Theoretical Approaches: Gendered Knowledge in Forest, Ecology and Environment

  • Sajal RoyEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environment, Security, Development and Peace book series (BRIEFSSECUR, volume 29)


This chapter deals with the theoretical approaches of gender knowledge in forest, ecology and environment. How women’s knowledge of the forest can contribute and the relation of gender in forest-related research and environmental security discourse are been discussed here. Moreover, the chapter tries to correlate the research with two widely studied theories, namely, standpoint theory and feminist political ecology theory. It was found that women possess very significant knowledge which can contribute greatly to forest management, but have less opportunity to engage in the decision-making process. This chapter shows that gender has been a noteworthy issue in forest-related studies for a long time. Gender is also a crucial topic in environmental security discourse. The literature reviewed in the chapter talks about the epistemic value of the women’s lives. Thereafter, women’s knowledge has been discussed with reference to feminist political ecology theory. The final section of the chapter shows how the findings of this empirical study can contribute to the current practice in academia.


Women’s knowledge Gender Shora Environmental security Standpoint Feminist political ecology 


  1. Agarwal, B. (1997), ‘“Bargaining” and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household’, Feminist Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1–51.Google Scholar
  2. Agarwal, B. (2001), ‘Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and A Conceptual Framework’, World Development, Vol. 29, No. 10, pp. 1,623–1,648.Google Scholar
  3. Agarwal, B. (2009), ‘Gender and Forest Conservation: The Impact of Women’s Participation in Community Forest Governance’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, No. 11, pp. 2,785–2,799.Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal, B. (2010), ‘Does Women’s Proportional Strength Affect their Participation? Governing Local Forests in South Asia’, World Development, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 98–112.Google Scholar
  5. Agrawal, A. and Chhatre, A. (2006), ‘Explaining Success on the Commons: Community Forest Governance in the Indian Himalaya’, World Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 149–166.Google Scholar
  6. Alam, M.J.; Rakkibu, M.G.; Rahman, M.M. (2012), ‘People’s Attitudes Towards Social Forestry: A Case Study in Rajshai’, Environmental and Natural Resources, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 217–222.Google Scholar
  7. Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Verchot, L.V. (eds.) (2012), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  8. Bandiaky-Badji, S. (2011), ‘Gender Equity in Senegal’s Forest Governance History: Why Policy and Representation Matter’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 177–194.Google Scholar
  9. Barbier, E. and Homer-Dixon, T. (1997), ‘Resource Scarcity and Innovation: Can Poor Countries Attain Endogenous Growth?’, Ambio, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 144–147.Google Scholar
  10. Barnett, J. (2011), The Meaning of Environmental Security: Ecological Politics and Policy in the New Security Era, London: Zed Books Limited.Google Scholar
  11. Belcher, B.M.; Ruiz-Perez, M.; Achdiawan, R. (2005), ‘Global Patterns and Trends in the Use and Management of Commercial NTFPs: Implications for Livelihoods and Conservation’, World Development, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 1,435–1,452.Google Scholar
  12. Bose, P, (2011), ‘Forest Tenure Reform: Exclusion of Tribal Women’s Rights in Semi-Arid Rajasthan, India’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 220–232.Google Scholar
  13. Bosold, L.A. (2012), ‘Challenging The “Man” In Mangroves: The Missing Role of Women in Mangrove Conservation’, Student Publications, Paper 14, viewed 19 January 2013,
  14. Bondi, L. (2005), ‘Making Connections and Thinking through Emotions: Between Geography and Psychotherapy’, TIBG, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 433–448. Scholar
  15. Brown, P.C. (2011), ‘Gender, Climate and REDD+ in the Congo Basin Forests of Central Africa’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 163–176.Google Scholar
  16. Brunnée, J. and Toope, S. (1997), ‘Environmental Security and Freshwater Resources: Ecosystem Regime Building’, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 26–59. Scholar
  17. Cannon, T. (2002), “Gender and Climate Hazards in Bangladesh”, Gender & Development, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 45–50. Scholar
  18. Cavendish, W. (2000), ‘Empirical Regularities in the Poverty-Environment Relationship of Rural Households: Evidence from Zimbabwe’, World Development, Vol. 28, pp. 1,979–2,003.Google Scholar
  19. Collier, S.J. and Ong, A. (2005), ‘Global Assemblages, Anthropological Problems’. In: A. Ong and S.J. Collier (eds.), Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  20. Crewe, E. and Harrison, E. (1998), Whose Development? An Ethnography of Aid, London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  21. Detraz, N. (2009), ‘Environmental Security and Gender: Necessary Shifts in an Evolving Debate’, Security Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 345–369.Google Scholar
