Across Time,Across Space,and Intersecting in Complex Ways: A Framework for Assessing Impacts of Environmental Disruptions on Nature-Dependent Prosumers

(Geo)political and Economic Power Dynamics (Re)producing Environmental Disruptions and Classism/Ableism

At the macro level, we find interlocking elements that perpetuate both the occurrence of environmental disruptions as well as global and local class-based inequalities (poverty) and injustices of (mental/physical) ableism, which in turn accentuate NDPs’ vulnerabilities. One element is a globalizing, rapacious mode of capitalism (accumulating assets by exploiting others) advanced by a neoliberal ideology (favoring unfettered markets). Whether neoliberal capitalism is driven by corporate or nation-state investments, it promotes ideals that nature (property) is something to be owned, and it results in the prioritization of economic growth (often to the benefit of a few) over social or ecological welfare (Kilbourne 2004). The production and consumption of NDPs and other stakeholders is shaped by the resultant dynamics. For example, China’s upstream access and perceived “rights” to the Mekong river, and its decision to build/fund hydropower dams along the river to aid its country’s economic development, imperils the markets and livelihoods of NDPs in less powerful countries (e.g., Vietnam) reliant on the Mekong Delta for fishing or farming (Shultz and Peterson 2019). Similarly, the decision of some governments to support fossil fuel industries or over-fishing/farming, the lack of environmental regulation or enforcement, and the exploitative profiteering by some governments and enterprises contribute to the occurrence of natural and human-made disasters that disproportionately harm NDPs (Carmody 2017; Harper and Sumaila 2019).

Second, new forms of geopolitical/economic control have emerged to drive forward neoliberal agendas: neoimperialism and neocolonialism. Neoimperialism represents the ideology that dominating other countries through forming dependencies is acceptable, while neocolonialism involves the “soft forms” of (non-military-based) power this ideology takes, such as controlling finances and/or markets through loans or trade agreements or creating aid dependencies (Kasongo 2011). These power dynamics filter through macro–meso relations and can (re)produce class- and/or ableism-based vulnerabilities and inequities. For instance, within macro–meso relations, influential global institutions and actors can use loan, project, and investment agreements to direct funds and attention either toward or away from the localized needs of NDPs. Privileged countries may channel their political and economic power through key financing organizations (e.g., the International Monetary Fund [IMF]), which may in turn pressure disadvantaged countries to practice “fiscal discipline” (prioritizing debt repayments over social welfare investments). Resultantly, access to loans may require austerity measures, while market interventions may lead to cuts in public spending. These actions often adversely affect social safety nets and public investments that NDPs need to break generational cycles of poverty and to improve their capacity to respond to environmental disruptions (i.e., universal basic income, health care, education, or infrastructure) (Woods 2014). Limited investments in education can contribute to low literacy levels, reducing NDPs’ able-mindedness, while under-investments in healthcare can reduce NDPs’ health and able-bodiedness. Austerity measures can also entrench power asymmetries by causing borrower governments to habitually depend on international organizations to provide funds or aid for social and ecological needs (e.g., research and development in agriculture or fishing, medicines, food) (Loewenberg 2014; Steinfield and Holt 2020).

Unequal access to markets can result from these policies (Kasongo 2011). For example, more powerful actors governing loan agreements (e.g., IMF), investment schemes (e.g., China’s development plans), or aid often push countries to adopt some harmful free market policies (e.g., Jones 2016). These dynamics increase NDPs’ vulnerabilities, as neocolonial economic/political agreements and market structures often connect countries’ resources (e.g., fish) to unidirectional, global value chains (supermarkets in wealthier nations) while holding in (geographical) place the position of NDPs’ undervalued bodies of labor (e.g., underpaid fishers). The resources on which NDPs depend are exploited and their labor unfairly compensated so that those with more economic or political clout can capture the benefits (e.g., countries achieve economic growth, enterprises gain profits, consumers maintain their affordable lifestyles and food sources) (Béné 2003; Carmody 2017). This often results in unsustainable cycles that leave NDPs trapped at the bottom of global class hierarchies: they remain reliant on devalued natural resources that are increasingly becoming depleted, degraded, and uncertain in the presence of ecological disruptions, while rigid borders curtail NDPs’ mobility to other opportunities.

The effects of these overlapping power imbalances coalesce with other meso–micro-level elements, including localized conditions of ethnic-, caste- (Khan et al. 2018), or race-based (Bolin and Kurtz 2018) favoritism and discrimination to (re)produce two interacting modes of classism/ableism: political and economic (dis)empowerment. NDPs are often left out of decisions made at macro–meso levels between governments and/or (global) organizations, which can render their needs invisible, overlooked, or deprioritized. Decisions to enact austerity measures (limited investments in public education, infrastructure), the tolerance or support of the exploitation and degradation of natural resources, culturally and legally imposed limitations to opportunities (e.g., due to caste, gender, migrant status), favoritism toward certain socially and/or politically connected areas for development, and/or an overreliance on external actors to determine investments can result in overlapping disadvantages. These conditions often leave NDPs with financial, cognitive, and physical limitations that can affect their ability to access capitals (e.g., financial, human/knowledge, social) necessary to move up the value chain (Varman, Skålén, and Belk 2012) or to safely and prosperously cross borders (Jones 2016). Consequentially, NDPs face consumption and livelihood insecurities as they remain economically and geographically excluded.

Neoimperialistic power, however, can also be used to support efforts for more inclusive, sustainable growth. This is apparent in the Green Climate Fund’s (GCF 2020) redirection of resources to developing countries and mandates for gender impact assessments, as well as World Bank (2020) programs and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals that promote gender equality and ecological conservation (FAO et al. 2018). However, neoliberalism can often thwart these efforts by holding people responsible for their own (in)abilities to access and utilize market structures: It (erroneously) assumes everyone has equal and equitable market access. Thus, efforts purported to “empower” can perpetuate class inequities, exclusions, and vulnerabilities, particularly for NDPs who may not have requisite levels of market literacy or physical and financial access to markets (Steinfield and Holt 2020).

Patriarchal Power Dynamics and Gender Relations (Re)producing Sexism

Overlapping with geopolitical/economic structures that perpetuate NDPs’ class/ableism-based vulnerabilities are repressive patriarchal systems. Patriarchy advances the supremacy of men and domination of women, thus (re)producing gender-based oppressions/privileges. These, in turn, result in differing capacities, reactions to, and experiences of environmental disruptions by male versus female NDPs. Drawing from Walby (1989), we briefly outline six key reinforcing sources of patriarchal power differentials.

