850 P. McElwee et al.


TABLE 8 Conservation changes made after receiving payments for environmental services, by household type, in 2011 and 2015. Variation in the number reporting reflects households who reported having received a payment in the previous year.


Conservation change (% of households)1


No changes in forest practices


Did not convert land to fields


Did not remove logs (for house building or sale)


Prevent others from using forest


Prevent forest fires Other


Male-headed house- holds, 2011 (n = 77)


21 1


16


Did not collect fuelwood 13 Replanting/regeneration


5


49 57


10


Female-headed house- holds, 2011 (n = 15)


46 0 0 0


13 40


47 6


1Multiple categories could be chosen and therefore columns do not necessarily sum to 100%.


However, in another site (Sơn La), payments were not high enough to provide income and energy substitutes, and in- come from collection of fuelwood had increased. Rates of participation in PES activities were lower both


for female-headed households and for women within male- headed households, confirming global trends. In particular, the per cent of female-headed households enrolling in PES was lower overall and did not increase over time, a sign that quotas in PES policy could be useful for these households. At the same time, female-headed households reported ex- pending more yearly effort on PES contracts when they did have them, so additional support for these households (who may be labour constrained, depending on circum- stance) may also be warranted, such as through higher pay- ment rates or other subsidies. Despite women lagging behind in participation, the over-


all trend has been towards more equality between husbands and wives (Tables 4 & 5). Initially gender perceptions re- garding the types of work required for PES limited women’s involvement, but this appears to have changed towards more equal participation of women within male-headed households within just a few years, despite a lack of formal quotas or guidance. We speculate this is probably a result of more familiarity with PES over time and a recognition that women can do the tasks necessary for payments (e.g. patrol- ling or forest restoration activities). This is in contrast to the case in Costa Rica where inequality in participation between men and women increased over time, perhaps reflecting cultural patterns rather than the structure of the PES system (Schwartz, 2017). However, regardless of our finding that over time more equitable participation has been achieved at the family level, we cannot yet conclude there is improved women’s empowerment at the community level through participation in PES. This will require further study. Trends in the use of PES money within the household have also changed over time, with significant differences


between sites, reflecting cultural norms. Initially in Lâm Đồng, with cultural histories of matriarchal households, women were the main decision-makers on payments, but within a few years that had changed towards joint decision- making. In Sơn La, where initially men were the primary decision-makers, this site also showed higher joint participa- tion within a few years. Thus, in matriarchal societies, there has been an increased role for men, whereas in patriarchal ones there has been a shift to increased roles for women. As others have pointed out, gender is not the only factor in- fluencing involvement in PES, as class, ethnicity, and other factors may be as important (Yang et al., 2018). Would conservation in PES be different or more success-


ful with more gender-specific policies? We are not yet able to conclude this definitively based on our data, although they do indicate positive trends. Payments for environmen- tal services over time have increased conservation efforts for most households, particularly in reducing collection of for- est products and fuelwood in areas where payments were larger. Female-headed households receiving payments also reported being more active in forest protection activities after a few years of incentives than they were at the begin- ning, when they lagged behind men. This may be an argu- ment for avoiding short-term projects and ensuring there is sufficient time for female-headed households to secure the benefits of both payments and overall forest conservation. Based on our findings, we conclude with a few sugges-


tions for building attention to gender into PES projects. Firstly, where PES restrictions fall more heavily on women (e.g. fuelwood collection), additional in-kind investment, such as in alternative cooking fuels, could be beneficial. Secondly, increased involvement of civil society organiza- tions (either local women’s organizations or NGOs) in PES could improve women’s ability to be seen and included, particularly for female-headed households; additionally, NGOs could fund training for male staff members of PES


Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 844–852 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320000733


Male-headed house- holds, 2015 (n = 59)


3


20 36 19


20 69


56 3


Female-headed house- holds, 2015 (n = 11)


9


36 73 27 64 55


0 0


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164