Integrating Gendered Perspectives in EM Practise

Any comprehensive understanding of disaster risk reduction (DRR) must address the lived experiences and perspectives of the populations who bear disproportionate challenges in disaster contexts. Here I’m speaking of Indigenous peoples, people of colour, people with disabilities, women and non-binary populations, including the LGBTQ2S community.

While there has been a growing amount of research that addresses the mainstreaming of gender into the recovery aspects of emergency mgmt practise, there exists a significant research gap in the integration of women and non-binary populations into response environments. 

First a couple parameters: when I speak of a gendered lens, I am talking about how a gender bias can sometimes lead to unequal treatment of individuals (increased risk) based on their gender which may deny them rights, opportunities and resources. It affects men and women negatively. This unequal treatment may further be complicated by a persons’ gender identity, or the personal sense of one’s gender, separate from sexual orientation. For many, this may correlate with the gender one is assigned at birth, or it may be different.

In order to integrate gendered perspectives into the response environment, I think we need to examine our conceptions of risk. As any emergency manager will tell you, current mitigation strategies have tended to be reactive, addressing infrastructure and other issues as they fail. In a proactive risk management model, a careful analysis of situations or and carefully analyzing a situation or assessing processes to determine the potential risks, identifying drivers of risks to understand the root cause, assessing probability and impact to prioritize risks and accordingly preparing a contingency plan.

The United Nations commissioned the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030 as a set of concrete actions to guide member states and mitigate risk. The Sendai Framework takes the concept of proactive risk management further, and integrates local knowledge to build localized communities of resilience. 

The Hyogo Framework was developed that promotes inclusivity and participator DRR processes: 


I’d like to focus on these participatory mechanisms from a gendered lens, and make some suggestions on how we can apply this lens to the command/control paradigm.


In a landmark study on vulnerability authored by M.B. Anderson, she explores the differential risk and questions that can be used to identify why a certain group may be more exposed to particular hazards. In order to address these exposures, I suggest that the voices of these groups be systematically integrated into the EOC environment.

By integrating the voices of women and non-binary individuals into leadership roles in a response environment, it has been found to have a demonstrable impact on the management of the response, and the restoration to viability of the community.

Note: a version of this blog post was delivered at the Canadian Risk and Hazard Network (CRHNet) Symposium on November 19, 2020.

Room for the River: Applying Dutch Flood Mitigation Strategies in Canada

Image source: High River RCMP (retrieved from










Understanding and Applying the Sendai Framework to DRR

Our current understanding of disaster and emergency management requires a paradigm shift. For too long, the cycle of disaster -> response -> recovery -> repeat has been the norm. This paradigm shift involves reducing risks themselves, not simply preventing disasters.

In 2000, in recognition of the growing number of people impacted by natural disasters across the globe, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) was formed to support and coordinate organizations in their work building resilient communities. The Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030 was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2015 and recognizes the central role that the State has in reducing disaster risk, in consultation with local governments, stakeholders and the private sector. 

Image source:

In response to the unprecedented 2017 flood and fire season in British Columbia, an independent review was commissioned on how emergency management agencies may begin to address the “new normal” of increased natural disasters, both in number and severity. A wide cross-section of perspectives were sought, from Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, organizations and other stakeholders. 

The recommendations contained in the report fall under four broad themes, consistent with the Sendai Framework on DRR:

Partnerships and participation

The response framework in place during the 2017 disaster season resulted in resources, particularly the B.C. Wildfire Service being stretched beyond its limits. In the midst of an emergent situation, citizens (with an intimate knowledge of their lands) will often take it upon themselves to mitigate the spread of wildfires and damage. Enhanced partnerships with these ‘spontaneous volunteers’ is the subject of much discussion in current emergency management literature, and will be covered further in a future post.

Knowledge and tools

Indigenous and local knowledge is not effectively incorporated in current ICS and incident management planning. Further, the frequent reassigning of personnel during the 2017 wildfire resulted in valuable time being wasted as teams were frequently relocated to other provincial regions. Enhanced technology tools, including LiDAR would assist B.C. in developing more comprehensive preparedness and prevention strategies. A keen and comprehensive understanding of DRR would assist in maximizing Indigenous and local knowledge, incident action planning and the incorporation of enhanced technology. 

Communication and awareness

One of the 14 core features of the ICS system is the need for integrated and interoperable communications, processes and structures. Yet, as anyone involved in an EOC will tell you, communications often fail. In the 2017 B.C. wildfires, those people (rightly) seeking information about the condition of their homes and properties faced innumerable challenges and misinformation spread on social media. In my experience (anecdotally), similar challenges were faced by individuals in the 2013 Southern Alberta floods and the 2016 Fort McMurray (RMWB) Wildfire events. Significant investment in information-sharing between response authorities and the public is required in order to bridge the gap and prevent further trauma to impacted individuals. 


Interestingly, respondents of the report emphasized the disproportionate lack of resources devoted to the first two pillars of emergency management (prepare, mitigate) as opposed to resources allocated to response. Increased investment in preparedness and mitigation, done effectively, would inevitably decrease the significant draw on resources required by government to respond and recover from disaster events. 

To conclude, increased investment by governments in preparedness and mitigation should be made in partnership with communities and utilizing the knowledge of Indigenous and local stakeholders, consistent with the Sendai Framework. 

Our ‘new normal’ requires us as emergency management professionals to think and act differently about risk. How is your organization or government embedding an understanding of risk into new investments or developments?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.