Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes: a systematic map protocol

Environmental Evidence

David Wilkie⁶  Terry Sunderland⁸  Leah Samberg⁵  Diane Russell²  Dilys Roe³  Elizabeth Matthews⁶  Bina Agarwal⁷  Michael Day³  Francesca Booker³  Gheda Temsah⁴  Craig Leisher¹ 

[1] The Nature Conservancy (TNC), 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington 22203, VA, USA;Forestry and Biodiversity Office, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington 20004, DC, USA;Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor 16115, Indonesia;ICF International (IFCI), 1725 I St NW #1000, Washington 20006, DC, USA;Conservation Science Partners, 527 Cleveland Street, Missoula 59801, MT, USA;Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), 2300 Southern Blvd, Bronx 10460, NY, USA;School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 80-86 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK

关键词: Sustainability;    Livelihoods;    Gender impacts;    Forests;    Fishing;    Equity;    Conservation;    Citizen participation;   

Others  :  1214019
DOI  :  10.1186/s13750-015-0039-2

 received in 2015-02-10, accepted in 2015-04-21,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

In the fields of environmental governance and biodiversity conservation, there is a growing awareness that gender has an influence on resource use and management. Several studies argue that empowering women in resource governance can lead to beneficial outcomes for resource sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Yet how robust is the evidence to support this claim? Here we focus on the forestry and fisheries sectors to answer the primary question: What is the evidence that the gender composition of forest and fishery managementgroups affects resource governance and conservation outcomes? Our objective is to produce a systematic map of the evidence highlighting, inter alia, the geographic distribution and quality of the evidence, the consistency and robustness of the findings, and where further research is needed.

