https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9829-9607
ABSTRACT
Understanding gender roles in natural resource use is essential for culturally-tailored effective conservation. Despite its conservation priority, little is known about the gender roles of forest product use in Madagascar. This study used over seven years of data from 1,255 interviews on the extraction, use, and sale of forest, freshwater, and marine resources, to examine gender roles. We found that gender significantly affects natural resource use in Madagascar. While men were primarily responsible for natural resource collection, women collected nearly all resources in at least one household. Both genders collected resources, with subsistence use as the primary incentive for resource collection. Yet proportionally, women purchased twice as much of their resources as men, and men collected resources to generate income more than women did. Gendered spaces resulted in women collecting most of the resources within rivers, whereas men collected in oceans and forested lands, with key implications for gender-aware representation in conservation management. We use this understanding of gender roles to advise natural resource management strategies which can ensure the continued delivery of ecosystem services while promoting gender equity.
Key policy highlights
● Prioritize the involvement of women in the conservation of medicinal plants and freshwater ecosystems.
● Create safeguards for women within policies which restrict the sales of natural resources, including increasing access to affordable market alternatives.
● Economic strategies which aim to increase the sustainability of natural resource sales should include girls as key stakeholders.
Edited by:
Introduction
Gender roles are socially constructed norms and practices that translate into different rights, opportunities, and constraints, and can affect one’s identity (Nightingale Citation2002; Davis and Greenstein Citation2009). These roles are sometimes distinguished by an individual’s tasks, ownership, or responsibilities, and are influenced by group ideology, expectations, divisions of labor, and social norms (Tantoh et al. Citation2021). Because such roles can reinforce gaps in income, power, responsibilities, and access to resources (Saha & Agarwalla Citation2023; Järvilehto Citation2005; Nordman and Vaillant Citation2014; Davis Citation2019), consideration of gender roles is essential to the effective culturally tailoring of both social and environmental actions. For example, in many societies women oversee the collection of water for cleaning and cooking while men own more land, disadvantaging women’s access to land resources more than aquatic ones (Agarwal Citation1997; Dodo Citation2013). Gender roles can affect how and why natural resources are used, exploited, and managed, creating an imbalance in the access to and benefit from resources; that should be understood when designing conservation actions (Fonjong Citation2008; Agarwal Citation2009; Mwangi et al. Citation2011).
Despite this, many conservation programs fail to address gender inequity (Lau and Scales Citation2016; Massoi Citation2019; James et al. Citation2021), and few programs are designed to consider how gender roles affect the collection, use, and/or trade of the resources they manage (Folasade Citation2016). Efforts which carefully consider gender roles while empowering women in natural resource management are likely to be more effective because they tailor their programs to address who is using specific natural resources and why (Upreti Citation2001; Westerman Citation2014; Folasade Citation2016; Leisher et al. Citation2016). Yet, less than 5% of research articles about gender and natural resource management clearly demonstrate how involving women can help improve conservation efforts (James et al. Citation2021). Neglecting to consider the gender dimensions of conservation efforts can and limit the overall effectiveness of environmental interventions and perpetuate gender inequalities in the household decision making overall (Flintan Citation2003; Wekesah et al. Citation2019).
Madagascar has long been a priority for international conservation (Ganzhorn et al. Citation2014). Its high levels of endemism are threatened by unsustainable hunting and clearing of land driven by food insecurity and climate change (Wilmé et al. Citation2006; Rothamel et al. Citation2021; Borgerson et al. Citation2022; Goodman Citation2022; Suzzi-Simmons Citation2023; Thompson et al. Citation2023). Although the island nation has received more than US$700 million in conservation funding since 1990, creating more than 500 conservation projects, biodiversity continues to decline, indicating a pressing need to reassess the effectiveness and impact of the existing conservation initiatives (Waeber et al. Citation2016; Wekesah et al. Citation2019; Andriamihaja et al. Citation2021).
Madagascar’s constitution promotes equal rights, participation and access to resources regardless of gender. However, in practice gender disparities persist (Lund and Boone Citation2013). Traditional Malagasy gender norms often support the notion of men as breadwinners and heads of households and communities, responsible for decision-making, representation, security, and the organization of political, economic, and social life (Nordman and Roubaud Citation2009). While household gender roles are well-studied (Leavens et al. Citation2019; Gebre et al. Citation2021), there remains little information to inform gender-tailored conservation efforts in Madagascar.
This study examines gender roles within the extraction, use, and sale of natural forest and marine resources over seven years near Madagascar’s largest national park, the Masoala National Park. Specifically, we examine:
How is natural resource use affected by a collector’s gender?
How does gender affect incentives for acquiring natural resources?
Does gender predict how a resource is acquired? and
Do gender roles for natural resource use change throughout one’s lifetime?
As we dive deeper into the specific gender roles in natural resource use in Madagascar, we can leverage this analysis to promote gender-awareness in conservation strategies.