  22. Dixon, T.F.H. (1999), ‘Environment, Scarcity and Violence’, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 7, No. 1, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dhali, H.H. (2009), ‘Sustainable Development, State Policy, and Gender: Examining the effect of the forest policy on gender relations of indigenous people in CHT in Bangladesh’, The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies (I.S.S), pp. 1–58.Google Scholar
  24. Elmhirst, R.; Siscawati, M.; Basnett, B.S.; Ekowati, D. (2017), ‘Gender and Generation in Engagements with Oil Palm in East Kalimantan, Indonesia: Insights from Feminist Political Ecology’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 1,135–1,157. Scholar
  25. Elmhirst, R. (2018), ‘Understories of the Political Forest: A Mobile Feminist Political Ecology? Commentary on Nancy L. Peluso’s “The Remittance Forest: Turning Mobile Labour into Agrarian Capital”’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 39, pp. 41–44.Google Scholar
  26. FAO (2011), The State of Forests in the Amazon Basin, Congo Basin and Southeast Asia, Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
  27. Ferrier, S. (2002), ‘Mapping Spatial Pattern in Biodiversity for Regional Conservation Planning: Where to from Here?’, Systematic Biology, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 331–363.Google Scholar
  28. Fritz, T.; Jentschke, S.; Gosselin, N.; Sammler, D.; Peretz, I.; Turner, R.; Friederici, A.D.; Koelsch, S. (2009), ‘Universal Recognition of Three Basic Emotions in Music’, Current Biology, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 573–576. Scholar
  29. Fuller, D. (1999), ‘Helen Porter’s Everyday Survival Stories: A Literary Encounter with Feminist Standpoint Theory’, Atlantics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 122–133.Google Scholar
  30. Gezon, L.L. (2006), Global Visions, Local Landscapes: A Political Ecology of Conservation, Conflict, and Control in Northern Madagascar, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  31. Giri, K. (2012), ‘Gender in Forest Tenure: Pre-requisite for Sustainable Forest Management in Nepal’, Washington DC: Rights and Resources.Google Scholar
  32. Gurarascio, F. et al. (2013), Forests, Food Security and Gender: Linkages, Disparities and Priorities for Action (Background paper for the International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition), Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,
  33. Gururani, S. (2002), ‘Construction of Third World Women’s Knowledge in the Development Discourse’, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 54, No. 154, pp. 313–323.Google Scholar
  34. Halim, S. (1999), ‘Invisible Again: Women and Social Forestry in Bangladesh’, Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  35. Harding, S. (2004a), ‘A Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science? Resources from Standpoint Theory’s Controversiality’, Hypatia, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar
  36. Harding, S. (2004b), The Feminist Standpoint Reader (ed.), New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Harding, S. (2008), Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities, and Modernities, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hartsock, N. (1983), ‘The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism’. In: Sandra Harding (ed.) Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar
  39. Hecht, S. (2007), ‘Factories, Forests, Fields and Family: Gender and Neoliberalism in Extractive Reserves’, Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 316–347.Google Scholar
  40. Hekman, S. (1997), ‘Truth and Method: Feminist Standpoint Theory Revisited’, Chicago Journals, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 351–365.Google Scholar
  41. Hesse-Biber, S.N. (ed.) (2012), Handbook of Feminist Research Theory and Praxis, Boston, MA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Hossain, M.M. and Islam, M.M. (2017), ‘Community Dependency on the Ecosystem Services from the Sundarbans Mangrove Wetland in Bangladesh’, Wetland Science, pp. 301–316. Scholar
  43. Ho, C. and Schraner, I. (2004), Feminists Standpoints, Knowledge and Truth, Paper No. 2004/02, School of Economics and Finance, University of Western Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  44. Iftekhar, M.S. and Islam, M.R. (2004), ‘Managing Mangroves in Bangladesh: A Strategy Analysis’, Journal of Coastal Conservation, Vol. 10, pp. 139–146.Google Scholar
  45. Innes, J.L. (2005), ‘Forests in Environmental Protection’, Forests and Plants, Vol. 1, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  46. Kabir, H.M.D. and Hossain, J. (2008), Resuscitating the Sundarbans, Customary Use of Biodiversity and Traditional Practices in Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh: Unnayan Onneshan; The Innovators.Google Scholar
  47. Leisher, C.; Temsah, G.; Booker, F.; Day, M.; Samberg, L.; Prosnitz, D.; Agarwal, B.; Matthews, E.; Roe, D.; Russel, D.; Sunderland, T.; Wilkie, D. (2016) ‘Does the Gender Composition of Forest and Fishery Management Groups Affect Resource Governance and Conservation Outcomes?: A Systematic Map’, Environmental Evidence, Vol. 5, No. 6.
