Exploring Gender Equity in Ecological Restoration: The Case of a Market-Based Program in Kenya

Institutions, Social Relations and Gender Equity in Ecological Restoration

Efforts to include social dimensions in ecological restoration research and practice generally focusses on two key areas: explicit integration of human dimensions in the “definition” of ecological restoration and incorporation of social indicators among the “measurable outcomes” of ecological restoration. Broadening the definition of ecological restoration would jointly acknowledge the embedded social context within which ecological restoration is practiced, as well as the role of social actors in shaping ecosystems through the human footprint (Davis and Slobodkin 2004, CBD 2016, Martin 2017). Shakleford et al. (2013) therefore emphasize that for ecological restoration to be appropriate for the modern world, a “new understanding” is required with an explicit focus on “the human element” whereby human agency and social aspects of restoration are systematically featured.

Ecological restoration has also been scrutinized for its overdependence on ecological outcomes, which are considered inadequate measures of success (Wortley et al. 2014, Cooke et al, 2019). The attribute-based and quantitative indicators (such as species composition and ecosystem resilience) are considered limited in their ability to capture important social values, calling for inter-disciplinary socio-ecological approaches (Perring et al. 2015, Martin 2017). New metrics of monitoring social benefits and socio-economic circumstances such as the “historical, social, cultural, political, aesthetic, and moral aspects in defining the targets for restoration” (Higgs 1997) have also been put forward by several authors (Burke and Mitchell 2007, Martin and Lyons 2018, Aronson et al. 2020). Gender is rarely referred to among these outcomes despite international recognition as an important determinant of resource use (Broeckhoven and Cliquet 2015, Okpara et al. 2019). Although emerging case studies find gender differences in PES outcomes (Dhakal et al. 2020, Bee 2019, Kariuki and Birner 2016), gender does not constitute the focus of the conceptual work on equity in PES (McDermott et al. 2013, Pascual 2014). Tailoring and/or redesigning frameworks for gender analysis in restoration activities is therefore needed. Deliberate attention on how men and women influence and are influenced by ecological restoration does not only present a novel contribution but can provide relevant and timely insights for this new age of ecological restoration.

The conceptual framework (Figure 1) presents two interrelated domains of investigation—institutional interactions and social relations—that can be analyzed to uncover factors that influence gender equity in ecological restoration. The institutional and social domains speak to concerns for the need to expand the definition of ecological restoration, while equity and its multidimensions represents an example of a complex outcome that can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively—the latter of which is the focus for this paper.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for the study of equity in PES.

Drawing from Institutional theory, we refer to institutions as the systems of laws, rules, norms, and regulations that structure social, political and economic interactions (North 1990). The extent to which PES engages with societal complexities that influence and/or are influenced by ecological restoration activities depends both on formal institutions (written rules and laws) such as governance structures and property rights, and on informal institutions (unwritten rules) such as traditional norms and customs (Corbera et al. 2009, Chen et al. 2009, García-Amado et al. 2011, Kinzig et al. 2013, Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016). The relationship between formal and informal institutions defines, constrains, and shapes actors’ interactions (North 1990), therefore affecting ecosystem services provision by regulating human activities with natural resources (Dietz 2003, Corbera et al. 2009).

Property rights are a complex fundamental institution governing “who can do what with resources” (Kirsten et al. 2009) and play a key role in this framework. These rights exist in the form of many combinations including, “use” rights, such as the right to access, consume or exploit a resource for economic benefit, and “control or decision-making” rights, such as the right to manage a resource, exclude others from accessing a resource and dispose of a resource for economic or other gains (Meinzen-Dick and Mwangi 2009). Property rights are regulated by governance structures which include the institutional arrangements to deliver and enforce contracts for resource use and benefit sharing (Williamson 1991). Governance structures are determined by the environment in which “the wider rules of the game” operate (Kirsten et al. 2009) and are characterized by formal property rights and pre-existing systems such as customs, traditions, norms, and cultures (Williamson 1991). From a gendered perspective, in contexts where women lack formal ownership rights, it is important to determine the processes that may enable secure use rights from which consuming or earning income from resources such as land, trees, and livestock is possible.