Methods
Study site
This study was conducted on the Masoala Peninsula, a 4,254 km2 forested coastal peninsula in north-eastern Madagascar (), which contains the country’s largest national park. The Masoala National Park protects 2,300 km2 (880 mi2) of contiguous lowland and mid-elevation rainforest rising 1,200 m above the sea level. This park and its surrounding forests supply essential ecosystem services to the 144,650 people which live on its periphery and primarily depend on subsistence agriculture and fishing (Borgerson et al. Citation2022). The Masoala Peninsula is in a mountainous area far from road access (Kremen et al. Citation1999), and the primary means of transportation is by foot, motorcycle, or boat.
Figure 1. Study region with Masoala National Park.
Ethics
The Republic of Madagascar, Madagascar National Parks, and Human Subjects Institutional Review Boards (Protocols No. 2010–0595 at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, No. 13–1862 and 15–2230 at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, and No. 18-19-1349 at Montclair State University) approved all research. We obtained oral informed consent from all participants, as well as each community’s local administrator.
Data collection and analysis
We collected data on natural resource use within 1–13 communities over seven years (2015–2021; ). We conducted surveys within the same season (January to March) to ensure consistency in the recall period. We interviewed all households in each community each year, but did not track individual households longitudinally across years. This approach ensured that we included a comprehensive representation of the entire community each year, while protecting individual identity. The sample size varied annually and as households also move in and out of communities each year, the exact number of households resurveyed each year varied.
Table 1. Percentage of women and collecting and using different resources over seven years on the Masoala Peninsula of Madagascar (2015–2021).
We conducted surveys in Malagasy and asked each of the total 1,255 households about their natural resource use during the prior year. In each structured interview, we asked participants (1) if they used each resource, and if so, if they (2) collected the resources themselves and/or purchased the good, (3) intended to use the good for subsistence or sale, and (4) their self-identified age-class and gender. To define the age class of resource users, we asked the household if the person who was primarily responsible for collecting that resource was a child or an adult. This determination of age was based on how the household saw the member and we had no specific numeric cut off. We did not consider, nor record, the ethnicity, or the gender of the self-declared head of household in our analysis. We did not differentiate between men and women-headed households.
For plant-based products, we asked whether the household members had used or purchased six categories of plant-based natural resources (firewood, palm thatch for construction, wood for construction, wood for transportation (boats), plants for medicinal use, and/or bark for fermentation) and/or cleared land during the prior year. The survey questions were asked for each category. Because extraction methods and their gender roles varied more widely for animal-based resources, we asked about the use and gender roles of five different methods of aquatic animal capture (net fishing, line fishing, free diving, sifting, and aquatic traps) and three different methods of terrestrial animal capture (trapping, sling shots, or gun). The rest of the survey questions were repeated for each of the categories. The resource use was differentiated based on where the resource was found on land or in water (). These lands include both private land and multiple-use zones in the state-owned forests. However, it is important to note that in Madagascar, protected areas are under ‘unspecified’ tenure, and land in protected areas that are non-forested, are often claimed by local communities (Rajaonarivelo et al. Citation2021; Rakotonarivo et al. Citation2023). Thus, we did not ask the participants whether products were collected within our outside of protected area borders.
Figure 2. Classification of natural resources by location.
To see how gender roles in natural resources collection and use change with age of the user, we calculated the percentage of households where men, boys, women, and girls were primarily responsible for obtaining each resource during the prior year, and how and why they used it. We used logistic regression analysis to test the effects of gender and age on the primary incentive of resource collection and the method used to collect the resource. Further, we examined how these dimensions are changing over time. Contingency analysis was used to test whether the variables in each hypothesis were independent.
Results
Nearly all (99.92%) of the 1,252 households we interviewed over seven years (2015–2021) used natural resources during the prior year. Most households used both wild plant (97.13%) and animal (92.68%) based products. Overall, natural resources were primarily collected by men (76.81% of all household natural resource collection was done by men), whether those resources were plant (78.04% of products were collected by men) or animal-based forest products (74.75%). Women still led the collection of all types of resources in at least one household (9.05% collected firewood, 8.49% collected palm thatch, 5.37% collected timber for construction of houses, 2.08% collected timber for construction of boats). Individuals sought natural resources either with the goal of using them for subsistence or selling them for income. Natural resources were almost entirely sought after for their subsistence uses by both men (88.86%) and women (95.12%), yet significantly more men collected resources with the primary goal of earning income than did women (11.14% and 4.88% of resources were collected with the incentive to earn income by men and women, respectively; χ2 = 46.62, p < 0.0001). Natural resources were either collected directly or purchased. While both women (84.01%) and men (92.42%) directly collected most of the forest resources they used, women purchased significantly more than men (χ2 = 121.00, p < 0.0001; 15.99% vs 7.58% of resources used).
