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

Environmental Evidence

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Leisher, Craig ^a   Temsah, Gheda ^b   Booker, Francesca ^c,d   Day, Michael ^c,d   Agarwal, Bina ^e   Matthews, Elizabeth ^f   Roe, Dilys ^d   Russell, Diane ^g   Samberg, Leah ^h   Sunderland, Terry ^c   Wilkie, David ^f  

^a THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

^b ICF INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

^d CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH   (Indonesia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^f WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY   (United States)

^g UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^h Conservation Science Partners ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Citizen participation; Conservation; Equity; Fishing; Forests; Gender impacts; Livelihoods; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84950287617     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20472382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13750-015-0039-2     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Curtis M, Schmidt C, Struber M. Gender diversity and corporate leadership. Zurich: Credit Suisse; 2012 [ http://www.slidesearch.org/slide/gender-diversity-andcorporate-performance ]
2. Desvaux G, Devillard S, Sancier-Sultan S. Women at the top of corporations: making it happen. Paris: McKinsey and Company; 2010 [ http://www.asx.com.au/documents/media/2010-mckinsey-co-women-matter.pdf ]
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: Oxford University Press; 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: Ingram JA, DeClerck F, Rumbaitis Del Rio C, editors. Integrating ecology and poverty reduction. New York: Springer; 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. Washington DC: IUCN Gender Office; 2014 [ http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/framework-gender-analysis.pdf ]
14. Leisher C. Kenya's national gender context and its implications for conservation: a gender analysis. Arlington VA: Nature Conservancy; 2013 [ http://www.nature.org/science-in-action/leading-with-science/kenya-gender-analysis.pdf ]
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. Crystal City, VA: Conservation International; 2014 [ http://peoplefoodandnature.org/blog/demonstrating-how-to-integrate-gender-into-conservation/ ]
17. Samberg L, Leisher C. Conservation and gender literature review. The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, VA; 2012.
18. FAO. FRA 2015 terms and definitions. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2012 [ http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf ]
19. USAID. Issues in poverty reduction and governance. Washington DC: USAID; 2006 [ http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1862/issues-in-poverty-reduction-and-natural-resource-management.pdf ]
20. USAID. User's guide to DRG programming. Washington DC: USAID; 2014 [ http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/DRGUsersGuide-Aug2014.pdf ]
21. World Bank. What is Governance? [ http://go.worldbank.org/G2CHLXX0Q0 ]
22. Convention on Biological Diversity. Section 2. Montreal: UN Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 1992 [ http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf ]
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. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2013 [ http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8572.pdf ]
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.
46. GRADE Working Group. 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: Sherman LW, Farrington DP, Welsh BC, MacKenzie DL, editors. Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge; 2002. p. 13-21.
49. Microsoft Excel. [ http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel/ ]
50. Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, Gaarder M. Evidence gap maps - a tool for promoting evidence-informed policy and prioritizing future research. In: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6725. Washington DC: World Bank; 2013 [ http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-6725 ]