Studying social inclusion in ecological restoration contexts from a gender equity perspective therefore means accounting for the unequal playing fields that shape or are shaped by PES institutional arrangements. The second domain in the framework lends itself to the exploration of how gender relations unfold in specific institutional contexts. Gender is defined by the relationships between women and men that influence for example, who does what activities with what resources, and who has control over activities and the revenues they generate (Jackson 2003, Doss and Meinzen-Dick 2020). Through the socio-economic relationships that must be entered into to survive, produce, and reproduce their means of life (relations of production), men and women form an essential component of the resource-rich but resource-threatened landscapes where PES schemes operate (Schneider 2013, Lau 2020). PES land-use regulations may alter gendered resource-use patterns which can affect the ability to meet household welfare needs (Russell and Vabi 2013, Dhakal et al. 2020). PES-related income streams may also adversely reconfigure gender relations, as has been experienced in previous conservation projects (Nabane 1996, Songorwa 1999). The differences between men’s and women’s ability to access, control, own, and dispose of different kinds of productive assets necessary to secure stable livelihoods— the gender asset gap—is therefore important to consider (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011, Johnson et al. 2015). Financial benefits offered by conservation approaches may widen the gender asset gap and weaken men’s and women’s ability to manage shocks (Arora-Jonsson 2011, Okali and Naess 2013), to which women tend to be more vulnerable than men (Aboud 2011). Differences based on socio-economic status, age, or ethnicity, intersect with gender across scales (within and beyond the household) to accentuate disadvantages among certain groups of women or men. This concept of intersectionality is helpful to understand how different social categories interact to produce equity effects that alone cannot be explained by a single category (Clement et al. 2019).

The equity domain in the framework comprises of different, but related dimensions compatible with the Stakeholder Engagement indicator of the Social Benefits Wheel. Equity refers to the fairness or just treatment of individuals and groups (Law et al. 2018). In the case of gender, equity may either include equal treatment of men and women or different treatment which is considered equivalent for man and women regarding their rights, benefits, obligations, and opportunities (ILO 2000). Drawing on McDermott et al.’s (2013) framework, procedural, distributive and contextual factors combine to determine equity. Procedural equity refers to the recognition of all people’s rights, including marginalized men and women to participate actively in decision-making processes (Fraser 2009, Di Gregorio et al. 2013). Distributive equity refers to the allocation of benefits, costs, and risks and mirrors the indicator of Benefits Distribution in the Social Benefits Wheel. Accounting for distributive equity from a gendered perspective requires one to distinguish between property rights that enable resource ownership and resource use or management to avoid women’s or men’s exclusion from conservation benefits (Bradley 1991 cited in Rocheleau and Edmunds 1997).

Accounting for the third component—contextual equity—can help explain both distributive and procedural equity outcomes. Contextual equity refers to the conditions and the different forms and levels of inequity present at the start of the PES scheme (McDermott et al. 2013). Wealth and power differences undermine capabilities of resource users which can interfere with efforts to achieve procedural and distributive equity. When using local and external institutions to manage or coordinate PES contracts, understanding (and making provisions for) contextual (in)equity can therefore inform the design of more gender inclusive institutional frameworks (Mahanty et al. 2013, Tacconi et al. 2013, McDermott et al. 2013). Identifying how institutional arrangements in PES contexts emerge and influence gender relations is a key step toward addressing the needs of all resource users—and promoting more balanced outcomes as sought through SERs newly introduced Principle 1.