Gender roles changed during the study, with an increase in the overall involvement of women in natural resource collection 23.22% to 29.83% (χ2 = 17.32, p < 0.0001; ). While the relative percentage of men and women involved in each activity varied annually because of variation in annual sample size (1–13 communities), large differences can also be attributed to the small number of individuals who collected those resources (). For example, only a few people trapped underwater (1–9 individuals), so when an individual didn’t water trap that year, the relative percentage of men or women involved could appear to vary greatly. Further, people are increasingly collecting necessary resources by themselves, and the percentage of resources purchased has significantly declined for both men (from 20.30% to 1.95%; χ2 = 156.57, p < 0.0001) and women (from 27.27% to 11.82%; χ2 = 13.87, p = 0.0002).
Gender variation in plant-based resource use
In most (78.04%) households, men were primarily responsible for collecting plant-based resources (). The sole exception to this was medicinal plants, where slightly more women were responsible for its collection than men (women were primarily responsible in 51.84% of households; ). The gender dynamics of plant based resource collection remained unchanged throughout the study (χ2 = 0.91, p = 0.3397). While most resources were collected for subsistence use by both men and women, more men collected plant resources with the intention of selling them (3.62%) than women (0.62%; χ2 = 26.70, p < 0.0001). When women collected plant-based resources themselves, they primarily collected medicinal plants (99.65% of that they used by women was directly harvested the bark of the tree for alcohol fermentation (92.59%), and firewood (76.36%). When women purchased resources, they primarily bought palm thatch for roofing (81.01% of the thatch they used was purchased) and timber for the construction of houses (81.81%) and boats (100.00%; ). Although nearly two-thirds (62.75%) of all sold plant resources were bought by men (), women purchased more than twice the amount of resources they used than did men (16.09% of the resources they used compared to only 7.63%; χ2 = 46.89, p < 0.0001; ). Women purchased all (100%) of all sold medicinal plants, most sold firewood (79.27%), and half of palm thatch (57.14%; ). Such differences in the overall use of resources by women and men () and how resources are used overall (), shed light on underlying dynamics and important factors affecting both women () and natural resource conservation ().
Table 2. How and why women and men differently used, collected, or purchased plant-based resources over seven years on the Masoala Peninsula of Madagascar (2015–2021).
Table 3. Subsistence and market collection of plants by women and men on the Masoala Peninsula of Madagascar (2015–2021).
Gender variation in animal-based resource use
Similar to plant-based resources, men were responsible for collecting animal-based resources in most (74.75%) households (). Proportionally fewer men collected animals over the seven years, with an increase in women representation from 23.67% to 40.07% () of all animal-collectors (χ2 = 26.96, p < 0.0001). Women primarily caught small freshwater shrimp and fish using a woven basket to sift the animals from the water (98.23% of all basket sifting was done by women) and freshwater eels and fish using woven traps (52.17% of aquatic traps). No women reported using slingshots to catch wildlife. While women collected a greater proportion of the animals they caught for subsistence than men (), most (78.85%) subsistence-caught animals were caught by men, reflecting their greater role in overall subsistence extraction (with the exception of sifting and aquatic trapping, ). Although men and women both primarily caught animals for subsistence use (), more men intended to sell their catch (24.80%) than did women (16.73%; χ2 = 18.87, p < 0.0001), and the vast majority of free divers and net fishers (regardless of gender) intended to sell their catch (). Men sold twice the amount of animals and fish they caught than women (26.81 ± 37.19% vs. 13.28 ± 27.38% of their catch respectively; ) and most sold animals (86.49%) were caught by men (). The products of freediving and net fishing were the resources with the highest average sales for both the genders ().
Table 4. How women and men differently used, caught, or sold terrestrial/aquatic animals over seven years on the Masoala Peninsula of Madagascar (2015–2021).
Table 5. Subsistence and market collection of terrestrial/aquatic animals by women and men on the Masoala Peninsula of Madagascar.
Gendered spaces in natural resource use
The location where resources were found had a significant effect on the gender responsible for collecting them. While men collected most resources in both aquatic (60.56% of aquatic resources collected) and land environments (81.66%), women were more involved in aquatic than land resource collection. For all natural resources, men collected most in forests (62.66% of all the resources used), followed by oceans (13.64%), and rivers (0.45%). While women also collected most resources in forests (14.07% of all resources used), they were the primary gender responsible for collecting natural products from rivers (8.66% of all resources used), and rarely collected resources in oceans (0.51%; ). The location of the resource significantly predicted the gender of the person who was primarily responsible collecting it (χ2 = 1,597.82 p < 0.0001). Men were more likely to use resources in every environment except rivers, where nearly all (95.11%) collectors were women (). Throughout the study women decreased the percentage of resources they collected on land (57.10 to 29.34%; χ2 = 8.77, p = 0.01), whereas there was no such shift observed for men (χ2 = 3.38, p = 0.18).
Figure 3. The percentage of total resources used by men and women during the prior year.
Figure 4. The percentage of households that used resources during the prior year based on the location of the resource with the gender identity (woman, man) of the person who was primarily responsible for the collection of the resource.
