"It's everywhere but nowhere at the same time": Understanding and Operationalisation of Social Inclusion in Anticipatory Action

Abstract

To tackle the social inequalities in how disasters unfold, organisations working in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) have increasingly adopted socially inclusive approaches. With a similar aim of reducing disaster impacts, Anticipatory Action (AA) has emerged as a practical method to prevent losses and damage through forecasts, pre-agreed funding, and early action. However, a gap remains in bridging social inclusion with AA, in academia and practice alike. Exploring social inclusion within DRRM and AA processes can reveal how resilience is built at the community level. This study bridges the knowledge gap between the two topics, aiming to identify pathways to lower disaster risk for marginalised populations and ways forward for more socially inclusive AA. It did so by exploring whether and how social inclusion is understood and operationalised in AA frameworks and identifying barriers faced by practitioners. To meet these ends, the research adopted a qualitative abductive research methodology and conducted semi-structured interviews with practitioners using the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement as a case. The findings show a back-and-forth process between conceptualising social inclusion as a complex matter and practitioners’ need for tangibility in its operationalisation, often caused by fused vagueness and technicality of AA. Social inclusion experts and AA practitioners portrayed notable differences in their understanding of inclusive AA. Additionally, social inclusion in AA was understood and operationalised in line with organisational mandates and ways of working, although barriers were identified. The research highlights the importance of collaboration and coordination within and across organisations, as well as increased resources allocated for social inclusion. Largely, AA has the potential to integrate social inclusion in a meaningful way if it is considered from the beginning, with clear mandates.

Popular Abstract

Introduction
When disasters strike, humanitarian aid cannot always reach people in time, calling for proactive actions before an impending hazard, an approach known as Anticipatory Action (AA). Additionally, disaster impacts are experienced differently across communities. Marginalised individuals are more likely to experience losses and damages from disasters, requiring planning to take various perspectives into account from the start. AA provides an opportunity as the proactive, predefined process of its plans enables it to address individual vulnerabilities to hazards, but only when initiatives are appropriately tailored. However, ensuring these early actions benefit marginalised groups remains a challenge. This research showed that reliance on tangible actions and organisational approaches, as well as differences in knowledge and responsibilities, can make social inclusion difficult to translate from theory into practice, yet also open pathways for the future.

Main text
Disaster risk reduction and management is most effective when considering the needs, capacities and perspectives of marginalised communities from the start. As a humanitarian approach that plans actions and budgets before a hazard occurs, AA has the potential to address different vulnerabilities and support those who are disproportionately affected, namely persons with disabilities, the LGBTQIA+ community, women and children. Despite growing interest in AA, little research has explored how organisations include marginalised communities. To address this gap, practitioners across the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement working with AA were interviewed.

The study found that practitioners generally recognise the importance of social inclusion. The results describe how social inclusion is understood generally and within AA, as well as which groups are typically identified. Furthermore, how practitioners implement social inclusion in AA, or lack thereof, was presented through assessments, activities, trigger setting, funding, stakeholder engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Enablers and barriers to practitioners’ implementation of social inclusion in AA include resources, knowledge and awareness, relationships, formal and informal environments, and early entry as key factors, as well as complexity.

Notably, social inclusion is often understood differently by people, with some having great insight into it and others lacking expertise. While AA relies on clearly defined and tangible actions, social inclusion can be challenging to define and measure. This can lead to a mismatch of priorities, where inclusion is recognised as important but is not always translated into practical action, or risks omitting inherent complexities.

Moreover, the mainstreaming approach to social inclusion further results in uncertainty surrounding responsibilities. Social inclusion becomes a task that does not have a clearly defined role or responsibility and risks becoming forgotten in practical implementation. Organisations should ensure that mainstreaming does not become a scapegoat for responsibility and instead a requirement throughout.
Another important finding was the need for stronger collaboration and communication. Working closely with local governments, community members, civil society organisations, and other partners was seen as essential for designing more inclusive AA programmes. Moreover, improved internal coordination and communication were identified as a requirement to produce more inclusive AA and move more effectively from international to local levels.

Overall, the study shows that making Anticipatory Action more inclusive is not only about identifying vulnerable groups. It also requires clearer responsibilities, stronger collaboration, and a shared understanding of what social inclusion means in practice. By addressing these challenges, humanitarian organisations can ensure that early action reaches all people who need it most before disasters strike.

• author: Dufau, Sarah Elisabeth and Peschel, Josephine
• supervisor: Sara Bondesson
• organization: Division of Risk Management and Societal Safety
• course: VBRM15 20261
• year: 2026
• type: H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
• subject: Technology and Engineering
• keywords: Preparedness, Response, Social inequality, Social Exclusion, Mainstreaming, Gender Equality, Vulnerable Groups, Forecast-based Financing, Hydrometeorological hazard
• language: English
• id: 9246579
• date added to LUP: 2026-07-06 10:24:37
• date last changed: 2026-07-06 10:24:37