Short-Term and Local Impacts of Environmental Disruption

NDPs, such as fishers, live with the risk of seasonality in their occupation caused by natural cycles. However, the known risk of seasonal, fluctuating volumes of fish is exacerbated by both natural (e.g., cyclones, droughts, tsunamis) and human-made (e.g., oil/toxic spills, plastics, over-fishing/farming) environmental disruptions. Disruptions can reduce the quality and/or availability of the fish, alter where fish are found, and/or change what kind of aquatic species exist (Badjeck et al. 2010; Venugopal et al. 2019), which adversely affect consumption and livelihood (income) insecurities in local communities, particularly for NDPs given the classist, ableist, and gendered structures they encounter.

The consequences of class/ableism-based inequities are reflected in the consumption realm through the limited cash and asset-based reserves of poorer NDPs relative to more affluent counterparts. Insufficient social assistance programs and investments in community infrastructures (e.g., clean water or hygienic sanitation, schools, health facilities) and housing (due to macro–meso relations/decisions and neoliberal assumptions of self-help) magnify these vulnerabilities when climate crises strike. Whereas better-off households can leverage their class privileges by preserving their consumption habits, selling assets, or sending (often literate) family members to find work elsewhere, poorer, less-abled NDPs face greater limitations, trade-offs, and risks in pursuing these strategies (Asif 2019; Nayak 2017). Selling assets under conditions of duress can restrict NDP households’ investments in health, education, and nutrition, ingraining longer-term cycles of reduced able-mindedness/bodiedness and poverty (Goh 2012; Nayak 2017). NDPs’ limited economic reserves can trap them in local areas and prevent needed shifts in consumption practices (Gioli et al. 2014). As Venugopal et al. (2019) found, when an oil spill affected a village in South India, low-income fishers continued to consume contaminated fish out of necessity. More affluent consumers could switch to other forms of animal protein and purchase a wider source of food items to prevent malnutrition. Similarly, when environmental disasters result in infrastructure destruction (e.g., by typhoons) (Badjeck et al. 2010) or put inadequate infrastructures under further strain (e.g., as migrants locate to popular coastal fishing areas such as Mumbai [Bose et al. 2018]), the poorest “trapped” NDP households unduly bear the consequences of these heightened consumption inadequacies: The resultant slum living conditions and inadequate sanitation breed diseases.

In addition to these class/ableism-based inequities, traditional patriarchal elements magnify consumption insecurities for female NDPs, which is not experienced to the same extent by their affluent female or poor male counterparts (Goh 2012; Khan et al. 2018). Naturalized gender norms, for example, encourage women to be submissive and selfless, and they push motherhood to be women’s primary identity. Women are, as a result, often “the last to eat,” which increases their risk of malnutrition when environmental crises strike (Noone 2018). Governing institutions’ androcentric laws and/or policies, household gender relations, and gender beliefs leave poorer female NDPs with fewer assets and lower levels of education. These dynamics reduce their economic flexibility and capacity to maintain consumption behaviors, decrease their ability to support their children’s needs, and increase their dependency on men or state provisions when disruptions occur (Demetriades and Esplen 2008). The resulting dependencies in part explain their trading of sex for fish, a consumption practice that can have longer-term effects on personal and family health should they contract infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS (Béné and Merten 2008).

Environmental disruptions likewise unsettle production capabilities unequally. Whereas more affluent fishers may purchase technological advancements (e.g., GPS) to help them navigate changes in spatial distributions of fish or vessels that go beyond toxic spill areas, poorer fishers may engage in riskier fishing tactics to cope (Venugopal et al. 2019). Moreover, low-skilled migrants who come to coastal fishing communities in reaction to climate crises can increase competition and over-fishing (Crona and Rosendo 2011). This can reduce fish yields, resulting in debt traps for struggling fishers given that boats, nets, and tackle gear require upkeep (Asif 2019). Livelihood insecurities can enter a downward, recursive spiral.

Female NDPs encounter additional livelihood insecurities. Those who engage in more dangerous processes of fishing are often marginalized and misrecognized because offshore or commercial fishing is considered to fall under the male auspice. Fishermen do not acknowledge these women: doing so would undermine their role as primary providers. Female NDPs may be rendered invisible by policy makers, creditors, and researchers as well, which contributes to their economic and political disempowerment and exclusion from key decision-making bodies and resources in the fishing community (Harper et al. 2013, 2017).

The patriarchal practices and beliefs that inform public and private (household) divisions of labor often keep female NDPs (1) tied to fishing activities meant for household consumption; (2) relegated to underpaid activities that depend on the success of fishermen, such as postharvest elements of the trade (drying, processing, and peddling of fish); and/or (3) limited to collecting the less profitable seafood available from shorelines (e.g., shellfish) (Harper et al. 2017). When disruptions happen, men have the capability to venture further to find fish, including entreating into global spaces by temporarily migrating to other areas (Abobi and Alhassan 2015). More affluent women may (pending sociocultural limits such as caste) draw on their educational privileges to benefit from capitalistic markets by also migrating or shifting to higher-valued work (e.g., in foreign-owned factory or entrepreneurial ventures), or they may leverage assets to forgo the need to work. Poorer female NDPs, however, are often more undereducated and face limited alternatives to pursue (Djoudi et al. 2016; Fleury 2016). These gender- and ableism-based economic exclusion dynamics mean that when environmental disruptions reduce fish supplies, women’s dependency on men is heightened. As with their consumption insecurities, these gendered conditions, when overlapped with outcomes of macro–meso relations (inadequate welfare systems) and assumptions of neoliberalism (provide for yourself), can cause some women to use sex to reduce production insecurities (i.e., to access fishing grounds or to secure rights to sell fish catches) (Béné and Merten 2008; Koralagama, Gupta, and Pouw 2017). Moreover, the geopolitical/economic and gender/class/abled nexus leave poorer women (and their children) disproportionately represented in “trapped” populations who, despite the severity of environmental disruptions, struggle to leave local areas (Gioli et al. 2014).

The ideal of heterosexual relations, neoliberal norms, and men’s identity as primary providers can also exacerbate livelihood insecurities among the elderly and/or less-abled. When men’s bodies or minds are unable to undertake strenuous activities, their wives often must work to supplement familial income. Even though these women assume the role of primary provider, their relegation to lower-paid work limits their ability to gain sufficient earnings (Dela Pena and Marte 1998). Meanwhile, their time poverty increases, as gender roles and the household division of labor still leave women responsible for household duties. Environmental disruptions further heighten time poverty for the reasons noted previously (e.g., extended time earning sufficient income, collecting water, gathering firewood, etc.) and also undermine women’s health, as women are more likely to bear the emotional and physical toll of ensuring family consumption needs are met (Goh 2012; Nellemann, Verma, and Hislop 2011). Over time, these short-term measures can deplete a woman’s capacity to earn income, exposing her and her family to increased insecurities.

