Women in conservation 861
evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that engaging women in natural resource management and conservation efforts leads to improved outcomes. Leisher et al. (2016), for ex- ample, cited three studies that identified conservation benefits when women were included. Similarly, a study of natural resource management groups across 20 countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia found that collaboration, solidarity and conflict resolution increased where women were present (Westermann et al., 2005). Other studies have found that greater representation of women leads to more equitable benefit sharing and improved conservation outcomes in forest conservation programmes (e.g. Upreti, 2001; Westerman, 2014; Vollan & Henry, 2019). However, this is not always the case, and better conservation out- comes do not always lead to more equitable benefits for women and vice versa. For example, where conservation is undertaken within strongly entrenched patriarchal systems, women who are already excluded from decisions around their land and resources are then also precluded from conservation activities and benefits (Doubleday & Adams, 2019). In addition, women are not a homogenous group and issues of intersectionality are important: age, social class, ethnicity and race are among the factors that deter- mine how and which women are involved in conservation. For example, improved enforcement of forest conservation regulations may deliver conservation or forestry benefits, but can disadvantage the poorest, most marginalized peo- ple (including women and men) who rely most on these resources (Agarwal, 2010a). There are few studies directly measuring the conserva-
tion or social benefits of deliberately considering women in conservation. A systematic review of published and un- published literature found only 17 studies linking gender and conservation (Leisher et al., 2016). Although the publi- cations in our search often included recommendations for how to address gender inequity and better consider women in conservation and natural resource management projects, there was limited evidence in the literature for how this was applied and achieved. We therefore aimed to: (1) examine the existing research on the link between considering women and conservation/natural resource man- agement outcomes, (2) identify the barriers and oppor- tunities that women face in engaging in conservation and natural resource management, and (3) use this analysis to determine research and information gaps and propose a set of recommendations to enable meaningful inclusion of women in conservation and natural resource management.
Methods
We comprehensively reviewed publications dated 1 January 2000–31 January 2020. We searched the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, USA) and University of Queensland Library (University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia) databases using the following search terms: (‘gender’ OR ‘women’ OR ‘women’s empowerment’)AND (‘conser- vation’ OR ‘biodiversity’ OR ‘natural research management’ OR ‘environmental management’ OR ‘climate change’ OR ‘conservation benefits’OR‘decision-making’OR‘sustainability’ OR ‘community conservation’ OR ‘development’ OR ‘policy’ OR ‘governance’ OR ‘protected areas’ OR ‘leadership’). We included in our analysis articles that had been pub-
lished in a peer-reviewed journal and addressed gender in at least one of threeways: (1) examining if/how the inclusion of women can improve conservation or natural resource man- agement, (2) describing a project in which women are in- volved in conservation or natural resource management, or (3) providing recommendations for involving women in conservation or natural resource management. We limited our research to articles published in English and focused on women rather than all genders. We categorized the articles resulting from our search
according to the geographical location of the study site. Two authors separately read each article and identified core themes relating to questions around barriers, opportunities and outcomes of women’s engagement in conservation and related fields (Letherby, 2011; Patton, 2015). The two authors then cross-checked the results to ensure consistency.Where there was disagreement on a theme or category for an article, the two authors discussed this and came to a joint conclu- sion, which was then verified by the other co-authors.
Results
Our search identified 230 articles with information relating to women and conservation or natural resourcemanagement (see full list in the references to Supplementary Table 1). The lead author was female in 70%ofthese articles (n = 160)and male in only 27%(in 3%ofarticles the gender of thelead author was not determined). Only 17%(n = 40) of the studies focused solely on biodiversity conservation, and over 50% (n = 118) on natural resourcemanagement (Fig. 1). Most stud- ies had been conducted in Asia (31%, n = 72)andAfrica (26%, n=60), and only 6%(n = 24) in Australia/Oceania (Fig. 2). Five themes relating to women in conservation emerged
during the analysis of the 230 articles (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 1): (1) broader patriarchal, societal and cultural norms affect and generally limit how women can engage in con- servation and natural resource management (53%, n = 123 articles), (2) women interact with, use, understand and val- ue the environment differently thanmen (52%,n=120), (3) lim- ited resources and capability limit women’s opportun- ities to be involved in conservation and natural resource management (23%, n = 52), (4) women need to substantive- ly and meaningfully included in decision-making to have an impact, which requires dedicated research, effort and re- sources (7%, n = 17), and (5) patriarchal systems and the inclu- sion of women need to be addressed more comprehensively
Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 860–867 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001349
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