Role of age and gender in natural resource use
Of men and women of all age classes, adult men (61.58%) were primarily responsible for the collection of natural resources followed by adult women (20.27%). Both boys and girls were rarely the primary individual responsible for the collection of natural resources in a household, however comparatively more boys (15.17%) collected resources than girls (2.98%). Individuals of all genders and ages mostly acquired natural resources by collecting it themselves. However, it is important to note that while adult women purchased twice the percentage of the resources they used for themselves than men (), but more sold natural resources were purchased by men than any other gender or age group because of their high role in extraction and trade. Of all resources purchased or used for subsistence by any age or gender, most were purchased by adult men, followed by adult women, boys, and girls. However, the use of plant and animal resources differed in gender roles throughout one’s lifetime. While adults were primarily responsible for acquiring plant-based resources (69.00% adult men and 20.00% adult women), with few boys (9.50%) and girls (1.30%) primarily responsible, men and boys were primarily responsible for acquiring animal-based resources (51.00% adult men and 24.00% boys, followed by 19.00% adult women and 5.60% girls).
Table 6. How and why people of different genders and ages differently used natural resources over seven years on the Masoala Peninsula of Madagascar (2015–2021).
Girls were the least responsible in the household for natural resource collection (). The only resources young women were responsible for acquiring were medicinal plants, firewood, timber, palm thatch, and animal products collected through sifting, water trapping, and line fishing. While girls only collected 14.00% of medicinal plants and firewood, they collected two-thirds (66.00%) of all freshwater shrimp and small fish caught by sifting (). Girls did not acquire timber for construction of boats, bark of tree for alcohol fermentation, or any wildlife caught by slingshot, net fishing, guns, or free diving. Girls (7.81%) acquired more resources than women (4.51%) or boys (5.41%) with the primary incentive of selling them and purchased (1.96%) more than twice the number of resources than boys (0.85%). In contrast, boys were responsible for the collection of all resources except timber for construction of boats. In fact, boys were five times more involved in the collection of natural resources than girls ().
Figure 5. The number of households (of the 1252 surveyed) where men, women, boys, and girls were the primary household members responsible for collecting different natural resources.
Discussion
Gender significantly affects natural resource use in Madagascar. While men are primarily responsible for the collection of most resources, they are not the sole collectors and women are primarily responsible for collecting nearly all resources in at least one household. Thus, conservation as a discipline, should involve both genders for effective management, ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making processes as partners and collaborators (Allendorf & Yang, Citation2017; Upreti Citation2001; Keller Citation2008; Nightingale Citation2017). Yet, key differences in local gender roles exist, not only for specific resource use, but for how and why men and women choose to acquire natural resources throughout their lifetimes. Women’s role in natural resource collection is increasing. Such differences may help local conservation actors to ensure their projects are gender-aware and effectively promote equitable, gender-aware conservation strategies beyond equal inclusion.
Both men and women collected most of the resources they used, and few resources were purchased. Yet, key differences in the sale and purchase of natural resources may have clear actionable implications for resource management. From a natural resource perspective, two-thirds of the natural resources sold were purchased by men. Therefore, conservation actions wishing to reduce purchasing may wish to focus on men. Yet, women depended more on being able to purchase these resources for their households, as they comprised nearly twice the percentage of the natural resources they used than in households where men were responsible for obtaining them. So, these same actions may have more severe negative impacts on households where women are primarily responsible for obtaining natural resources. Further, because the proportion of purchased natural resources is declining, this could reflect deeper socio-economic challenges which reduce purchasing power, environmental degradation which reduce market availability, and the impact of conservation laws restricting public sale of sensitive goods (Eklund et al. Citation2019; Velo and Zafitsara Citation2020; Llopis et al. Citation2022), disproportionately impacting the women who rely on purchased goods. These trends may also reflect hardships for local communities in adapting to climate change (Weiskopf et al. Citation2021; Hending et al. Citation2022). Therefore, conservation actions should work to safeguard female-purchasers, and their families, from disadvantages created by regulating or restricting the purchasing of a natural resource (Agarwal Citation1994).
Gendered landscapes also significantly affected natural resource collection. Men collected most resources in forests and the ocean, whereas women collected nearly all river-resources. Gender differentiated roles, cultural practices, legal property rights, and forest and ocean distance from women’s daily responsibilities might decrease women’s participation in forest and ocean resource collection, limiting women’s availability, time, access to forest and ocean resources, and increasing their dependence on men for those resources (Saha & Agarwalla, Citation2023; Colfer Citation2016; Mutune and Lund Citation2016; Mbeche et al. Citation2021; Yego et al. Citation2021). This may explain why women were more likely to purchase forest resources such as palm thatch and timber, rather than collecting it themselves. Further, when forests and oceans are perceived as ‘male domains’, leadership of these landscapes can be imbalanced toward men as well, perpetuating gender inequity despite restrictions or management efforts (Järvilehto Citation2005; Bhattarai Citation2020; Ringblom and Johansson Citation2020), especially when they regulate the purchasing of such resources. In Madagascar, women’s role in harvesting medicinal plants is deeply connected to their extensive knowledge of local flora and their responsibilities as family health caretakers (Razafindraibe et al. Citation2013; Randrianarivony et al. Citation2016; Teixidor-Toneu et al. Citation2021). This pattern reflects those worldwide, where women are primarily responsible for healthcare within the household (Singhal Citation2005; Chaturvedi Citation2023). Conservation strategies for medicinal plants should focus on enhancing women’s leadership roles due to their primary involvement in collection, as well as in decision making in healthcare for the family. Additionally, as women tend to purchase and men to collect natural resources, creating more affordable and accessible sustainable alternatives can promote sustainable practices and gender equity, while recognizing traditional roles.