Study Area: the Mara North Conservancy

The Mara North Conservancy (MNC) was established in 2009 and covers 29,947 hectares of privately owned land bordering the Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR) (Figure 2). The primary objective of MNC is to improve ecosystem management by rehabilitating degraded areas, restoring natural habitat, protecting wildlife, managing livestock grazing areas and responding to human-wildlife conflicts (Sante 2018). MNC is the largest conservancy in the greater Maasai Mara ecosystem regarding numbers of members (over 800) and high-end tourism lodges (12). To promote their ecosystem management goals, the tourism lodges (tourism partners) pay nearly USD 2 million annually to a private management company that acts as an intermediary. The management company is responsible for distributing this money to individual landowners with 5 or 15-year lease agreements which are held between title deed holders and a land holding company. Landowners who host a tourism facility also earn additional income based on agreements with the tourism partner (Sante 2018). The lease agreement ensures landowners a monthly payment from tourism revenues on condition that members refrain from land subdivision and human settlement in undesignated locations, wildlife poaching, deforestation, and charcoal burning. A compensation scheme for livestock predation and a livestock breeding program are additional services offered to conservancy members. Table 1 summarizes the key site characteristics.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2.

Mara North Conservancy Map. Source: Cavanagh, CJ et al. 2020. (Image credit: Michael Ogbe , Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Study Approach and Analysis

We adopted a case study approach to capture complex social phenomena (Gerring 2004, Yin 2009). We collected data across scales from the intra and inter household and community levels using a combination of qualitative methods, namely in-depth interviews, Focus Group Discussions, key informant interviews and a participatory mapping activity, Process Net-map.

We used open-ended questions for the in-depth intra household interviews to explore perceptions on resource access and control under PES regulations. To enable free articulation of sensitive issues, we interviewed household heads and their spouse(s) separately (Johnson 2002). We also held focus group discussions with separate groups of men and women and used a checklist of questions to interactively solicit information on benefits and costs experienced under the scheme. Focus group discussions are an efficient group-based approach for gathering contextual community-level information providing a wealth of data from a single discussion event (Morgan 1998). We conducted the key informant interviews with individuals holding specialized knowledge on the MNC context using a semi-structured questionnaire.

Given their depth of experience, key informants also participated in the Process Net-map activity. Process Netmap is a participatory visual tool which we used to collect information on the processes that led up to the establishment of MNC and to provide insights on the conservancy’s current institutional arrangement (Schiffer 2007, Lubungu and Birner 2018, Kariuki et al. 2018). To conduct the interactive activity, we first asked the key informants to trace the historical events that led to the conservancy establishment drawing on key stages that contributed to its development. We then asked informants to identify the stakeholders involved in the current MNC institutional arrangement, their roles regarding the design and implementation of MNC as well as the relationships (networks) between the stakeholders. To document the activity, each stakeholder identified was written on a card and placed on a large sheet of paper. Different colored arrows were used to connect the stakeholders and represent the nature of the relationship (flow of funds, conflict resolution, membership, licenses, other services) and direction of the relationship. Lastly, we asked the informants to identify the level of influence of each stakeholder to change (or ensure the continuation of) aspects of the MNC design and implementation by using influence towers. To visualize the influence towers, we used stacked piles of checkers game pieces ranging from one to six pieces. A stakeholder with an influence tower height of six was the most influential and one with zero, the least influential (Schiffer 2007). Throughout the process, participants discussed and deliberated on issues of contention to arrive at a consensus.

Regarding sampling, conservancy members and their spouses were selected randomly from membership lists to participate in individual interviews and focus group discussions (Babbie 2007). In total, we spoke with ten men and nine women and conducted eight focus group discussions with 10–15 male and female members. 14 Key informants were purposefully sampled with snowball methods adopted where needed, eight of whom also participated in the Process Net-map. Table 2 presents a summary of the methods and the number of sessions conducted per data collection activity.