These examples are not to suggest that poor female NDPs are always more vulnerable on all counts than are male NDPs. Indeed, social norms that expect male fishers to “provide” or to be “heroes” can cause them to fall into debt traps (Nayak 2017), suffer through mental traumas (Denton 2002), or engage in more risky fishing activities, such as blasting or dynamiting schools of fish (Koralagama, Gupta, and Pouw 2017; Pet-Soede, Cesar, and Pet 2000). Men can thus be exposed to severe physical harm and financial and mental stresses, which places their livelihoods—and the other NDPs who depend on them—at risk.

Although these power relations influence NDPs’ response to environmental disruptions, NDPs are able to exercise a level of agency, albeit constrained. This can result in both positive and negative outcomes. For example, when environmental disruptions force fishermen to migrate to other regions or cause older men to struggle with adapting to new realities, opportunities can open for women to assume the role of primary decision maker or to be recognized as a key contributor to familial income and the community (Denton 2002). Taking advantage of these opportunities is an incremental step toward economic inclusion, offering at least a step toward shifting norms (Djoudi et al. 2016). These short-term changes may have trickle-down effects in the long term. Increasing the number of women involved can set a precedent and can make them more visible in society. These conditions may (gradually) heighten opportunities for female NDPs’ voices to be included in policy, marketplace, and household decisions and, in turn, alter their consumption and production vulnerabilities (Fleury 2016; Gioli et al. 2014). In contrast, neoliberal, geopolitical pressures on governments to forgo key investments in social assistance means the agency of NDPs can often lead to suboptimal choices that, in the short term, resolve immediate needs (i.e., securing fish through sex or fish blasting) but can have longer-term maladaptive outcomes. NDPs can downplay, become desensitized to, or be ignorant of the longer-term consequences of their actions, including social exclusion or health compromises, or destruction of their key natural resources. Resultantly, multiple hardships can ensue—decreased ableism, disconnection from critical social networks, debt traps, or depletion of resources—that heighten NDPs’ vulnerabilities and inabilities to navigate future disasters (Béné and Merten 2008; Nayak 2017; Pet-Soede, Cesar, and Pet 2000). Decisions made in the short term can have prolonged effects that feed back to shape future realities.

Long-Term and Local Impacts of Environmental Disruption

Over time, an overreliance on capitalistic markets and neoliberal assumptions can cause environmental disruptions to broaden income and consumption inequalities (as noted in Figure 1 and Table 1). Government subsidies, for example, aimed at maintaining or growing fishing levels (subsidies for boats, gear, fuel, etc.) to support markets and value chains can deplete fish populations if investments in protecting or rejuvenating marine life are insufficient (Harper and Sumaila 2019). Whereas more affluent fishers or companies can benefit from these conditions by accessing technology, poorer NDPs face prolonged production and income disadvantages.

The cumulative effects of suppressed incomes and increased frequency and scope of environmental disruptions create a debilitating pattern that degrades the well-being of poorer, low-literate NPDs (Goh 2012; Shultz and Peterson 2019). The reaction of NDPs to pursue riskier behaviors and the physically demanding nature of their labor can result in poorer health for men and women (Badjeck et al. 2010). Women’s higher levels of malnutrition and household demands (per gender norms and relations) can exacerbate this (Goh 2012). Likewise, the occurrence of environmental disruptions can increase health issues (e.g., malaria, asthma, diarrhea) (Badjeck et al. 2010) while decreasing the prevalence of local medicinal herbs NDPs traditionally use (Goh 2012). When combined with a lack of decent health care (which can stem from neoimperialistic and/or caste/ethno-favoritism pressures), the health issues of NPDs in the short run can accumulate into chronic injuries and illness in the long run. This lack of able-bodiedness can undermine their capacity to earn future income (Badjeck et al. 2010). Moreover, the need to allocate scarce financial resources for adequate health care can exacerbate NDPs’ vulnerabilities to poverty and debt traps (Hallegatte et al. 2015). Ongoing income constraints, as occur with debt traps, can feed back on short-term dynamics: when future disruptions occur, these NDPs are in an increasingly vulnerable position. The previously noted effects of classism/ableism on NDPs’ consumption and production in the short term are reinforced and compounded.

Patriarchal structures exacerbate class-/ableism-based consumption inequities, perpetuating the feminization of poverty. The lack of government investments in education (per macro–meso relations/decisions), combined with gender norms, can reduce the ability of girls in subsistence contexts to access health care and education. Over time, this translates into the production realm, decreasing the ability of women to enter higher-valued jobs. It can also reduce women’s meaningful participation in key community decision-making bodies, allowing gender discriminatory policies and practices to remain (Eastin 2018). As such, the aforementioned vulnerability of women to environmental disruptions and the gender inequities in consumption/production spheres persist. Conversely, when supportive structures are in place—such as social collectives that distribute information regarding rights, entitlements, and opportunities—environmental disruptions can foster social movements that gradually challenge the structures reproducing the feminization of poverty. Disruptions can thus help empower women. If supported, collectives and other forms of organization can help ensure that female NDPs’ voices are included in policy and marketplace decision-making processes and, over time, affect change (Deveaux 2018; Gopal et al. 2020).

Another way the local level can be affected in the long term—in positive and negative ways—is through out-migration of NDPs. Out-migration may lead to an influx of remittances, thereby helping those who remain in local communities to maintain survival or to gradually improve their consumption levels and livelihoods (e.g., replace or fix fishing gear) (Asif 2019). If migrants return, they may bring new skills back to their communities (Fleury 2016). However, neoliberalism’s “self-help” protocols, neocolonial controls, and limited government support for migrants means those who are more likely to profitably migrate are the physically and mentally able (often younger) people and/or those from families that can afford initial migration costs. Costs of migration and differences in remittances can widen class-based divides in local areas (Asif 2019). Out-migration can also leave a greater number of older people and (pending local patriarchal practices/beliefs) women to take care of themselves/each other in the local community for prolonged periods of time (Black et al. 2013; Fleury 2016). Communities that lose their most abled individuals to migration face the prospect of having less skill and innovation in the community. In turn, this can cause local community members to be more vulnerable to future disruptions, dependent on remittances, and unable to take full advantage of future production opportunities or to cope with local consumption demands for necessities such as healthcare (Eastin 2018; Fleury 2016).

