864 R. James et al.


(4) Women need to be substantively and meaningfully included in conservation


Gender-disaggregated data showing the number of women and men involved in conservation and natural resource management are necessary to demonstrate impacts of in- cluding women, but looking beyond the numbers we also need to understand how women are involved and what power and agency they have over conservation and resource management (Call & Sellers, 2019; Cook et al., 2019). For example, an examination of forestry conservation pro- grammes in India showed that greater representation of women led to more equitable benefit sharing and improved conservation outcomes, with forest cover in the study areas increasing by 11%. However, for these benefits to be realized, women needed to make up at least 25–30% of the decision- making group (Agarwal, 2010b). Several authors noted that decision-making bodies need to include at least 30%women for them to effectively influence decisions (Agarwal, 2010a; Butler, 2013). It is also important to consider the adequacy of the tools


being used measure and understand women’s role in con- servation. For example, household surveys in which only one representative is interviewed can mask substantial differences between genders within the household (Verma, 2014). In addition, gender-neutral terms such as ‘fishers’, intended to be inclusive, can mask the different realities of women and men engaged in the fishing sector, or conceal that data are primarily being captured on men’s experience (Kleiber et al., 2014). Therefore, failure to conduct an ad- equate gender analysis can make it difficult to ensure equit- able representation, which then disproportionately disad- vantages women (Molden et al., 2014). Forestry research in India and Nepal found that although women spend more time than men using and managing forest resources, they face systemic exclusion and denial of benefit from these re- sources (Aditya, 2016). It is also important that these ana- lyses seek to reflect the complexity of gender, to capture the perspectives of individuals who do not identify within a binary gender concept, reflect intersectionality (Kojola, 2019) and avoid treating women or men as homogenous groups (Westervelt, 2018). The importance of considering intersectionality is illustrated in a study from Sulawesi, Indonesia, where women’s active participation in decision- making appeared to be more limited in mixed-ethnicity communities, compared to more ethnically homogeneous areas (Colfer et al., 2015).


(5) Inclusion of women needs to be addressed within conservation institutions


There are limited published data outlining how con- servation organizations consider gender within their own institutions (Jones & Solomon, 2019), and a tendency to


view gender as an issue only for low-income and emerging economies, and community development (Westberg & Powell, 2015). However, there is evidence of women being excluded within organizations focused on conservation and natural resource management, in external-facing pro- jects and programmes, and in research and policy-setting contexts (Jones & Solomon, 2019). For example, the num- ber of women occupying leadership positions on many conservation boards in Norway remains small (Lundberg, 2018), despite research showing the improved environmental performance and financial sustainability of organizations with gender-diverse boards (Glass et al., 2015;Hansen etal., 2016). Traditional gender roles are commonly reflected within conservation organizations (Mahour, 2016). For example, women often occupy interpretive, communicative and ad- ministrative roles (with a focus on so-called soft skills), and men are over-represented in positions that are more leadership-oriented and risk-taking or involve fieldwork (Westberg & Powell, 2015; Jones & Solomon, 2019). This often leaves women performing lower status tasks, rather than playing the roles of scientific experts and decision-makers that are more highly valued and more visible in these orga- nizations (CohenMiller et al., 2020;Westberg & Powell, 2015). Women also carry out more office housekeeping tasks that are unrelated to their core responsibilities, such as taking notes and organizing and coordinating events (Westberg & Powell, 2015). This in turn influences how conservation and natural resource management work and research are under- taken, for example which research questions are asked, which work is prioritized and who is considered. We found that 70% of articles relating to gender and conservation had female lead authors, which suggests that these research questions are less likely to be investigated if women are not in research positions.


Conclusion


Research shows that men benefit from and participate in conservation more than women but often there is limited commitment to addressing this (Schneider, 2013;Farnworth et al., 2015; Razafindratsima & Dunham, 2015). Our review identified significant and persistent barriers to women’sfull and meaningful participation in conservation and natural resource management efforts. Challenges include heavier workloads around caring and providing for the household (this was evident in every cultural context studied), lack of understanding of the gendered use of resources, and the dif- ferent access to resources between men and women. There is a persistent perception that men should be the decision ma- kers and leaders in most contexts, both within conservation/ natural resource management organizations and in commu- nities where this work is undertaken. There is also limited


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