).

Our analysis found that CBOs rely on government funding and partnerships to influence planning processes and decision-making and secure a seat at the table to shape the outcomes of climate plans and projects. While scholarship often highlights partnerships as beneficial and needed for climate justice, our research adds nuance to this assumption (Mees et al. 2019). Funding can be a barrier to intersectional climate action (Amorim-Maia et al. 2022; Khan et al. 2019). Not just the limited amount of funding and dedicated resources to climate justice work. The processes, requirements, and bureaucracy surrounding public grants and finance can limit CBO’s ability to do their work. This exacerbates an already strained relationship between CBOs and city officials and departments due to feelings of mistrust, fear, and frustration (Glaas et al. 2022; Strange, Satorras, and March 2022; Ziervogel et al. 2022). While the city is taking steps to put climate justice at the centre of its adaptation and mitigation work, CBOs were sometimes sceptical that meaningful change would follow because they felt the city was focused on planning but not action. The challenges that comes with implementing climate justice efforts, albeit not extensively covered in this paper, are part of a growing debate illustrating the cities’ inability to move beyond planning and into tangible outcomes (Malloy and Ashcraft 2020; Ziervogel et al. 2022). Nonetheless, our research found partnerships with CBOs to be critical to intersectional climate justice, whereby CBOs act as community liaison and city partner (Fox, Ziervogel, and Scheba 2021).

7. Conclusion

This paper supports the nascent but growing body of research highlighting the need for intersectional climate action to promote climate justice. Our findings offer examples of how CBOs take an intersectional approach to their climate justice work and acknowledge how social and environmental histories and lived experiences are interconnected and shaped by systems of oppression and extraction. While the paper is focused on the specific case of San Francisco, given it is a frontrunner in climate action and CBO efforts, it provides insights into the ways that CBOs approach climate action in ways that are intersectional and justice-oriented. It is through this approach that CBOs promote procedural and distributive climate justice.

Our findings support scholarship emphasising the importance of recognitional justice in the pursuit of equitable, inclusive, and just climate action (Chu and Cannon 2021; Chu and Michael 2019; Fraser 2008; Schlosberg 2012; Young 1990). Without recognition, equitable distribution and inclusive participation are not possible (Cook and Swyngedouw 2012; Eisenhauer et al. 2021). And through our analysis, we found that CBOs infuse recognitional justice into their climate work, thereby furthering both procedural and distributive climate justice, as seen in Figure 4.

This research has implications for cities and communities beyond San Francisco and the United States. For cities to work toward more just and intersectional climate action, public agencies and elected officials need to support CBOs through less bureaucratic and restrictive funding processes. Planning and implementation efforts would benefit from being more inclusive and delegating power and decision-making to CBOs. When pursuing climate adaptation, mitigation, or justice efforts, cities can work to break out of existing silos by building coalitions and partnering across sector, identity, and scale. Lastly, city efforts need to be informed by and grounded in an understanding of historical urban injustice and the interconnected experiences and vulnerabilities of marginalised people.

There is a central role for CBOs to play in the fight against climate change. The organisations discussed here provide examples and insights into the ways climate justice work can be conducted with an intersectional approach. Through cross-cutting coalition work and strategic partnerships, CBOs can enhance their efforts and make a greater impact. CBOs can take steps to be more intersectional by connecting climate solutions with community and place, securing leadership roles, and ensuring the voices of vulnerable populations are heard.

Further examination of the barriers to climate justice is needed to identify solutions and make space for alternative voices and knowledge outside current narratives and business-as-usual approaches to development, adaptation, energy, transportation, and housing. While this paper illustrates how CBOs can work with city governments to move climate justice forward in a collaborative and intersectional way, research must also consider the role of conflict and more disruptive approaches to ensuring climate justice is prioritised and put into practice. As we see more and more cities publishing climate plans infused with ideas of climate justice, literature would benefit from follow-up research to examine the impacts of community-driven climate action on moving climate justice beyond planning and into practice. Further research along these lines of inquiry would shed light on how cities can support intersectional and community-driven work to take climate action that is equitable, just, and inclusive.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the CBOs, planners and advocates in San Francisco who shared their perspectives with us. The corresponding author has received support for this research from the Open University of Catalunya and the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Universitat Oberta de Catalunya through a PhD grant held by the first author. This publication is part of the 2021 SGR 00975 project funded by the Department of Research and Universities of the Generalitat de Catalunya. Hug March is an ICREA Academia research fellow.