In addition, when men migrate to pursue short-term seasonal labor, they tend to live alone in temporary communities. Hypermasculinity norms, which encourage men to engage in sexual relations when abroad, can increase the potential for them to return to their villages with transmittable diseases (Abobi and Alhassan 2015). When combined with patriarchal practices that accede men control over their wives’ bodies, or structures that increase women’s economic exclusion and willingness to engage in sex trade, the decisions men make can transfer to women’s bodies (e.g., HIV/AIDS) and affect their long-term health (Goh 2012). If NDPs have little recourse to social security, the physical and mental health effects of diseases can augment health care costs and threaten social isolation. The social stigma surrounding HIV/AIDS and fears of violence can also prevent women from getting tested, increasing risks that they will pass the disease on to their children (Turan et al. 2011). The well-being of entire communities (men, women, and children) can be undermined, and with it their ability to earn sufficient income to meet (future) consumption needs.

As disadvantageous as these conditions are, similar to environmental crises prompting women (through collectives) to seek change, studies show that migration can likewise act as a catalyst in local markets. Migration of men can open up opportunities for some female NDPs who remain in the local area to increase their political or economic pursuits. Over time, this may help women challenge patriarchal laws, gender relations, and norms (Djoudi et al. 2016; Fleury 2016). However, power imbalances between external actors (government, organizations, etc.) and women can undermine these advances. Androcentric views of some actors who use women’s collectives to help achieve their mandates (e.g., improved sanitation) can cause gender inequity within markets or households to be disregarded. This can leave women facing time constraints and limited opportunities to earn more income (Priyadarshini 2018). Without structural changes, gender imbalances remain. Thus, although the limited empowerment women can achieve when men migrate can improve their decision-making power, this does not always translate to sustained decision-making power when men return. The attainment of greater gender equity within household consumption/production decisions may only come through intergenerational change brought about through investments in the education of girls (Gioli et al. 2014). NDPs’ ability to escape the devastating, accumulating effects environmental crises can have on consumption/production spheres rests in decisions and investments (e.g., education of girls) made in the short term, albeit with longer-term benefits to women’s and societal well-being. For many NDPs, particularly the most destitute, this is a significant challenge.

Short-Term and Global Impacts of Environmental Disruption

The effects of environmental disruptions lead to global, short-term impacts, as local nuances of NDPs’ lives have ripple effects beyond geographical borders. As discussed, when disruptions lead to livelihood insecurities (e.g., income, debt, food), NPDs may migrate—locally, regionally, or across borders—for short periods of time or during months of low productivity (Asif 2019; Nayak 2017). Their migration to pursue jobs in comparatively unaffected areas is propelled and affected by the aforementioned political–economic dynamics of erroneous neoliberal market assumptions and macro–meso neoimperialistic relations. These power dynamics can result in inadequate social safety nets and underdeveloped local market opportunities.

The “markets of migrations” NDPs enter can cause them to experience livelihood displacements (see Figure 1 and Table 1) as their work (production) and living conditions (consumption) shift. These outcomes are conditioned by the gender/class/abled nexus. Pending gendered perspectives of whether women should work, ² more affluent (privileged) families may send their daughters or sons abroad and into better forms of work (e.g., safer, more lucrative), whereas those who are less affluent often accept precarious forms of labor within their country’s borders (Fleury 2016). Moreover, increased demand for women to work in factories to support global industries (garments) and process-related production (given women’s underpaid status and gender–work identities) means (literate) women are more likely to receive skills training whereas lower-income (illiterate) women may be pushed into care or sex work (Fleury 2016). Men may remain in low-paying fishing activities (Abobi and Alhassan 2015); however, desires by countries to control resources and borders may deny them access to fishing rights (Crona and Rosendo 2011). This can lead them to fish illegally or to migrate to nonfishing areas where they may be relegated to low-skill/low-paying options (e.g., tuk-tuk/rickshaw drivers) and/or to selling their labor on a more haphazard basis (e.g., construction jobs) (Asif 2019; Fleury 2016).

The pressure for migrants to remit their wages to those back home, combined with more costly living expenses (e.g., food, housing) and/or denial of social provisions, can contribute to substandard living conditions (Crona and Rosendo 2011; Horlings and Marschke 2019). Neocolonial modes of governance and/or ethno-favoritism can reduce living conditions further, as they may curtail governments’ abilities (e.g., loan restrictions) or desire (overreliance on markets; (de)prioritizing of community needs) to rapidly provide the infrastructure or regulations needed to meet the heightened demands placed on goods, such as water, housing, hygienic sanitation, and transportation. The rise of slum cities (DePaul 2012) and privileging of water supplies to export processing zones over community needs (Horlings and Marschke 2019) are examples of the consequences of these conditions. Costly water purchases (Horlings and Marschke 2019) or health ramifications from living in unsanitary conditions (e.g., diarrhea) (Molla et al. 2014) can further strain incomes, which can lower remittances and aggravate consumption inadequacies for those remaining in the local area.

Applying a gender lens, we find that an underappreciation of women’s labor, (threats of) violence, and neoimperialistic/capitalistic market dynamics can further disrupt women’s lives. Limited wages, fear of abuse, and the demands of global value chains force many women to work overtime in factories (Horlings and Marschke 2019). Others, particularly those from poorer households who enter industries not covered by labor protections (domestic work/sex trade), may face repeated acts of abuse and sexual violence (Fleury 2016).

Taking a global perspective allows us to also identify how the impact of environmental disasters has consumption effects beyond NDPs. They can cause global consumer value chain disruptions; for example, by affecting those whose diet includes fish. Because neoimperialism and neoliberal pressures have increased the interconnectedness of global markets, if environmental disruptions restrict the flow of fish to global markets, increases in prices and food insecurities can occur for consumers in external markets (Sumaila et al. 2011). Likewise, as coauthors of this article witnessed in Vietnam following a toxic spill, livelihood insecurities prompted some NDPs in the locally affected area to sell contaminated fish, resulting in potential health consequences for consumers across a global value chain. The impacts of environmental disruptions thus move beyond local levels of consumption to pose threats to the overall health, nutrition, and food security of communities reliant on these global value chains for their food.

Environmental crises can likewise put immediate pressures on businesses involved in global food value chains to source products such as fish elsewhere. The power/privilege asymmetries within capitalistic value chains often result in business priorities (e.g., profits) and global consumer demands taking precedence over NDPs’ livelihoods. A shift in sourcing products reduces income flowing into NPD communities (Sumaila et al. 2011), which in turn is conditioned by local class and patriarchal structures. In families too poor to withstand demand fluctuations, the aforementioned results may increase (e.g., debt traps, out-migration, overfishing, female malnutrition or engagement in sex trade). Global-level impacts thus feed back at the local level in an intersectional way.