In contrast, rivers were women-empowered spaces. Women were more likely to collect small freshwater shrimp and fish in rivers through sifting using woven baskets, and larger freshwater eels using woven traps. Women are often freshwater gatekeepers who collect water and other resources during their daily river-based activities (e.g. washing and bathing; Frangoudes and Gerrard Citation2019; Azmi et al. Citation2021; Nounkeu and Dharod Citation2022). Gender-inclusive fisher women’s networks can leverage women’s knowledge and power of watersheds, several have been established (Baker-Médard Citation2017; Ameyaw et al. Citation2020; Galappaththi et al. Citation2022). Women-River watershed conservation may benefit from similar efforts to empower women as conservation leaders, especially when they collaborate with indigenous feminist scholars. Further, because climate change is significantly affecting the quality, quantity, and timing of freshwater in watersheds and their natural resources, such efforts may prevent a further exacerbation of climate-change driven gender disparities in natural resource use (Rakotondravony et al. Citation2018).
Gender and gender roles are not, however, universal binary concepts and gendered approaches must consider the intersectionality of gender (Hankivsky Citation2014; Kojola Citation2019; Axelrod et al. Citation2022). We found that gender roles for natural resource use changed throughout one’s lifetime. While plant collection was an adult activity, animal collection was more male gendered, and boys were almost as likely as adult women to be primarily responsible for animal-resource collection within a household. Similar to previous findings (Nascimento Moreira et al. Citation2017; Kellum et al. Citation2020; Borgerson et al. Citation2020), girls were the least involved in the collection of most resources, yet with one key exception. Girls collected two-thirds of all basket-sifted small freshwater shrimp and fish. Further, girls are acquiring more resources with the intention of selling them, than either boys or adult women, and purchasing more resources than boys. Therefore, there is an opportunity to include girls as decision makers in both watershed resource conservation and the design of alternative economic opportunity interventions. As heterogeneity in women beyond age (e.g. class (Resurreccion and Elmhirst Citation2008; Holmelin Citation2019), marital status (Aguilar et al. Citation2015; van Aelst and Holvoet Citation2016), and ethnicity (Aregu et al. Citation2016)) may further affect natural resource collection, it should be considered a priority in future research.
Conclusion
Integrating gender-aware approaches in conservation can improve both the relevance and effectiveness of environmental policies (Wilkie et al. Citation2016; Wilfred Citation2018; Kovaleva et al. Citation2022). Observations from Masoala reveal shifts in resource collection which may indicate socio-economic challenges, environmental changes, and conservation laws, potentially exacerbating local hardships and revealing gendered disparities in resource access. Addressing these disparities through gender-inclusive conservation efforts, by involving women in watershed and medicinal plant conservation, while simultaneously developing sustainable market alternatives to unsustainably harvested natural resources, can help mitigate biodiversity loss and empower women. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of gender-inclusive policies on conservation outcomes, the scalability of such approaches in different cultural contexts, and the identification of specific barriers that women face in natural resource management roles. This research will support the development of inclusive environmental governance models that can be adapted to various socio-ecological systems worldwide.
Author contributions
SS completed the analyses and wrote the manuscript; CB designed the methods; CB and BJRR collected the data.
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to the communities of the Masoala. Without you, this project would have been impossible. We would also like to thank Montclair State University for their support; our editors and reviewers who substantially improved this manuscript; and the Republic of Madagascar and Madagascar National Parks for their continued support.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
References
- Agarwal B. 1994. Gender, resistance and land: Interlinked struggles over resources and meanings in South Asia. J Peasant Stud. 22(1):81–13. doi: 10.1080/03066159408438567.
- Agarwal B. 1997. Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Dev Change 28(1):1–44.
- Agarwal B. 2009. Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest. Ecol Econ. 68(11):2785–2799. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025.
- Aguilar A, Carranza E, Goldstein M, Kilic T, Oseni G. 2015. Decomposition of gender differentials in agricultural productivity in Ethiopia. Agric Econ. 46(3):311–334. doi: 10.1111/agec.12167.
- Allendorf TD, Yang JM. 2017. The role of gender in local residents’ relationships with Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve, Yunnan, China. Environ Dev Sustain. 19:185–198.
- Ameyaw AB, Breckwoldt A, Reuter H, Aheto DW. 2020. From fish to cash: analyzing the role of women in fisheries in the western region of Ghana. Mar Policy. 113:103790. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103790.
