Gender and payments for environmental services 851
institutions, or collect data on women’s participation in PES, which is not being done by the government system. Thirdly, including women’s names on land titles has been shown to lead to lower poverty incidence and higher edu- cation attainment (Menon et al., 2017); explicit inclusion of women’s names on PES contracts could be expected to have similar positive outcomes. Finally, we highlight several areas of research where at-
tention to gender remains insufficient. Firstly, more atten- tion should be paid to how PES income affects households in different settings in terms of decision-making, benefit- sharing and land management, as our data shows PES can change behaviours (Caro-Borrero et al., 2015). Secondly, despite growing attention to cultural ecosystem services and social justice in PES, there has been little explicit atten- tion to gender in this regard, and this could be improved (Jackson & Palmer, 2014; Singh, 2015). Finally, more studies that explicitly compare PES with other conditional cash transfer programmes for social welfare (for which gender is a strong component of research) would improve under- standing of the unique dynamics of PES (Rodríguez et al., 2011). Attention to these issues will help reduce the amount of gender blind approaches in PES and has the potential to improve sustainability and conservation outcomes as well.
Acknowledgements We thank our funders: grant 1061862 from the National Science Foundation’s Division for Geography and Regional Science to PM and a Partnerships in Enhanced Engagement in Research grant #AID-OAA-A-11-00012 to HTVL, TPN, HDV and NHT. We thank Diệp Xuân Tuấn, Hà Thị Trang, Hà Thị Oanh, Lê VănSơn, Đinh Bá Kha, Lê Quang Minh and Trương Quang Cường for assistance with surveys, two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, and Martin Fisher and Helen Anthem for their useful suggestions.
Author contributions Research design: PM; research: PM, TPN, HTVL, HDV, NHT; writing: PM; revision: TPN, HTVL, HDV, NHT.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards Research with human subjects was approved by Rutgers Institutional Review Board (11-606 M; originally approved 25 April 2011 and renewed annually). A statement about the research was read to each interviewee verbally, and signed consent forms (for survey respondents and focus group attendees) or verbal consent (for stakeholder interviews) was obtained from all people interviewed. This research otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
AGARWAL,B.(1997a) Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Development and Change, 28, 1–44.
AGARWAL,B.(1997b) ‘Bargaining’ and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Feminist Economics, 3, 1–51.
AGARWAL,B.(2009a) Rule-making in community forestry institutions: the difference women make. Ecological Economics, 68, 2296–2308.
AGARWAL,B.(2009b) Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics, 68, 2785–2799.
AGRAWAL, A., YADAMA, G., ANDRADE,R.&BHATTACHARYA,A. (2004) Decentralization, Community, and Environmental Conservation: Joint Forest Management and Effects of Gender Equity in Participation. Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi) Working Paper 53, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
ANDELTOVÁ, L., CATACUTAN, D.C.,WUNSCHER,T. & HOLM-MÜLLER,K.(2018) Gender aspects in action and
outcome-based payments for ecosystem services−a tree planting field trial in Kenya. Ecosystem Services, 35, 13–22.
BEE, B.A. (2019) Gendered spaces of payment for environmental services: a critical look. Geographical Review, 109, 87–107.
BENJAMIN, E.O., OLA,O. & BUCHENRIEDER,G.(2018) Does an agroforestry scheme with payment for ecosystem services (PES) economically empower women in sub-Saharan Africa? Ecosystem Services, 31, 1–11.
BOYD,E.(2002) The Noel Kempff project in Bolivia: gender, power, and decision-making in climate mitigation. Gender and Development, 10, 70–77.
CALVET-MIR, L., MARCH, H., CORBACHO-MONNÉ, D., GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN,E.&REYES-GARCÍA,V. (2016) Home garden ecosystem services valuation through a gender lens: a case study in the Catalan Pyrenees. Sustainability, 8, 718–732.
CAPLOW, S., JAGGER, P., LAWLOR,K.&SILLS, E.O. (2011) Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: lessons for learning about REDD. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 152–167.
CARO-BORRERO, A., CORBERA, E., NEITZEL, K.C., ALMEIDA- LEÑERO,L. (2015) ‘We are the city lungs’: payments for ecosystem services in the outskirts of Mexico City. Land Use Policy, 43, 138–148.
CORBERA,E.(2010) Mexico’s PES-carbon programme: a preliminary assessment and impacts on rural livelihoods. In Payments for Environmental Services, Forest Conservation and Climate Change: Livelihoods in the REDD? (eds L. Tacconi, S. Mahanty & H. Suich), pp. 54–81. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
CORBERA, E., BROWN,K. & ADGER,W.N. (2007) The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change, 38, 587–613.
CRUZ-GARCIA, G.S., CUBILLOS, M.V., TORRES-VITOLAS, C., HARVEY, C., SHACKLETON, C.M., SCHRECKENBERG, K. et al. (2019) He says, she says: ecosystem services and gender among Indigenous communities in the Colombian Amazon. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100921.
CRUZ-GARCIA, G.S., SACHET, E., BLUNDO-CANTO, G., VENEGAS,M. &QUINTERO,M. (2017) To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosystem Services, 25, 201–212.
DAW, T., BROWN, K., ROSENDO,S. & POMEROY, R.S. (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation, 38, 370–379.
DO, T.H., VŨ, T.P., VAN, T.N. & CATACUTAN,D.(2018) Payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam: an analysis of buyers’ perspectives and willingness. Ecosystem Services, 32, 134–143.
FORTNAM, M., BROWN, K., CHAIGNEAU, T., CRONA, B., DAW, T.M., GONÇALVES, D. et al. (2019) The gendered nature of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 159, 312–325.
ISHIHARA, H., PASCUAL,U.&HODGE,I.(2017) Dancing with storks: the role of power relations in payments for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 139, 45–54.
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
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