Long-Term and Global Impacts of Environmental Disruption

At a global, long-term level, as environmental disasters continue and increase in frequency, restructuring of global value chains and diminished fish supplies will heighten livelihood and consumption insecurities, increase the potential for conflict, and, in turn, contribute to an estimated 200 million to one billion climate-induced migrants by 2050 (Brzoska and Fröhlich 2016). These trends are perpetuated by macro–meso relations that protect neoimperialistic, neoliberal capitalist structures and global hierarchies (Jones 2016): Solutions tend to center on managing outcomes of climate-induced migration rather than mitigation efforts that could help vulnerable (often poorer) countries (McNamara and Gibson 2009).

NDPs’ production and consumption are shaped by these decisions. To survive or to escape the indirect effects of environmental crises (e.g., conflict), NDPs undertake more permanent or extended modes of migration. These forms include the climate-induced migration of households to refugee camps (Jones 2016) and/or the migration of families or (often) younger women and men (Fleury 2016) to areas in other low-income countries, such as megacities like Delhi (DePaul 2012), or to more affluent countries (often illegally) (Jones 2016). This migration can often (re)produce class/able-based labor market exclusions and exploitations due to geopolitical power asymmetries that determine whose bodies can cross borders. As Jones (2016) relates, in a “free-market” capitalist economy in which the mobility of goods is encouraged, the mobility of people is tightly controlled. Those who possess the financial and human capital that is valued by more affluent countries (i.e., more affluent, educated people) are granted legal mobility. Although they may experience gender/ethnic discriminations and be underemployed or pushed to pursue entrepreneurial ventures (Minor and Cameo 2018), they are more privileged than NDPs who are often denied legal entry or only given temporary residency because their embodied forms of capital are not valued. Indeed, the United States and European Union (following UN guidelines) do not recognize environmental disruptions as life-threatening conditions that qualify one for asylum. If denied, NDPs may choose to enter illegally, which can result in higher levels of exploitation given the unprotected nature of their work and the demeaning identity given to their status: Neoliberal perspectives and desires to retain global hierarchies build up narratives that frame migrants as “undeserving of help and sympathy” (Jones 2016, p. 60). Thus, many of the poorest NDPs migrate to lower-income regions and countries or remain in refugee camps for prolonged periods.

When migrating, NDPs risk being excluded from markets because they may initially lack social connections to opportunities and face restrictive circumstances or differing marketplace norms in host contexts (Shultz et al. 2020). When disruptions force NDPs to relocate to refugee camps (Betts et al. 2017) or other communities (Connell and Lutkehaus 2017), they often leave with limited financial wherewithal or resources to invest in productive activities in their host locations. They can become trapped in the areas to which they migrate or are forced to go (Black et al. 2013). Their resource constraints are exacerbated if they cannot practice their traditional livelihoods to earn an income or pursue entrepreneurial opportunities. Labor market exclusion can result: Fishers may resettle into noncoastal regions or areas in which their fishing rights are denied by law, by existing landholder rights, or by community structures that control natural resources (Connell and Lutkehaus 2017; Crona and Rosendo 2011). Likewise, in some camps, refugees are not allowed to engage in formal work out of fear that it may result in their permanent residence. A destructive sense of dependency on insufficient aid can occur (Betts et al. 2017).

When migrants do exercise agency and attempt to eke out a living, host communities can be positively and determinately affected. Migrants’ entrepreneurial activities can spawn new markets, consumer goods, and jobs for others (Betts et al. 2017) and lead to more inclusive and sustainable market systems (DeQuero-Navarro et al. 2020). However, the presence of cheaper migrant labor can also further class-based divides in host communities. Strains on natural resources (proximal water/firewood) can perpetuate time poverty for both female hosts and migrants/refugees (Whitaker 2002). The clearing of land or trees to accommodate migrants or refugees can heighten risks of future environmental crises for host communities (DePaul 2012). Deadly conflicts can erupt as resources and cultural identities are threatened (Brzoska and Fröhlich 2016). Sociocultural and economic exclusions often result.

The tensions and exclusions can translate into consumer markets, lowering the capacity of migrant (Connell and Lutkehaus 2017) and refugee (Betts et al. 2017) NDPs to obtain sufficient housing or sanitary conditions, food, health services, and/or educational opportunities for their children (either because children must work or are denied access to school). In megacities, NDPs’ insufficient incomes and limited access to (government) aid can cause them to disproportionately inhabit slums. When overlaid by the prolonged effects of neoimperialism and patriarchy, the resultant lower education levels of mothers (affecting able-mindedness) along with a lack of government infrastructure investments leave women and children at a greater risk of illnesses (diarrhea, asthma) as they are more likely to adopt unsafe practices in water, sanitation (defecating in the open) and cooking (using charcoal indoors), and are at a higher risk of malnutrition (Goh 2012; Molla et al. 2014). Exposure of children to these conditions significantly decreases their health and longevity (Molla et al. 2014). Intergenerational poverty perpetuates as these consumer market exclusions are compounded by the inadequate education of children, the continuation of NDPs’ labor market exclusion (Betts et al. 2017; Connell and Lutkehaus 2017), and/or exposure to healthcare expenses and debt traps (Hallegatte et al. 2015). As a result, short-term livelihood/consumption insecurities continue.

Adding a gender/ableism lens illuminates how the limited economic opportunities male NDPs face, can, over time, increase mental health disparities as men grapple with transformations in their identities and feelings of disempowerment and uncertainty (Connell and Lutkehaus 2017; Martin 2004). In contrast, female NDPs, particularly those who can exercise class privileges by paying agents to enter the “market of migration,” can find more permeant solutions: They can benefit from heteronormativity norms that open up possibilities of migration through marriage (Fleury 2016) and/or leverage certain modes of women’s identities (e.g., low-paid workers) to gain wage work in factories (Horlings and Marschke 2019) or to flow into relatively richer communities as domestic workers or caretakers (Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2004). They may be able to leverage social networks and their able-mindedness (e.g., literacy/numeracy levels) to form profitable entrepreneurial ventures (Gu 2012; Martin 2004). Over the long term, these conditions can shift the perception of girls from being less desirable than boys (Bélanger and Linh 2011). They can also (sometimes) help women alter expectations around their (un)paid work, particularly if women can control remittances and act as key providers (Bélanger and Linh 2011; Gu 2012). These opportunities can feed back to decrease the insecurities women face in the short term when environmental disruptions occur: They can become less dependent on natural resources and men for their income and, in turn, their consumption. However, as the jobs women pursue suggest, migration trends can also reinforce prevailing patriarchal assumptions of the type of work that women should be doing, and they do little to adjust the undervaluation of “women’s work” or exploitative class–gender dynamics (Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2004). In addition, when families struggle with displacements or encounter ethnic/racial discrimination in new countries, women may support traditional gender norms and stay at home to protect familial well-being and to maintain a sense of cultural identity (Gu 2012; Martin 2004). The limited resources of lower-class NDP households, and women’s exclusion from labor markets, can cause poorer female NDPs’ short-term consumption insecurities to become prolonged consumer market exclusions as they remain caught in expectations to do domestic/care work within squalid conditions and are deprived of consumer markets (e.g., in slums, refugee camps) (Betts et al. 2017; Molla et al. 2014).