- Andriamihaja OR, Metz F, Zaehringer JG, Fischer M, Messerli P. 2021. Identifying agents of change for sustainable land governance. Land Use Policy. 100:104882. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104882.
- Aregu L, Darnhofer I, Tegene A, Hoekstra D, Wurzinger M. 2016. The impact of gender-blindness on social-ecological resilience: the case of a communal pasture in the highlands of Ethiopia. Ambio. 45(3):287–296. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0846-x.
- Axelrod M, Vona M, Colwell JN, Fakoya K, Salim SS, Webster DG, de la Torre-Castro M. 2022. Understanding gender intersectionality for more robust ocean science. Earth Syst Governance. 13:100148. doi: 10.1016/j.esg.2022.100148.
- Azmi F, Lund R, Rao N, Manimohan R. 2021. Well-being and mobility of female-heads of households in a fishing village in South India. Gend Place Cult. 28(5):627–648. doi: 10.1080/0966369X.2020.1739003.
- Baker-Médard M. 2017. Gendering marine conservation: the politics of marine protected areas and fisheries access. Soc Natur Resour. 30(6):723–737. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2016.1257078.
- Bhattarai B. 2020. How do gender relations shape a community’s ability to adapt to climate change? Insights from Nepal’s community forestry. Clim Dev. 12(10):876–887. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1701971.
- Borgerson C, Johnson SE, Hall E, Brown KA, Narváez-Torres PR, Rasolofoniaina BJR, Razafindrapaoly BN, Merson SD, Thompson KET, Holmes SM, et al. 2022. A national-level assessment of lemur hunting pressure in Madagascar. Int J Primatol. 43(1):92–113. doi: 10.1007/s10764-021-00215-5.
- Borgerson C, Randrianasolo JF, Andraina TR, Anjaranirina EJG, Randriamady HJ, Merson S, Dollar L, Golden CD. 2020. Wildlife hunting in complex human- environmental systems: How understanding natural resource use and human welfare can improve conservation in the Ankarafantsika National Park, Madagascar. Madag Conserv Dev. 14(1):37–45. doi: 10.4314/mcd.v14i1.7.
- Chaturvedi M. 2023. Botany and women: the role of gender in biodiversity management and indigenous knowledge. Int J Multi Edu Res. 5(3):77–81. http://ijmer.in.doi./2023/12.05.53.
- Colfer CJP, Basnett BS, Elias M, editors. 2016. Gender and forests: climate change, tenure, value chains and emerging issues. New York: Routledge. p. 362.
- Davis SL. 2019. Understanding and improving gender equity in conservation. J Am Inst Conserv. 58(4):202–216. doi: 10.1080/01971360.2019.1612723.
- Davis SN, Greenstein TN. 2009. Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences. Annu Rev Sociol. 35(1):87–105. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920.
- Dodo O. 2013. Traditional leadership systems and gender recognition: Zimbabwe. Int J Gender Women’s Stud. 1(1):29–44.
- Eklund J, Coad L, Geldmann J, Cabeza M. 2019. What constitutes a useful measure of protected area effectiveness? A case study of management inputs and protected area impacts in Madagascar. Conserv Sci Pract. 1(10):e107. doi: 10.1111/csp2.107.
- Flintan F. 2003. Gender Mainstreaming in Nepal. Cork, Ireland: International Famine Centre.
- Folasade O. 2016. The role of women in natural resources management. Ogun State: Bells University of Technology.
- Fonjong L. 2008. Gender roles and practices in natural resource management in the northwest province of Cameroon. Local Environ. 13(5):461–475. doi: 10.1080/13549830701809809.
- Frangoudes K, Gerrard S. 2019. Gender perspective in fisheries: examples from the south and the north. In: Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S, editors. Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Vol. 21, Springer, Cham: MARE Publication Series; p. 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_7.
- Galappaththi M, Armitage D, Collins AM. 2022. Women’s experiences in influencing and shaping small‐scale fisheries governance. Fish Fish. 23(5):1099–1120. doi: 10.1111/faf.12672.
- Ganzhorn JU, Wilmé L, Mercier J-L. 2014. Explaining Madagascar’s biodiversity. In: Scales I, editor. Conservation and environmental management in Madagascar. London and New York: Routledge; p. 17–43. doi: 10.13140/2.1.2996.8328.
- Gebre GG, Isoda H, Rahut DB, Amekawa Y, Nomura H. 2021. Gender differences in agricultural productivity: evidence from maize farm households in southern Ethiopia. GeoJournal. 86(2):843–864. doi: 10.1007/s10708-019-10098-y.
- Goodman SM. 2022. Updated estimates of biotic diversity and endemism for Madagascar—revisited after 20 years. Oryx. 1–5. doi: 10.1017/S0030605322001284.
- Hankivsky O. 2014. Intersectionality 101. Burnaby, BC: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University.
- Hending D, Holderied M, McCabe G, Cotton S. 2022. Effects of future climate change on the forests of Madagascar. Ecosphere. 13(4):e4017. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.4017.
