Indigenous and local values of nature through a gender lens: A literature review

IF 6.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Johanna Zoe Hartmann , Jasmine Pearson
{"title":"Indigenous and local values of nature through a gender lens: A literature review","authors":"Johanna Zoe Hartmann ,&nbsp;Jasmine Pearson","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Values of nature have different forms and are expressed through a variety of ways, depending on the culture and people in focus. Such values influence decisions and policies made about nature, especially regarding conservation and management. Current decision-making predominately focuses on instrumental and economic values of nature, often neglecting diverse and plural values, including intrinsic and relational ones. Additionally, the voice of marginalized communities such as Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLC), and more so, Indigenous women, is often not recognized, leading to inequitable outcomes. Even though gender has been shown to influence value perceptions, no comprehensive review exists of how it affects values of nature within IPLC. This review aims to close this gap. Through a systematic literature review and thematic analysis, this paper highlights the values of nature and Nature’s Contributions to People held by IPLC and insights of applying a gender lens to existing research in this field. The results indicate a focus on study areas in Asia, South America and Africa, as well as toward forests as ecosystems. The predominant valuation methods include preference assessments and semi-structured interviews. This review shows that IPLC hold diverse values, including instrumental, intrinsic, and relational values. Gendered insights were found to be connected to gendered responsibilities within communities. For example, domestic food products, homegardens, and wild edible plants are often of higher importance to female IPLC, due to their prominent role in household and family care. Research gaps on gendered values have also been shown, especially for religious, spiritual, and cultural heritage values.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000615","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Values of nature have different forms and are expressed through a variety of ways, depending on the culture and people in focus. Such values influence decisions and policies made about nature, especially regarding conservation and management. Current decision-making predominately focuses on instrumental and economic values of nature, often neglecting diverse and plural values, including intrinsic and relational ones. Additionally, the voice of marginalized communities such as Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLC), and more so, Indigenous women, is often not recognized, leading to inequitable outcomes. Even though gender has been shown to influence value perceptions, no comprehensive review exists of how it affects values of nature within IPLC. This review aims to close this gap. Through a systematic literature review and thematic analysis, this paper highlights the values of nature and Nature’s Contributions to People held by IPLC and insights of applying a gender lens to existing research in this field. The results indicate a focus on study areas in Asia, South America and Africa, as well as toward forests as ecosystems. The predominant valuation methods include preference assessments and semi-structured interviews. This review shows that IPLC hold diverse values, including instrumental, intrinsic, and relational values. Gendered insights were found to be connected to gendered responsibilities within communities. For example, domestic food products, homegardens, and wild edible plants are often of higher importance to female IPLC, due to their prominent role in household and family care. Research gaps on gendered values have also been shown, especially for religious, spiritual, and cultural heritage values.

从性别角度看土著和地方的自然价值观:文献综述
自然价值观有不同的形式,并根据不同的文化和人群以不同的方式表达。这些价值观影响着有关自然的决策和政策,尤其是在保护和管理方面。当前的决策主要侧重于自然的工具性和经济性价值,往往忽视了多样化和多元化的价值,包括内在价值和关系价值。此外,土著人民和地方社区(IPLC)等边缘化社区,尤其是土著妇女的声音往往得不到认可,从而导致不公平的结果。尽管性别已被证明会影响价值认知,但目前还没有关于性别如何影响 IPLC 自然价值观的全面综述。本综述旨在填补这一空白。通过系统的文献综述和主题分析,本文强调了 IPLC 所持有的自然价值观和自然对人类的贡献,以及将性别视角应用于该领域现有研究的见解。研究结果表明,研究重点集中在亚洲、南美洲和非洲的研究地区,以及作为生态系统的森林。主要的评估方法包括偏好评估和半结构化访谈。综述表明,国际森林覆盖率网络拥有不同的价值,包括工具价值、内在价值和关系价值。性别观点被认为与社区内的性别责任有关。例如,家庭食品、家庭菜园和野生食用植物对于女性 IPLC 而言往往具有更高的重要性,因为她们在家务和家庭照料方面扮演着重要角色。关于性别价值观的研究也存在差距,特别是在宗教、精神和文化遗产价值观方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services ECOLOGYENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES&-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly. Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信