In addition, women’s engagement with labor and consumer markets in refugee camps and host communities is often affected by male violence and imbalanced gender relations. If husbands experience emasculation or stress, it can lead to marital conflict, divorce, or domestic violence. Neoliberal, economic, and political/legal dynamics that augment women’s precarious migrant status, as well as gender relations (inequalities in pay and/or familial threats of denying food, housing), can cause migrant (Goodman et al. 2017) and refugee (Krause 2020) women to stay in abusive relationships and to withdraw from the labor market. If divorced, migrant women risk country expulsion (Ehrenreich and Hochschild 2004). If single, separated from their families, or rejected by their families (for not following gender norms), they face increased risk of exclusion from consumer markets (e.g., denial of housing, food, or school fees) (Goodman et al. 2017; Krause 2020). Outside of the family, norms of violence can cause female migrant NDPs to face (threats of) physical and sexual violence, which can result in debilitating posttraumatic stress disorder (Goodman et al. 2017) and/or dissuade them from pursuing employment or entrepreneurial ventures (Horlings and Marschke 2019; Khan et al. 2018). Refugee camps and journeys of undocumented, climate-induced migrants are particular (global) spaces where the lives of women, and to a lesser extent, males, are affected by sexual and physical violence due to inadequate justice, enforcement, protection, and access to health systems (Goodman et al. 2017; Krause 2020). Patriarchal controls over women’s bodies, economic exclusion, and acceptability of male violence heightens the risk that a female NDP may be forced to marry when young (Krause 2020), trafficked (Kiss et al. 2015; Nellemann, Verma, and Hislop 2011), or, if struggling with debt due to familial or spousal death or a divorce, engage in sex work (Fleury 2016). Thus, the risks women face, underscored by male violence and exacerbated by the global (controlled) spaces in which they reside, influence them to adopt behaviors that maintain their risk of labor and/or consumer market exclusion in the long term and insecurities in the short term.

Contributions to Theoretical Perspectives and Research

We extend marketing and public policy studies in five key ways. First, by applying an intersectionality perspective to study the consumption and production elements of marketing systems, the CSIM encourages scholars to make power asymmetries/dynamics explicit, recognizing both oppressive and agentic forces and their interaction (e.g., Steinfield, Coleman et al. 2019; Steinfield and Holt 2020). This allows the underlying and overlapping elements that shape the actions, choices, and outcomes of NDPs (and [subsistence] consumers/entrepreneurs more broadly) to be identified so that these elements—versus their consequences—can be redressed (if oppressive) or leveraged (if helpful). For example, it allowed us to identify how and why power exercised through marketplace elements—such as policies or practices related to neoimperialism, markets of migration, or global value chains—may simultaneously be solutions for, or sources of, inequality. This highlights the CSIM’s second contribution: It advances scholarship (and practice, as detailed subsequently) by offering a transformative framework that draws attention to sources of oppressions/privileges so that market- and policy-based solutions can work in tandem to resolve injustices.

Third, by merging ecosystem, cross-scale analysis with intersectionality theory and (macro)marketing systems, we are able to illustrate how environmental disruptions intertwine with (in)vulnerabilities because of varying local and global conditions. The CSIM thus extends work on subsistence markets, which often centers on local markets (e.g., Venugopal et al. 2019), and macromarketing, which often assesses interconnected (global) marketing systems (e.g., Shultz and Peterson 2019): It illuminates the importance of understanding and combining perspectives on both local and global spaces.

Fourth, the CSIM addresses calls by scholars to identify the dynamism of structural inequalities/inequities in marketplaces (Hein et al. 2016; Saatcioglu and Ozanne 2013) and their intersectional nature (Corus et al. 2016; Steinfield, Sanghvi et al. 2019). It extends this work by adding a more encompassing view of not only spatial but also temporal impacts, enabling practitioners to capture the recursive and nested nature of injustices. The case of NDPs exhibits this intersectional dynamism in multiple ways. Per Figure 1, when the historical and ongoing remnants of (globalized) neoimperialistic relations and neoliberal mentalities lead to a lack of (localized) social welfare systems and public goods (e.g., education), NDPs may temporarily or permanently migrate when faced with the impacts of environmental disruptions. Their actions extend beyond local levels to affect other (global) communities (resources stress, conflict) and natural elements (over-fishing/farming), which in turn can perpetuate environmental disruptions and migrations. When done within the confines of additional discriminatory structures and (dis)empowerments based on class, ableism levels and gender, these actions can allow short-term income/consumption insecurities to perpetuate and, in the long term, widen income and consumption inequalities between the haves and the have nots: The most vulnerable NDPs become trapped in cycles of intergenerational poverty, whereas more privileged NDPs can escape these poverty cycles by entering more favorable markets of migration. The long-term labor market exclusions for those less fortunate migrants, or the heightened income inequalities for those who remain, maintain NDPs’ (present/short-term) livelihood insecurities, which act recursively with their consumption insecurities (inability to access inputs, proper health care, food, housing, etc.).

Tracing these paths for different NDPs illuminates the intersecting challenges many poorer, less-abled female NDPs face, but importantly, it also allows us to capture the plight of men. This reveals the fifth contribution of the CSIM: It can create a more balanced and inclusive perspective of the different ways (in)vulnerabilities manifest, serving as a meta-intersectional lens. It can consider both intracategorical (female NDPs) and intercategorical (female vs. male NDP or non-NDP communities) intersectionality. The CSIM thus encourages future research to extend beyond the common practice of studying one gender (e.g., Hein et al. 2016) and/or one type of intersectional group (see Corus et al. 2016). It calls for scholars to delve within the genders and supports work that can reveal how the underresearched aspects of privileges and privileged groups’ livelihoods (including our own) vary in comparison to oppressions/oppressed groups.

Taken as a whole, the CSIM offers an encompassing view: The CSIM is at once processual (within loci of power), dialogical (between structures and agency), intersectional and systemic (across time and space of various social structures), nested (recursive in causes and effects), and reflexive (accountability for power and actions).