  48. Lamb, V.; Schoenberger, L.; Middleton, C.; Un, B. (2017), ‘Gendered Eviction, Protest and Recovery: A Feminist Political Ecology Engagement with Land Grabbing in Rural Cambodia’, The Journal of Peasant Studies. Scholar
  49. Leach, M. (2007), ‘Earth Mother Myths and Other Ecofeminist Fables: How a Strategic Notion Rose and Fell’, Development and Change, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 67–85.Google Scholar
  50. Mackenzie, C. (1998), ‘The Choice of Criteria in Ethical Investment’, Business Ethics, Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 81–86. Scholar
  51. Mahatb, N. (2010), Women in Bangladesh, Dhaka: Dhaka University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mai, Y.H.; Mwangi, E.; Wan, M; (2011), ‘Gender Analysis in Forestry Research: Looking Back and Thinking Ahead’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 245–258.Google Scholar
  53. McDougall, C.L.; Leeuwis, C.; Bhattarai, T.; Maharjan, M.R.; Jiggins, J. (2013), ‘Engaging Women and the Poor: Adaptive Collaborative Governance of Community Forests in Nepal’, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 30, pp. 569–585. Scholar
  54. Mjaaland, T. (2013), ‘At the Frontiers of Changes? Women and Girls’ Pursuit of Education in North-Western Tigray, Ethiopia’, Ph.D. thesis, Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  55. Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (1993), Ecofeminism, London and New Jersey: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  56. Mohanty, T.C. (2003), Feminism without Borders, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mollett, S. and Faria, C. (2012), ‘Messing with Gender in Feminist Political Ecology’, Geoforum, viewed 1 February 2013,
  58. Mukasa, C.; Tibazalika, A.; Mango, A.; Muloki, H.N. (2012), Gender and Forestry in Uganda: Policy, Legal and Institutional Frameworks, Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  59. Nasrin, F. (2012), ‘Women, Environment and Environmental Advocacy: Challenges for Bangladesh’, Asian Journal for Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 1, No 3, pp. 149–172.Google Scholar
  60. Neumann, P.R. (2005), ‘Introduction’, in: P.R. Neumann (ed.), Making Political Ecology, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H. (2017), ‘Agricultural Diversification and Dietary Diversity: A Feminist Political Ecology of the Everyday Experiences of Landless and Smallholder Households in Northern Ghana’, Geoforum, Vol. 86, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar
  62. Park, C.M.Y. and Daley, E. (2015), ‘Gender, Land and Agricultural Investments in Lao PDR’, in: C.S. Archambault and A. Zoomers (eds.), Global Trends in Land Tenure Reform: Gender Impacts, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Pile, S. (2010), ‘Emotions and Affect in Recent Human Geography’, TIBG, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 5–20. Scholar
  64. Radel, C. (2012), ‘Gendered Livelihoods and the Politics of Socio-Environmental Identity: Women’s Participation in Conservation Projects in Calakmul, Mexico’, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 61–82.Google Scholar
  65. Rocheleau, D. and Edmunds, D. (1997), ‘Women, Men and Trees: Gender, Power and Poverty in Forest and Agrarian Landscapes’, World Development, Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 1,351–1,371.Google Scholar
  66. Rocheleau, D.; Thomas-Slayter, B.; Wangari, E. (1996), ‘Gender and Environment: A Feminist Political Ecology Perspective’, in: D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari (eds.), Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
  67. Ribot, J. and Lee, N.P. (2003), ‘A Theory of Access’, Rural Sociology, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 153–181.Google Scholar
