He says, she says: Ecosystem services and gender among indigenous communities in the Colombian Amazon

Abstract Although it has been hypothesized that men and women vary in the way they value ecosystem services, research on ecosystem services rarely incorporates a gender dimension. We conducted research with nine indigenous communities in the Colombian Amazon to understand which ecosystem services men and women perceive as most important for their wellbeing and to rank them according to locally-defined criteria of importance. Participants identified a total of 26 ecosystem services and 20 different ranking criteria. Ecosystem services such as land for agricultural fields (a supporting service), and provision of fish and medicinal plants were equally important for both men and women. Wild fruits and resources to make handicrafts were more frequently mentioned by women, whereas timber, materials for making tools and coca leaves were more frequently mentioned by men. There were also differences in the criteria used to value ecosystem services, with 11 criteria mentioned by both men and women, five mentioned exclusively by women and another four only by men. Our results suggest that taking gender differences into account in ecosystem services assessments may result in the prioritization of different services in conservation and sustainable development programs, and may lead to different outcomes for ecosystem service provision and local livelihoods.

[1]  M. Wan,et al.  Gender Analysis in Forestry Research: Looking Back and Thinking Ahead , 2011 .

[2]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Qualitative researching with text, image and sound : a practical handbook , 2000 .

[3]  C. Shackleton,et al.  Knowledge of plant resource use based on location, gender and generation , 2008 .

[4]  Gisella S. Cruz-Garcia,et al.  Are the major imperatives of food security missing in ecosystem services research , 2016 .

[5]  Charlie M. Shackleton,et al.  The role of non-timber forest products in household coping strategies in South Africa: the influence of household wealth and gender , 2011 .

[6]  R. Meinzen-Dick,et al.  Gender, property rights, and natural resources , 1997 .

[7]  D. Rocheleau,et al.  Women, Men and Trees: Gender, Power and Property in Forest and Agrarian Landscapes , 1997 .

[8]  K. Brown,et al.  Gender and ecosystem services : A blind spot , 2018 .

[9]  S. Arora-Jonsson,et al.  Forty years of gender research and environmental policy: Where do we stand? , 2014 .

[10]  M. Leach,et al.  Sustainable development: A gendered pathways approach , 2015 .

[11]  M. Honzák,et al.  Analysis of ecosystem services provision in the Colombian Amazon using participatory research and mapping techniques , 2015 .

[12]  E. Bennett,et al.  Disentangling the Pathways and Effects of Ecosystem Service Co-Production , 2016 .

[13]  Richard A. Krueger,et al.  When to Use Focus Groups and Why , 1993 .

[14]  M. Quintero,et al.  To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? , 2017 .

[15]  R. Costanza,et al.  Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making , 2009 .

[16]  A. Jarvis,et al.  Food security in a perfect storm: using the ecosystem services framework to increase understanding , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  E. Zavaleta,et al.  Local Ecosystem Service Use and Assessment Vary with Socio-ecological Conditions: A Case of Native Coffee-Forests in Southwestern Ethiopia , 2014 .

[18]  R. Chambers.  Revolutions in development inquiry , 2008 .

[19]  I. Woodhouse,et al.  Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research , 2013 .

[20]  C. Jost,et al.  Gender and Inclusion Toolbox: Participatory Research in Climate Change and Agriculture , 2014 .

[21]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[22]  Stephen Polasky,et al.  Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services as an Approach for Conservation and Natural‐Resource Management , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[23]  B. Agarwal,et al.  Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework , 2001 .

[24]  J. Gonzalez,et al.  Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences , 2012, PloS one.

[25]  J. Pretty,et al.  Gender and social capital: The importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of natural resource management groups , 2005 .

[26]  J. Aronson,et al.  The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity , 2010 .

[27]  S. Lele,et al.  Ecosystem Services: Origins, Contributions, Pitfalls, and Alternatives , 2013 .

[28]  K. Davis.  Intersectionality as buzzword , 2008 .

[29]  E. Bellinger,et al.  Importance value of landscapes, flora and fauna to Tsonga communities in the rural areas of Limpopo province, South Africa , 2007 .

[30]  C. Ringler,et al.  Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review , 2018, Ecosystem Services.

[31]  S. Nautiyal,et al.  Local Peoples' Knowledge, Aptitude and Perceptions of Planning and Management Issues in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India , 2003, Environmental management.

[32]  T. Daw,et al.  Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being , 2011, Environmental Conservation.

[33]  O. Ndoye,et al.  Gender implications of forest product value chains in the Congo basin , 2014 .

[34]  P. Bose,et al.  Gender perspectives in resilience, vulnerability and adaptation to global environmental change , 2016, Ambio.

[35]  L. Fontaine.  Les nouvelles interactions entre Yucuna et intervenants extérieurs (Colombie amazonienne) , 2008 .

[36]  A. Angelsen,et al.  Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study , 2014 .