Contributions to Transformative Actions: Toward 2.0 Policy and Market-Based Solutions

From a practical and applied perspective, the CSIM encourages practitioners to move beyond traditional, or what we term “1.0 solutions,” to “2.0 solutions,” which are designed with an intersectional understanding of extant power structures and are executed to account for how these structures may perpetuate marketplace exclusion for vulnerable NDPs in different ways. Table 1 summarizes and discusses a number of these 2.0 solutions according to vulnerabilities and experiences of hardships or exclusions identified by the CSIM. Although 2.0-oriented solutions are rare in the real world, we present a proximal, existing example in Web Appendix A.

Per the CSIM’s intersectionality perspective, 2.0 solutions emphasize the need for marketplace solutions to work in tandem with key policies and partners to secure rights and to address sources of inequality/inequities. Given the intergenerational nature of cultural change, this key element spans both short and long-term, and local and global solutions (see Table 1). Moreover, 2.0 solutions recognize that neoliberal mandates of “market-based empowerment” need to be tempered so that the critical role of the state is supported and challenges to equitable access addressed. For example, to be effective, proposed solutions should leverage marketing tactics, using social marketing campaigns and working through social collectives or other organizations to gradually challenge detrimental gender and class norms, to raise awareness of rights, and to effect inclusion and social justice. These elements are often overlooked in scientific, environmental analysis or market-based solutions yet are central to challenging sources of vulnerability (Hein et al. 2016; Venugopal et al. 2019). This is particularly the case for women, as many societies promise equal rights, but fewer have equal rights in practice (Westholm and Arora-Jonsson 2018). Marketing solutions thus need to be accompanied by policy decisions regarding (public-good) investments and training related to enforcement and protection of rights by governments and international actors (particularly for refugee camps). Furthermore, as the CSIM highlights, policy design, proposed solutions, and marketing campaigns must not perpetuate the patriarchal modes of gender roles and divisions of labor that permeate current global discourses (i.e., invest in women because they will invest in families) (Steinfield, Coleman et al. 2019), nor should they be gender exclusive (i.e., focus only on women) as many Green Climate Fund’s gender plans do (Steinfield and Holt 2020). While it is important to not take away from the much-needed investments in and focus on women given the intersectional sources of oppression they face, placing the onus on women to alleviate familial (intergenerational) poverty and vulnerabilities while overlooking men can unfairly overburden them. Thus, policy, outreach efforts, and campaigns need to be more gender inclusive and framed such that men reevaluate how they can also contribute to familial and community well-being.

Second, the CSIM’s three lenses emphasize the need for 2.0 versions to address elements that can affect NDPs’ capabilities and willingness to participate in the market and to exert choice, particularly for those most vulnerable or marginalized. As our description of NDPs’ lives demonstrates, these elements include local and global sociocultural/political structures that may contribute to things such as low literacy, income inequalities, political disempowerment, violence, etc., as well as vagaries of the natural world (see also Steinfield and Holt 2020). Notably, it calls for policy makers, global actors (e.g., IMF, UN), businesses, and scholars to recognize their own positions of (neoimperialistic) power and to start by (1) questioning the appropriateness of neoliberal assumptions (equal/equitable access to markets) and current modes of capitalism (e.g., unidirectional value chains) and (2) recognizing the disenfranchisement and invisibilities their agendas may create (e.g., a focus on migration instead of mitigating causes of migration; goals of profit and economic growth over sustainable, equitable sourcing; exclusion of disadvantaged social groups such as women, migrants, less-abled people).

Solutions for NDPs thus demand a combined focus on (1) building capabilities necessary to ensure NDPs’ successful interaction with markets (e.g., market literacy, mental health programs) (Venugopal et al. 2019); (2) adopting efforts that increase marketplace inclusion and rights (Hein et al. 2016; Scott et al. 2011); and (3) researching, developing, and implementing more sustainable solutions for the environment (Harper and Sumaila 2019). Tracing the long-term implications of short-term decisions can aid with this. However, the complexities of pursuing such a transformative marketing system will hinge on the capacity of actors to coordinate activities across global and local levels (Shultz et al. 2020), including the involvement of a variety of NDPs who can illuminate differing intersectional oppressions and ways to sustainably support efforts to increase their livelihoods and well-being. (See Ozanne et al. [2009] for enactments of this in deliberative democracy processes and Ozanne and Saatcioglu [2008] in participatory approaches.)

Overall, in moving toward a 2.0 version of capitalism—a more humane capitalism—we propose practitioners truly adopt a stakeholder theory approach that shifts away from competitive, acquisitive-driven capitalism or neoliberal modes of development through markets, and moves toward creating value for a variety of stakeholders on a more sustainable basis (Freeman, Martin, and Parmar 2007). While this is gaining momentum among international organizations through inclusionary projects and business mandates (Ludema and Johnson 2019), its potential to be accelerated presents opportunities for policy makers and marketers. For example, in the short term, progressive laws, tax practices (i.e., demanding accredited triple bottom line reports), private–public partnerships (PPPs), marketing efforts to raise awareness, and the shoring up of enforcement capacity can help advance (longer-term) protection and support for the natural environment and for communities, particularly those most marginalized. In addition, while stakeholder theory requires market actors to use their power responsibly, the CSIM extends this call: Practitioners and policy makers should ensure that the voices of those at the bottom of power pyramids (e.g., NDPs) are included in market research and decision-making bodies (e.g., Ozanne et al. 2009) and that the cross-scale implications of their decisions are mapped out so that exclusionary and destructive consequences at and between local/global levels (e.g., tragedy of the commons, destabilizing levels of climate-induced migration) can be avoided.

As an example, applying a CSIM-informed stakeholder theory approach to solutions for inclusionary and sustainable market efforts would take a 1.0 version of circular economies and shift it to a 2.0 solution. In a circular economy, products at the end of their original life cycle are used as components for new products. For instance, the byproducts of fish, such as collagen, could be used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals instead of being treated as waste (Burch et al. 2019). To ensure reuse of goods is more equitable, efforts at creating circular economies at the local level would need to be combined with (1) immediate (short-term) bottom-up, inclusionary community meetings (that include representation from different able-bodied/minded genders, classes, etc.) and the creation of varied work opportunities conducive to all NDP genders/able-levels, and (2) ongoing, longer-term efforts to shore up marginalized NDPs’ rights (laws and social marketing campaigns) and capabilities (e.g., market literacy programs and training), as well as enforcement of policies that encourage and protect marginalized groups’ (e.g., female NDPs) access to these opportunities. Enabling NDPs to use waste to capture more of the “value-add” in the processing of goods could result in more equitable and sustainable (global) value chains, while using social marketing campaigns and policies to change patriarchal structures (division of (un)paid work) could help rectify (local) gender imbalances and female NDPs’ heightened vulnerabilities to environmental crises. Similar efforts could be made to augment entrepreneurial efforts, particularly in migrant/refugee communities. In these contexts, 2.0 versions could help alleviate (global space) social conflicts (caused by job/resource losses) and pressures for government and/or organizations to continually provide basic needs (DeQuero-Navarro et al. 2020) while addressing the significant gender- and ableism-based disadvantages that often occur in local and global spaces (Betts et al. 2017).