  68. Sears, L.J. (1996), Fantasizing the Feminine in Indonesia, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Sen, A. (1990), Development as Freedom, New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  70. Shanley, P.; Silva, F.C.D.; MacDonald, T. (2011), ‘Brazil’s Social Movement, Women and Forests: A Case Study from the National Council of Rubber Tappers’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 233–244.Google Scholar
  71. Shackleton, S.; Paumgarten, F.; Kassa, H.; Husselman, M.; Zida, M. (2011), ‘Opportunities for Enhancing Poor Women’s Economic Empowerment in the Value Chains of Three African Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs)’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 136–151.Google Scholar
  72. Shackleton, C.M. and Shackleton, S.E. (2000), ‘Direct-Use Value of Secondary Resources Harvested from Communal Savannas in the Bushbuckridge Low Veld, South Africa’, Journal of Tropical Forest Products, Vol. 6, pp. 28–47.Google Scholar
  73. Shively, G.E. (1997), ‘Poverty, Technology, and Wildlife Hunting in Palawan’, Environmental Conservation, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 57–63.Google Scholar
  74. Siar, S.V. (2003), ‘Knowledge, Gender, and Resources in Small-Scale Fishing: The Case of Honda Bay, Palawan, Philippines’, Environmental Management, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 569–580. Scholar
  75. Smith, N. (1987), ‘Gentrification and the Rent Gap’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 462–465. Scholar
  76. Stiem, L. and Krause, T. (2016), ‘Exploring the Impact of Social Norms and Perceptions on Women’s Participation in Customary Forest and Land Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo – Implications for REDD+’, International Forestry Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 110–122, Commonwealth Forestry Association. Scholar
  77. Sultana, F. (2011), ‘Suffering from Water, Suffering for Water: Emotional Geographies of Resource Access Control and Conflict,’ Geoforum, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 163–172.Google Scholar
  78. Sun, Y.; Mwangi, E.; Dick, M.R.; Bose, P.; Shanley, P.; Silva, C.F.; MacDonald, T. (2012), ‘Forests: Gender, Property Rights and Access’, No. 47, Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  79. Sunderland, T.; Achdiawan, R.; Angelsen, A.; Babigumira, R.; Ickowitz, A.; Paumgarten, F.; Reyes-García, V.; Shively, G. (2014), ‘Challenging Perceptions About Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study’, World Development, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. S56–S66. Scholar
  80. Tanny, N.Z.; Rahman, M.W.; Ali, R.N. (2017), ‘Climate-induced Gender Vulnerabilities in Northwestern Bangladesh’, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 360–372.Google Scholar
  81. Torre-Castro, M.; Fröcklin, S.; Börjesson, S.; Okupnik, J.; Jiddawi, N.S. (2017), ‘Gender Analysis for Better Coastal Management – Increasing Our Understanding of Social-Ecological Seascapes, Marine Policy, Vol. 83, pp. 62–74.Google Scholar
  82. Truelove, Y. (2011), ‘(Re-) Conceptualizing Water Inequality in Delhi, India Through a Feminist Political Ecology Framework’, Geoforum, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 143–152.Google Scholar
  83. Tyagi, N. and Das, S. (2018), ‘Assessing Gender Responsiveness of Forest Policies in India’, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 92, pp. 160–168.Google Scholar
  84. Vázquez-García, V. and Ortega-Ortega, T. (2017), ‘Gender, Local Governance and Non-timber Forest Products. The Use and Management of Satureja Macrostema in Oaxaca’s Central Valleys, Mexico’, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 65, pp. 47–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Culture and SocietyWestern Sydney UniversityPenrith, SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Women and Gender StudiesBegum Rokeya University, RangpurRangpurBangladesh

Personalised recommendations