Gender differences in land-use decisions: Shaping multifunctional landscapes?

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 128-133

  Villamor, Grace B ^a,b   van Noordwijk, Meine ^b   Djanibekov, Utkur ^a   Chiong Javier, Ma Elena ^c   Catacutan, Delia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE ICRAF   (Kenya)

^c DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY   (Philippines)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; INNOVATION; LAND USE CHANGE; LITERATURE REVIEW;

EID: 84890412013     PISSN: 18773435     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.015     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Wiggering H., Dalchow C., Glemnitz M., Helming K., Müller K., Schultz A., Stachow U., Zander P. Indicators for multifunctional land use-linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials. Ecol Indic 2006, 6:238-249.
2. Swift M.J., Izac A.M.N., van Noordwijk M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes-are we asking the right questions?. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2004, 104:113-134.
3. Helming K., Pérez-Soba M. Landscape scenarios and multifunctionality: making land use impact assessment operational. Ecol Soc 2011, 16:50.
4. Rounsevell M.D., Pedroli B., Erb K.-H., Gramberger M., Busck A.G., Haberl H., Kristensen S., Kuemmerle T., Lavorel S., Lindner M. Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:899-910.
5. Behrman J., Meinzen-Dick R., Quisumbing A: The gender implications of large-scale land deals. J Peasant Stud 2012, 39:49-79.
6. van Noordwijk M., Tomich T., Verbist B. Negotiation support models for integrated resource management in tropical forest margins. Ecol Soc 2001, 5(2):21.
7. van Noordwijk M., Leimona B., Jindal R., Villamor G.B., Vardhan M., Namirembe S., Catacutan D., Kerr J., Minang P.A., Tomich T.P. Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2012, 37:389-420.
8. Meyfroidt P. Environmental cognition, land change, and social-ecological feedbacks: an overview. J Land Use Sci 2012, 52:6674. 10.1080/1747423X.
9. Villamor G.B., Desrianti F., Akiefnawati R., Amaruzaman S., van Noordwijk M. Gender influences decisions to change land use practices in the tropical forest margins of Jambi, Indonesia. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 2013, 1-23. 10.1007/s11027-013-9478-7.
10. Dove M.R. The Banana Tree at the Gate A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo (Hardback) 2011, Yale University Press, New Hav.
11. Kiptot E., Franzel S. Gender and agroforestry in Africa: who benefits? The African perspective. Agroforestry-The Future of Global Land Use 2012, 463-497. Springer, Dordrecht. P.K.R. Nair, D. Garrity (Eds.).
12. Ragasa C. Gender and institutional dimensions of agricultural technology adoption: a review of literature and synthesis of 35 case studies. 2012 Conference 2012, International Association of Agricultural Economists, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.
13. Meinzen-Dick R., Behrman J., Menon P., Quisumbing A. Gender: A Key Dimension Linking Agricultural Programs to Improved Nutrition and Health 2012, 135. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC. S. Fan, R. Pandya-Lorch (Eds.).
14. Buchan N.R., Croson R.T., Solnick S. Trust and gender: an examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game. J Econ Behav Organ 2008, 68:466-476.
15. Leckie G.J. 'They Never Trusted Me to Drive': farm girls and the gender relations of agricultural information transfer. Gend Place Cult 1996, 3:309-326.
16. Cross R., Rice R.E., Parker A. Information seeking in social context: structural influences and receipt of information benefits. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet C: Appl Rev 2001, 31:438-448.
17. Gloede O., Menkhoff L., Waibel H. Risk attitude and risk behavior: comparing Thailand and Vietnam. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference 2011, No. 33.
18. Booth A.L., Nolen P. Gender differences in risk behaviour: does nurture matter?. Econ J 2012, 122:F56-F78.
19. Booth A., Nolen P. Salience, risky choices and gender. Econ Lett 2012, 117:517-520.
20. Croson R., Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit 2009, 47:448-474.
21. Eckel C.C., Grossman P.J. Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: experimental evidence. Handb Exp Econ Results 2008, 1:509-519.
22. Aitken S.C., An L., Wandersee S., Yang Y. Renegotiating Local Values: The Case of Fanjingshan Reserve 2011, Festschrift Publication, China.
23. Ibnouf F.O. Challenges and possibilities for achieving household food security in the Western Sudan region: the role of female farmers. Food Secur 2011, 3:215-231.
24. Wilson P., Harper N., Darling R. Explaining variation in farm and farm business performance in respect to farmer behavioural segmentation analysis: implications for land use policies. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:147-156.