In addition to an improved approach toward sustainable practices, the CSIM also emphasizes the need for solutions that can limit the impact of disruptions on NDPs by addressing the causes of such disruptions. This calls for shifts in who bears responsibility for proenvironmental behaviors from being significantly placed on NDPs (e.g., the Green Climate Fund) (per neoliberal, neoimperialism tendencies) to actors who hold powerful positions over global value chains, the degradation of the environment, and/or the depletion of a country’s resources. To this end, we see constructive efforts occurring. For example, Coca-Cola (2018) has pledged to reduce its environmental footprint by ensuring that its plastic can be used multiple times. Similar circular economy efforts are needed; however, such efforts also need to be performed inclusively and with a stakeholder mindset, such that marginalized, disadvantaged groups are able to benefit.

In a similar way, if technology is to help intersectionally disadvantaged NDPs address the impact of environmental disruptions, it must be supported by inclusive policies and market opportunities that ensure (1) NDPs have the abilities and rights to access and use the technology (e.g., physical and affordable access, training) and (2) marginalized groups are not made invisible (overlooked). Technologies such as social media and cell phones, for example, can be used in global spaces to help climate-induced migrants or refugees maintain communications across large distances and find others with similar languages and cultures in new, unfamiliar locations. This could lessen experiences of displacement and exclusion. Likewise, cell phones/social media could aid women who may, despite social marketing campaigns or enforced laws, face (threats of) violence. Such technology could also be leveraged to disseminate literacy or mental health programs in appropriate languages or visual modes (for people with low literacy). Emerging technologies such as blockchain, when merged with more inclusive cell phones, could digitize records in a way that lowers transaction costs for purchases, remittances, or insurance (Kshetri and Voas 2018) and trigger automatic payments to NDPs when environmental disruptions occur (Singer 2019). Blockchain can also assist governments in answering calls for improved management and protection of natural resources (Harper and Sumaila 2019), for example, by collating different data points to improve modeling and projections of changes in abundance/depletion of fish populations in various locations. Global and local organizations can leverage this information to coordinate PPP outreach efforts to vulnerable populations (a need noted by the UN [FAO et al. 2018]). This, in turn, can help actors more effectively channel resources to address the short- and long-term sources of consumption and production insecurity and inequality (vs. one or the other). Artificial intelligence (AI) could similarly be used to help governments or NGOs manage and distribute social welfare programs or project notifications/benefits by automating these tasks and using cryptocurrency or mobile money to safely transfer any payments.

Key, however, to ensuring that these technological solutions do not take on a 1.0 version that (inadvertently) perpetuates inequities or makes certain groups invisible (Pilkington 2019), is for policy makers and market researchers to actively ensure that the voice and needs of intersectionally disadvantaged people are incorporated into planning phases for the use of newer technologies (e.g., AI, blockchain, cryptocurrency) or revamps of older technologies (e.g., cell phones). Involving different groups of NDPs could ensure that solutions (1) benefit from the range of NDPs’ expert knowledge in navigating challenges (which is often overlooked), (2) obtain NDPs’ buy-in, and (3) limit potential disadvantages. By recognizing NDPs’ diverse needs, less evident nuances may become apparent. For example, technology geared toward NDPs would require low-literacy-friendly interfaces. To avoid inequities, the distribution of technologies may require the accompaniment of campaigns that frame the importance of ownership (phones) or involvement (blockchain/AI) for all genders. Actors may also need to ensure that access to devices, as well as the knowledge to use these devices, flow to women and less-abled individuals. Leveraging PPPs, such as connecting educational or promotional efforts through existing channels that serve women (social collectives or community groups), could help achieve more equitable access.

What emerges from these and other CSIM-evinced solutions (see Table 1) is that they will require coordinated, sustained efforts among policy makers, marketers, and consumers, both locally and globally. Equal rights will need to be protected and translated to communities, in coordination with deliberative democratic processes, training, and market access that can overcome the legacy and ongoing effects of neoimperialistic and patriarchal structures (e.g., low literacy, particularly of women). While circular economies, technology, and other envisioned solutions can help reduce the vulnerabilities to environmental disruptions and exclusions, if not properly managed, they risk allowing the benefits to accrue to those currently with power.

Directions for Future Research

Many of our proposed solutions will require researchers and practitioners to apply an intersectionality, cross-scale perspective to markets and systems. Accordingly, in Figure 2, we provide a set of guiding questions. These questions prompt researchers/practitioners to start with an intersectional approach and then move to a cross-scale impact analysis. Recognizing the multiple, intersecting, and recursive nature of vulnerabilities will be key to ensure that solutions are effective and do not perpetuate or magnify injustices.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

CSIM-guided questions for researchers, policy makers, and marketers.

These questions likewise suggest avenues for future research, such as identifying and examining other sources of oppression and privilege less explored here that could result in (in)vulnerabilities to environmental disruptions (e.g., religion, racism, linguistic discrimination, ageism). Research is needed to shed light on how these sources of (dis)advantage are held in place to the detriment of some groups, as well as how NDPs or vulnerable consumers exercise power to change intersectional oppressions. Notably, invisibilities are a key element that researchers can uncover for policy makers and marketers. For women, this includes a recognition of their expressions of agency (such as leveraging their social networks or collectives): Much of the literature on environmental disruptions focuses on women’s vulnerabilities (e.g., Nellemann, Verma, and Hislop 2011). For men, many of their experiences of oppressions remain less visible (i.e., mental, emotional). However, their vulnerabilities and resultant actions have cross-scale impacts that affect their own lives as well as the well-being of their families, communities, and natural environments. Thus, in addition to addressing gender-related gaps, we also advocate for more balanced perspectives that contrast intercategorical experiences of men and women versus adopting a singular view. We recognize that, given the gender-blind nature of some solutions, it would be detrimental to take the focus away from women; however, we posit that by providing a more comparative view, a more inclusive and sustainable way forward can be found, and we may unearth sources of privilege that could be leveraged to help NDPs recover from disruptions.

Creating empowering, transformational policy and market solutions to address the impacts of environmental disruptions is a complex but urgent task. The CSIM offers guidance on this call. We urge scholars and practitioners to adopt the CSIM so that more encompassing analysis and equitable solutions can be obtained.