Methods/design

This protocol provides the details of the methodology. The search terms used to identify relevant articles were developed in an iterative process using the phraseology of the primary question, Boolean operators, and a list of synonyms for each term. The search terms will be used to identify relevant articles in CAB Abstracts, Scopus, AGRIS, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, and Google. A test library of 12 articles will ensure that the search captures the relevant literature. Searches will be in English but will not be restricted by publication date. The websites of 22 international organisations with a known interest in gender-related issues will be screened for relevant documents. The gender-focussed researchers at large conservation NGOs, the members of the Poverty and Conservation Learning Group, and the members of the Gender and Environment Working Group will be invited to submit relevant documents. The list of references of included articles will be screened to identify other relevant articles in a ‘backwards snowballing’ approach. The inclusion criteria are that an article refers to women or gender, forests or fisheries, a resource management group, a quantitative comparison, and an environmental governance or biodiversity conservation outcome in a non-OECD country. A data extraction template with 27 variables will be used to assess the included articles. The output will be a narrative report with descriptive statistics and an evidence-gap map.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Leisher et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Curtis M, Schmidt C, Struber M. Gender diversity and corporate leadership. Credit Suisse, Zurich; 2012.
• [2]Desvaux G, Devillard S, Sancier-Sultan S. Women at the top of corporations: making it happen. McKinsey and Company, Paris; 2010.
• [3]Agarwal B. Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecol Econ. 2009; 68:2785-99.
• [4]Westermann O, Ashby J, Pretty J. Gender and social capital: the importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World Dev. 2005; 33:1783-99.
• [5]Agarwal B. Gender and green governance: the political economy of women’s presence. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2010.
• [6]Chattophadhyay R, Duflo E. Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica. 2004; 72:1409-43.
• [7]Beaman L, Duflo E, Pande R, Topalova P. Political reservation and substantive representation: evidence from Indian village councils. India Policy Forum. 2010–11;7:159–91.
• [8]Agarwal B. Does women’s proportional strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in South Asia. World Dev. 2010; 38:98-112.
• [9]Sun Y, Mwangi E, Meinzen-Dick R. Is gender an important factor influencing user groups’ property rights and forestry governance? Empirical analysis from East Africa and Latin America. Int For Rev. 2011; 13:205-19.
• [10]Agarwal B. Bargaining and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Fem Econ. 1997; 3:1-51.
• [11]Gutierrez-Montes I, Emery M, Fernandez-Baca E. Why gender matters to ecological management and poverty reduction. In: Integrating ecology and poverty reduction. Ingram JA, DeClerck F, Rumbaitis Del Rio C, editors. Springer, New York; 2012: p.39-59.
• [12]Sunderland T, Achdiawan R, Angelsen A, Babigumira R, Ickowitz A, Paumgarten F et al.. Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: a global comparative study. World Dev. 2014; 64:S56-66.
• [13]Aguilar L. Framework for conducting gender responsive analysis. IUCN Gender Office, Washington DC; 2014.
• [14]Leisher C. Kenya’s national gender context and its implications for conservation: a gender analysis. Nature Conservancy, Arlington VA; 2013.
• [15]Schneider H. The future face of conservation: could it be female? Oryx. 2013; 47:1-2.
• [16]Westerman K. Guidelines for integrating gender into conservation projects. Conservation International, Crystal City, VA; 2014.
• [17]Samberg L, Leisher C. Conservation and gender literature review. Arlington, VA, The Nature Conservancy; 2012.
• [18]FRA 2015 terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome; 2012.
• [19]Issues in poverty reduction and governance. USAID, Washington DC; 2006.
• [20]User’s guide to DRG programming. USAID, Washington DC; 2014.
• [21]World Bank. What is Governance? [http://go.worldbank.org/G2CHLXX0Q0]
• [22]Section 2. UN Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal; 1992.
• [23]World Economic Forum. 2014 Gender Gap Index. [http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/rankings/]
• [24]Pullin AS, Knight TM. Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. J Nat Con. 2003; 11:83-90.
• [25]Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004; 19:305-8.
• [26]Pullin AS, Salafsky N. Save the whales? Save the rainforest? Save the data! Conserve Biol. 2010; 24:915-7.
• [27]Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L. Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, London: Cabinet Office; 2003. [http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/21069/2/a-quality-framework-tcm6-38740.pdf]
• [28]Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991; 45:214-22.
• [29]Cab Abstracts. [http://www.cabi.org/]
• [30]OvidSP. [http://ovidsp.ovid.com/]
• [31]Scopus. [http://www.scopus.com/]
• [32]CAB Thesaurus. [http://www.cabi.org/cabthesaurus/]
• [33]AGRIS. [http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/index.do]
• [34]AGRICOLA. [http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/]
• [35]Endnote. [http://www.endnote.com]
• [36]Google Scholar. [http://scholar.google.co.uk/]
• [37]Google. [https://www.google.com/]
• [38]Poverty and Conservation Learning Group. [http://povertyandconservation.info/]
• [39]Gender and Environment Working Group. [https://sites.google.com/a/usaid.gov/gender-environment-working-group/home?pli=1]
• [40]Hagen-Zanker J, Mallet R. How to do a rigorous, evidence-focused literature review in international development, a guidance note. Overseas Development Institute, London; 2013.
• [41]Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960; 20:37-46.
• [42]Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med. 2002; 21:1635-40.
• [43]Coleman EA, Mwangi E. Women’s participation in forest management: a cross-country analysis. Global Environ Chang. 2013; 23:193-205.
• [44]Wells K, Littell JH. Study quality assessment in systematic reviews of research on intervention effects. Res Soc Work Pract. 2009; 19:52-62.
• [45]Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd IL. Quality assessment tools for evidence from environmental science. Environ Evid. 2014; 3:1-14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J. 2004; 328:1490-4.
• [47]Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). 2011. [http://www.cochrane-handbook.org]
• [48]Farrington DP, Gottfredson DC, Sherman LW, Welsh BC. The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In: Evidence-based crime prevention. Sherman LW, Farrington DP, Welsh BC, MacKenzie DL, editors. Routledge, London; 2002: p.13-21.
• [49]Microsoft Excel. [http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel/]
• [50]Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, Gaarder M. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6725. World Bank, Washington DC; 2013.