25. García-Gallego A., Georgantzís N., Jaramillo-Gutiérrez A. Gender differences in ultimatum games: despite rather than due to risk attitudes. J Econ Behav Organ 2012, 83:42-49.
26. Coates J. The Hour Between Dog and Wolf: Risk Taking Gut Feelings and the Biology of Boom and Bust 2012, The Penguine Press, New York.
27. Fischer E., Qaim M. Gender, agricultural commercialization, and collective action in Kenya. Food Secur 2012, 1-13.
28. Njuki J., Kaaria S., Chamunorwa A., Chiuri W. Linking smallholder farmers to markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: does the choice of commodity matter?. Eur J Dev Res 2011, 23:426-443.
29. Peterman A., Behrman J., Quisumbing A. A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00975 2010, IFPRI, Washington DC.
30. Villamor G.B., van Noordwijk M., Troitzsch K.G., Vlek P.L.G. Human decision making for empirical agent-based models: construction and validation. International Environmental Modelling and Software: Managing Resources of a Limited Planet, Sixth Biennial Meeting 2012, International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs), Leipzig. R. Seppelt, A. Voinov, S. Lange, D. Bankamp, Leipzig (Eds.).
31. Mullaney E.G. Countertopographies of agriculture gender, food production, and development in a globalizing world. Consilience J Sustain Dev 2012, 8:101-114.
32. Chandra A., Lontoh L., Margawati A. Beyond Barriers: The Gender Implications of Trade Liberalization in Southeast Asia 2010, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba.
33. Bomuhangi A., Doss C., Meinzen-Dick R. Who owns the land? Perspectives from rural Ugandans and implications for land acquisitions. IFPRI discussion papers 2011.
34. Ndayambaje J., Mohren G.M.J.: Fuelwood demand and supply in Rwanda and the role of agroforestry. Agroforest Syst 2011, 83:303-320.
35. Villamor G.B., van Noordwijk M., Le Q.B., Lusiana B., Matthews R., Vlek P.L.G. Diversity deficits in modelled landscape mosaics. Ecol Inform 2011, 6:73-82.
36. Matthews R., Gilbert N., Roach A., Polhill J., Gotts N. Agent-based land-use models: a review of applications. Landscape Ecol 2007, 22:1447-1459.
37. Parker D.C., Manson S.M., Janssen M.A., Hoffmann M.J., Deadman P.J. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2003, 93:314-337.
38. Villamor G.B., van Noordwijk M., Troitzsch K.G., Vlek P.L.G. Human decision making in empirical agent-based models: pitfalls and caveats for land-use/change policies. 26th European Conference on Modelling and Simulation, Koblenz 2012, 631-638. K.G. Troitzsch, M. Moehring, U. Lotzmann (Eds.).
39. An L. Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: review of agent-based models. Ecol Model 2012, 229:25-36.
40. Hedström P., Åberg Y. Quantitative Research Agent-based Modelling and Theories of the Social 2005, 114-145. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41. Bruch E., Atwell J. Agent-based models in empirical social research. Sociol Methods Res 2013, 10.1177/0049124113506405.
42. Macy M.W., Willer R. From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annu Rev Sociol 2002, 28:143-166.
43. Schelling T.C. Models of segregation. Am Econ Rev 1969, 59:488-493.
44. Colfer C.J.P., Minarchek R.D. Women, men and forest research: a review of approaches, resources and methods for addressing gender. Occasional Paper 80 2012, CIFOR, Bogor.
45. Kennedy W.G. Modelling human behavior in agent-based models. Agent-based Models of Geographical Systems 2012, 167-179. Springer, Bonn. A.J. Heppenstall, A.T. Crooks, L.M. See, Batty M (Eds.).
46. Villamor G.B. Flexibility of multi-agent system models for rubber agroforest landscapes and social response to emerging reward mechanisms for ecosystem services in Sumatra, Indonesia. University of Bonn. Ecology and Development Series 88 2012, Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, (dissertation).
47. Mwangi E., Meinzen-Dick R., Sun Y. Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecol Soc 2011, 16:17.
48. Assé R., Lassoie J.P. Household decision-making in agroforestry parklands of Sudano-Sahelian Mali. Agroforest Syst 2011, 82:247-261.
49. 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, 33:1783-1799.
50. Ibnouf F.O. The value of women's indigenous knowledge in food processing and preservation for achieving household food security in rural Sudan. J Food Res 2012, 1:238.
51. Eckel C., De Oliveira A., Grossman P.J. Gender and negotiation in the small: are women (perceived to be) more cooperative than men?. Negotiation J 2008, 24:429-445.
52. Gunchinmaa T., Hamdamova D., van Koppen B. Gender in irrigated farming a case study in the Zerafshan River Basin, Uzbekistan. Gend Technol Dev 2011, 15:201-222.