Principles of Grounded Theory informed our data collection and analysis approach (Glaser and Strauss 2009); namely, the use of comparative methods (key informant interviews, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and Process Net-map) and the principle of saturation. The principle of saturation applied when a satisfactory number of respondents offered the same information regarding issues of relevance for the study. With verbal consent from all participants, we captured the data through written notes and with a voice recorder, the data was then transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative data analysis software, NVivo (Qualitative Solutions and Research International, v. 10, Melbourne, Australia). Additionally, for the Process Net-map activity, we took a photograph of the maps which we then digitally recreated. The inductive approach we adopted involved identifying trends in the data from which we developed conceptual framings (Glaser and Strauss 2009). Grounded Theory offers a useful and appropriate method for conducting data analysis as shown by Petheram and Campbell (2010) on their study on local perceptions of PES in Vietnam.

Historical Overview: Institutional and Social Interplay

The Process Net-map results show that in the 1970s, group ranches were established under collective ownership of registered community members and managed by elected committees. Membership was restricted to local men over 18 years and only widows without male descendants were eligible. Respondents explained that the ranches were impaired by weak institutional structures leading to poor accountability and transparency regarding tourism revenue distribution and leadership. Despite group ranch regulations for democratic representation, Process Netmap respondents and male discussants recalled that ranch officials were rarely elected, and local elites repeatedly exploited their positions of power for personal gain.

Membership was evenly distributed amongst ranch members (mainly male household heads), however, there was little guarantee of evenly distributed tourism revenues or inclusive decision-making processes. Discontent gave rise to the formation of the Koyiaki-Lemek Wildlife Trust by the group ranch members in 1995. The Trust was established to facilitate fairer distribution of revenues from game-viewing fees and tourist facilities located within the ranches. The key informants explained that under this new arrangement, all members received a share of revenues approximately every three months ($50–$300). However, discussions during the Net-map activity revealed that nepotism and patronage by local elites hindered balanced benefit distributions (key informant interviews; households 2, 7, 9–12).

The early 1990s saw a government-backed and community supported move for privatization where land was subdivided (in principle) into equal parcels of 61 hectares. Unmarried women remained excluded, restricting ownership to widows on the group ranch register (male and female discussions). Informants expressed that the subdivision process created opportunities for exploitation between surveyors and other powerful elites, leading to a lack of funds from the Trust to remunerate landowners. Respondents explained that privatization of the Group Ranch was eventually completed in mid-1990 and to consolidate benefit distribution, the conservancy was later established on individually owned land in 2009 leading to a far more balanced and regular revenue sharing arrangement than before. Nearly half of the female respondents (household interviews and group discussions) reported the contrary as a reflection of their ongoing exclusion.

Procedural Equity Outcomes

The Net-map (Figure 3) conducted with informants and validated with community members revealed the current institutional arrangement as follows: the Tourism Partners elect The Board of Governors, who collaborate with the Landowners Committee, elected by landowners to represent their interests. Resource-use regulations are enforced by the Grazing Committee established to manage a rotational grazing program and work with community rangers. The community rangers interact with members on the grazing locations accessible throughout the year. Household and discussion respondents however lamented that access to information on contracts and mechanisms for resolving resource-use conflicts remained limited. Contrary to the expectation of annual meetings, only in 2014 was the second annual general meeting held (Households 3–6, 8, 10–12). Furthermore, although landowners agreed to contract terms read to them at a public meeting, respondents did not retain a copy of the contract (Households 5, 9) as this was not permitted (Households 4, 15). The results show that mechanisms for ensuring procedural equity were considered by respondents as largely insufficient.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 3.

Process Net-map of actors, relationships and current levels of influence over equity outcomes.

Consensus from respondents was that women were underrepresented in decision-making on committees for land, livestock grazing and breeding. Nonetheless, given their roles as livestock managers, water and fuelwood collectors, most female respondents were aware of the grazing rules; few men and far fewer women were aware of the livestock breeding program. Respondents attributed women’s limited participation to restrictions on land ownership and traditions that limited women’s inclusion in male dominated spaces (male and female FGDs).

