Women in conservation 863


(e.g. when women are menstruating; Bradford & Katikiro, 2019). Similarly, forestry research shows that women’sroles in forestry management are still restricted by a ‘masculine gender order’ (Richardson et al., 2011,p. 525)thattends tomar- ginalize women’s contributions and participation, especially in leadership and decision-making (Varghese & Reed, 2012; Evans et al., 2017; Essougong et al., 2019). In addition, projects linking conservation to improving livelihoods have in some cases led to further inequities for women, such as increased workload with limitedmonetary gain (Kariuki&Birner, 2016). However, although policies from conservation organi-


zations recommend full participation by women, equitable benefit sharing, and promoting women’s empowerment in livelihood and conservation projects, there is less evidence in our review of a deeper understanding of the patriarchal systems within which these projects generally operate, and the limitations these place on women’s involvement. A gen- der analysis of grassland management in Mongolia showed that although there is awareness of the need to increase gen- der equity, women are rarely fully included in decisions and leadership around community land management in herding communities, and this is then reflected in conservation and natural resourcemanagement projects (Ykhanbai et al., 2006). Therefore, simply having women present in decision-making fora without considering the societal context will not resolve this disparity (Staples & Natcher, 2015; Baynes et al., 2019). The failure to adequately address prevailing social norms


echoes a broader tendency within the conservation com- munity to pursue biological or nature-based and techni- cal solutions without considering societal inequalities that exist where conservation is focused (Calhoun et al., 2016., Westholm & Arora-Jonsson, 2018). This could be because conservation researchers and practitioners often lack awareness of societal norms or the skills to address them. Conservation organizations typically invest more heavily in natural science/ecology than social science. Social struc- tures may also be perceived as fixed, or outside the scope of conservation work. Regardless of the cause, social inequal- ities can inadvertently be compounded by conservation ef- forts and the result is often that women have less decision- making power, receive fewer benefits from conservation and carry a greater burden of the environmental labour than men (Westholm & Arora-Jonsson, 2015).


(2) Women interact with, use, understand and value the environment differently than men


Over 50% of articles highlighted that women often interact with, use, understand and value the environment different- ly than men (e.g. Aswani et al., 2015; Purcell et al., 2016; Allendorf & Yang, 2017; Yang et al., 2018). In marine areas, for example, women commonly undertake inshore fishing, whereas men often undertake coastal and offshore fishing. Therefore, if women are not represented in fisheries


decisions and deliberate efforts are not made to acknow- ledge and incorporate their knowledge, the resources they value are not considered in management planning. Projects (particularly those linked to the development of livelihoods) may exacerbate inequalities between men and women when their differing use of natural resources is not fully understood or considered. For example, lack of un- derstanding of gender dynamics in the forestry sector in Senegal, and poor representation of women in decision- making around land and forest policy, limits women’s access to and control over natural resources, with direct, negative implications for their sources of income and live- lihoods (Bandiaky-Badji, 2011).


(3) Women lack resources and/or capability to engage in conservation


There is evidence that limited access to land and resources, for example as a result of insecure land tenure, dispro- portionately affects women (e.g. Schneider, 2013; St. Clair, 2016; Dyer, 2018). A study of 240 rural women in Nigeria found that women’s limited access to and ownership of land limits their ability to harvest forest resources and pro- vide for their families’ needs (Adedayo et al., 2010). Similarly, in Senegal the lack of women’s representation on local governance councils has affected women’s access to resources, including forestry products, water, education and health services (Bandiaky-Badji, 2011). This also rein- forces other societal inequities related to gender, including for example the perception that women are dependent on men (Mukadasi & Nabalegwa, 2007). Women’slack of access is further exacerbated when natural resources such as water become scarcer as a result of climate change (Djoudi & Brockhaus, 2011). In many countries there are also gaps in documented knowledge about women’s land rights and access to land (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2019). Gender analyses in countries such as Solomon Islands


and Brazil show that although women feel their resources need to be better managed, they may lack access to the in- formation and resources needed to contribute meaningfully to decisions (Di Ciommo & Schiavetti, 2012; Kruijssen et al., 2015). In many parts of the world, women and girls have reduced access to education (particularly secondary and tertiary), which can limit their invitation and perceived legit- imacy to be part of conservation actions, and their access to positions within conservation and natural resource management organizations. An analysis across Bolivia, Mex- ico, Uganda and Kenya found the likelihood that a woman would be entrusted with the responsibility of representing the household on a forestry committee increased with her level of education (Coleman &Mwangi, 2013), demonstrat- ing that lack of access to education can be a barrier for women, preventing them from contributing to conserva- tion and natural resource management.


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