- Holmelin NB. 2019. Competing gender norms and social practice in Himalayan farm management. World Dev. 122:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.018.
- James R, Gibbs B, Whitford L, Leisher C, Konia R, Butt N. 2021. Conservation and natural resource management: where are all the women? Oryx. 55(6):860–867. doi: 10.1017/S0030605320001349.
- Järvilehto L. 2005. Men and women of the forest livelihood strategies and conservation from a gender perspective in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. University of Helsinki.
- Keller E. 2008. The banana plant and the moon: conservation and the Malagasy ethos of life in Masoala, Madagascar. Am Ethnol. 35(4):650–664. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00103.x.
- Kellum J, Randrianarimanana H, Andrianaivosoa LM, Telingator S. 2020. USAID/Madagascar gender analysis report. Banyan Global.
- Kojola E. 2019. Indigeneity, gender, and class in decision-making about risks from resource extraction. Environ Sociol. 5(2):130–148. doi: 10.1080/23251042.2018.1426090.
- Kovaleva M, Leal Filho W, Borgemeister C, Kalungu JW. 2022. Understanding needs and potentials for gender-balanced empowerment and leadership in climate change adaptation and mitigation in Africa. Sustainability. 14(15):9410. doi: 10.3390/su14159410.
- Kremen C, Razafimahatratra V, Guillery RP, Rakotomalala J, Weiss A, Ratsisompatrarivo JS. 1999. Designing the Masoala National Park in Madagascar based on biological and socioeconomic data. Conserv Biol. 13(5):1055–1068.
- Lau JD, Scales IR. 2016. Identity, subjectivity and natural resource use: how ethnicity, gender and class intersect to influence mangrove oyster harvesting in the Gambia. Geoforum. 69:135–146. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.01.002.
- Leavens MK, Gugerty MK, Anderson CL. 2019. Gender and agriculture in Tanzania. Gates Open Res. 3(1348):1348.
- Leisher C, Temsah G, Booker F, Day M, Samberg L, Prosnitz D, Agarwal B, Matthews E, Roe D, Russell D, et al. 2016. Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? A systematic map. Environ Evid. 5(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0057-8.
- Llopis JC, Borgerson C, Andrianarimisa A. 2022. Protected area case study. Madagascar: Masoala National Park.
- Lund C, Boone C. 2013. Introduction: land politics in Africa – constituting authority over territory, property and persons. Africa. 83(1):1–13. doi: 10.1017/S000197201200068X.
- Massoi LW. 2019. Gender roles and practices in natural resource management among the Kilosa Maasai in Tanzania. Tanzania J Dev Stud. 17(1):102–116.
- Mbeche R, Ateka J, Herrmann R, Grote U. 2021. Understanding forest users’ participation in participatory forest management (PFM): insights from Mt. Elgon forest ecosystem, Kenya. For Policy Econ. 129:102507. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102507.
- Mutune JM, Lund JF. 2016. Unpacking the impacts of ‘participatory’forestry policies: evidence from Kenya. For Policy Econ. 69:45–52. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.004.
- Mwangi E, Meinzen-Dick R, Sun Y. 2011. Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecol Soc. 16(1):17. doi: 10.5751/ES-03873-160117.
- Nascimento Moreira C, Rabenevanana MW, Picard D. 2017. Boys go fishing, girls work at home: gender roles, poverty and unequal school access among semi-nomadic fishing communities in South Western Madagascar. Compare. 47(4):499–511. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2016.1253456.
- Nightingale AJ. 2002. Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. J For Livelihood Vol. 2(1). doi: 10.3126/jfl.v2i1.59671.
- Nightingale AJ. 2017. Environment and gender. The International Encyclopedia of geography. New York (NY): Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0667.
- Nordman CJ, Roubaud F. 2009. Reassessing the gender wage gap in Madagascar: does labor force attachment really matter? Econ Dev Cult Change. 57(4):785–808. doi: 10.1086/598762.
- Nordman CJ, Vaillant J. Inputs, gender roles or sharing norms? Assessing the gender performance gap among informal entrepreneurs in Madagascar. SSRN Electron J. 2014. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2412867.
- Nounkeu CD, Dharod JM. 2022. Water fetching burden: a qualitative study to examine how it differs by gender among rural households in the west region of Cameroon. Health Care Women Int. 43(9):1023–1041. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2021.1931225.
- Rajaonarivelo HM, Rakotonarivo OS, Raharijaona S, Raparison E, Rakotoarisoa M, Hockley N. 2021. Revue des textes fonciers et forestiers pour la mise en œuvre de la restauration des paysages forestiers à Madagascar. Madagascar Conserv Dev. 16(1):32–42. doi: 10.4314/mcd.v16i1.4.
- Rakotonarivo OS, Rakotoarisoa M, Rajaonarivelo HM, Raharijaona S, Jones JP, Hockley N. 2023. Resolving land tenure security is essential to deliver forest restoration. Commun Earth Environ. 4(1):179. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00847-w.