Distributional Equity Outcomes

Distributional equity from tourism revenues was considered by respondents as largely balanced between registered members and was attributed to the formal institutions established for managing disbursements (key informant interviews 1–5, 9, 13; all male group discussions; 1 female group discussion). Participants explained that contracts managed by a private company ensured a regular, fixed amount of tourism revenues was remitted to the landowners. However, informants identified that only two percent of contract holders were women—mostly widows—who often granted male relatives the responsibility for benefit collection (female and male group discussions, key informant interviews 2, 3, 5). Participants confirmed that because formal land ownership is biased towards men, tourism benefits were distributed to the male household heads, rendering most women indirect beneficiaries (Households 1–8; all female group discussions; 1 male group discussion).

The main benefit derived from membership was cash. Respondents reported that monies were used by household heads and sometimes jointly with female spouses to pay for school fees, livestock inputs and food purchases (all group discussions). Income received also helped smooth consumption during periods of stress (droughts). At the intra-household level, respondents held divergent views regarding the use of any balance from the money (households 3–5; 7–13, 15, 19). Nearly half of the men indicated that the balance was used to hire labor, whereas nearly all of the women were unaware ‘how much’ money remained as payments were sent via bank transfers to male household heads and remittances from husbands to wives regularly fluctuated.

Both men and women reported on costs incurred from livestock losses and increased pasture competition but often encountered different experiences regarding the same cost. While labor costs were incurred by both genders, financial costs were incurred largely by men. Women faced increased labor burdens due to fetching water and firewood in designated locations—occasionally exacerbated due to donkey predation which was unremunerated by the compensation scheme. Both genders incurred costs from increased labor due to herding activities in distant designated locations. Both genders also felt the burden of cattle mortality caused by wildlife transmitted diseases (malignant catarrhal fever) which was not compensated by the scheme. Replacing cattle was the costly responsibility of men, whereas women incurred costs based on the loss of cattle milk incomes which they control exclusively. Participants from half of the focus group discussions (two male, two female) explained that resource use restrictions increased competition for pasture often leading to men’s illegal grazing of livestock in the Maasai Mara National Reserve. The results illustrate therefore that institutional arrangements anchored to land tenure and gendered divisions of labor influenced distributional equity while informal institutions, such as culture conditioned intra-household equity, directly benefitting men. Table 3 presents a summary of gendered distribution of costs and benefits.

Contextual Equity: Stakeholder Influence

Contextual equity was assessed by using the Process Netmap to explore the different levels of decision-making influence held by stakeholders within the MNC governance structure. Informants allocated The Board of Governors and the Grazing Committee the highest influence level (six on the influence scale). The Board of Governors were responsible for setting the payment amounts, whereas the Grazing Committee regulated resource-use for members. Both stakeholders were therefore perceived as powerful enough to influence distributive equity specifically regarding tourism incomes and resource use. This was followed by the Private Management Company jointly with the Landowners Committee (five on the influence scale) who in principle (but not always effectively), represented landowners in decision-making processes with the Board of Governors and the Grazing Committee. Even though tourists provided income, their position of influence over equity outcomes was considered as the lowest because the contractual benefit-sharing arrangement remains in place irrespective of tourism volumes. Participants awarded the Tourism Partners slightly more influence over managing revenue distribution jointly with contract design.

When the historical events were chronologically traced as part of the Net-map, the results reveal that MNC culminated largely from community-led actions to address longstanding inequities. Land ownership ensured the achievement of distributive equity for registered members— mainly male—through the establishment of institutional arrangements. Power imbalances in the institutional arrangement however only partially addressed procedural equity whereby women were disproportionally excluded in decision-making processes. Despite the labor and financial costs incurred by adhering to the MNC rules, the customary non-recognition of women as land holders also meant their exclusion from direct benefit distribution under the formalization of property rights. Key findings on all equity outcomes are summarized in Table 4.