- Rakotondravony HA, Abdallah I, Andrianaivo H, Andrianarison LN, Hetz K, Mahatante PT, Masezamana HN, Rakotoarivony NAH, Rakotonaivo RP, Ramanantsialonina S, et al. 2018. État des lieux des études de la vulnérabilité à Madagascar: revue bibliographique. Antananarivo, Madagascar. Bonn, Germany: GIZ.
- Randrianarivony T, Randrianasolo A, Andriamihajarivo T, Ramarosandratana AV, Jeannoda VH, Rakotoarivony F, Bussmann RW. 2016. Useful plants and tradition for pregnancy, child delivery and for post-partum care used by people living around Analavelona forest in South west Madagascar.
- Razafindraibe M, Kuhlman AR, Rabarison H, Rakotoarimanana V, Rajeriarison C, Rakotoarivelo N, Bussmann RW, Rakotoarivony F, Ludovic R, Randrianasolo A. 2013. Medicinal plants used by women from Agnalazaha littoral forest (Southeastern Madagascar). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 9(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-9-73.
- Resurreccion BP, Elmhirst R. 2008. Gender and natural resource management: livelihoods, mobility and interventions. 1st ed. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781849771436.
- Ringblom L, Johansson M. 2020. Who needs to be “more equal” and why? Doing gender equality in male-dominated industries. Equality Divers Inclusion. 39(4):337–353. doi: 10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0042.
- Rothamel E, Rasolofoniaina BJR, Borgerson C. 2021. The effects of sea turtle and other marine megafauna consumption in northeastern Madagascar. Ecosyst People. 17(1):590–599. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2021.2002413.
- Saha D, Agarwalla S. 2023. Determinants of livelihood diversification and gender‐inclusive strategies in forestry analysis. Int Soc Sci J. 73(248):583–598.
- Singhal R. 2005. Medicinal plants and primary health care: the role of gender. J Health Manag. 7(2):277–293. doi: 10.1177/097206340500700208.
- Suzzi-Simmons A. 2023. Status of deforestation of Madagascar. Global Ecol Conserv. 42:e02389. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02389.
- Tantoh HB, McKay TT, Donkor FE, Simatele MD. 2021. Gender roles, implications for water, land, and food security in a changing climate: a systematic review. Front Sustain Food Syst. 5:707835. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.707835.
- Teixidor-Toneu I, Elgadi S, Zine H, Manzanilla V, Ouhammou A, D’Ambrosio U. 2021. Medicines in the kitchen: gender roles shape ethnobotanical knowledge in Marrakshi households. Foods. 10(10):2332. doi: 10.3390/foods10102332.
- Thompson K, Borgerson C, Wright P, Randriamanetsy J, Andrianantenaina M, Andriamavosoloarisoa N, Razafindrahasy T, Rothman R, Surkis C, Bankoff R, et al. 2023. A coupled humanitarian and biodiversity crisis in Western Madagascar. Int J Primatol. 44:1–28. doi: 10.1007/s10764-022-00338-3.
- Upreti BR. 2001. Contributions of community forestry in rural social transformation: some observations from Nepal. J For Livelihood. 1:31–33. doi: 10.3126/jfl.v1i1.59836.
- van Aelst K, Holvoet N. 2016. Intersections of gender and marital status in accessing climate change adaptation: evidence from rural Tanzania. World Dev. 79:40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.003.
- Velo NMA, Zafitsara J. 2020. The management of forest and deforestation, mitigation, and adaptation of climate change in Madagascar. OAlib. 7(6):1–19. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1106451.
- Waeber PO, Wilmé L, Mercier J-R, Camara C, Lowry PP II., Kamilar JM. 2016. How effective have thirty years of internationally driven conservation and development efforts been in Madagascar? PloS One. 11(8):e0161115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161115.
- Weiskopf S, Cushing J, Morelli TL, Myers B. 2021. Climate change risks and adaptation options for Madagascar. Ecol Soc. 26(4). doi: 10.5751/ES-12816-260436.
- Wekesah FM, Mutua EN, Izugbara CO. 2019. Gender and conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Int J Agric Sustain. 17(1):78–91. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2019.1567245.
- Westerman K. 2014. Guidelines for integrating gender into conservation projects. Crystal City, USA: Conservation International.
- Wilfred P. 2018. Toward effective partially protected areas in Tanzania: a review on experiences from Ugalla ecosystem. Tanzan J Sci. 44(3):115–135.
- Wilkie D, Painter M, Jacob A. 2016. Rewards and risks associated with community engagement in anti-poaching and anti trafficking. U.S. Agency for International Development Biodiversity Research Paper.
- Wilmé L, Goodman SM, Ganzhorn JU. 2006. Biogeographic evolution of Madagascar’s microendemic biota. Science. 312(5776):1063–1065. doi: 10.1126/science.1122806.
- Yego P, Mbeche R, Ateka J, Majiwa E. 2021. Forest-based livelihood choices and their determinants in Western Kenya. Forest Sci Technol. 17(1):23–31. doi: 10.1080/21580103.2020.1870577.