Research ArticleResearch Articles
Open Access

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

Juliet Kariuki and Regina Birner
Ecological Restoration, March 2021, 39 (1-2) 77-89; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/er.39.1-2.77

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aboud, G.
    2011. Gender and Climate Change: Supporting Resources Collection. Sussex, UK: Institute of Development Studies, Bridge.
  2. ↵
    1. Aronson, J.,
    2. N. Goodwin,
    3. L. Orlando,
    4. C. Eisenberg and
    5. A.T. Cross
    . 2020. A World of Possibilities: Six Restoration Strategies to Support the United Nation’s Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology 28:730–36.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Arora-Jonsson, S.
    2011. Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change 21:744–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Atela, J.
    2015. Carbon in Africa’s agricultural landscapes: A Kenyan case. Pages 43–57 in (eds), M. Leach and I. Scoones Carbon Conflicts and Forest Landscapes in Africa. London, UK: Earthscan.
  5. ↵
    1. Babbie, E.
    2007. The practice of social research. Australia: Thompson Wandsworth.
  6. ↵
    1. Bedelian, C.
    2014. Conservation, Tourism and Pastoral Livelihoods: Wildlife Conservancies in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Doctoral Dissertation, University College London.
  7. ↵
    1. Bedelian, C. and
    2. J.O. Ogutu
    . 2017. Trade-Offs for climate-resilient pastoral livelihoods in wildlife conservancies in the Mara ecosystem, Kenya. Pastoralism 7:1–22.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Bee, B.A.
    2019. Gendered spaces of payment for environmental services: A critical look. Geographical Review 109:87–107.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Bee, B.A. and
    2. B.S. Basnett
    . 2017. Engendering social and environmental safeguards in REDD+: Lessons from feminist and development research. Third World Quarterly 38:787–804.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Berbés-Blázquez, M.,
    2. J.A. González and
    3. U. Pascual
    . 2016. Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19:134–43.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Blaikie, P.
    2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34:1942–57.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Baylis, K.,
    2. J. Honey-Rosés,
    3. J. Börner,
    4. E. Corbera,
    5. D. Ezzine-de-Blas,
    6. P.J. Ferraro
    et al. 2016. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conservation Letters 9:58–64.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Börner, J.,
    2. D. Schulz,
    3. S. Wunder and
    4. A. Pfaff
    . 2020. The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics 12:45–64.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Broeckhoven, N. and
    2. A. Cliquet
    . 2015. Gender and ecological restoration: Time to connect the dots. Restoration Ecology 23:729–36.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Bullock, J.M.,
    2. J. Aronson,
    3. A.C. Newton,
    4. R.F. Pywell and
    5. J.M. Rey-Benayas
    . 2011. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: Conflicts and opportunities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26:541–49.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Burke, S.M. and
    2. N. Mitchell
    . 2007. People as ecological participants in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 15:348–350.
    OpenUrl
    1. Cavanagh, C.J.,
    2. T. Weldemichel and
    3. T.A. Benjaminsen
    . 2020. Gentrifying the African landscape: The performance and powers of for-profit conservation on Southern Kenya’s conservancy frontier. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 14:1–19.
    OpenUrl
    1. CBD (United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity)
    2016. Ecosystem restoration: short-term action plan. CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/5, 10 December.
  19. ↵
    1. Chen, X.,
    2. F. Lupi,
    3. G. He and
    4. J. Liu
    . 2009. Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106:11812–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Chomba, S.,
    2. J. Kariuki,
    3. J.F. Lund and
    4. F. Sinclair
    . 2016. Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land Use Policy 50:202–13.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Clement F,
    2. M.C. Buisson,
    3. S. Leder,
    4. S. Balasubramanya,
    5. P. Saikia,
    6. R. Bastakoti
    et al. 2019. From women’s empowerment to food security: revisiting global discourses through a cross-country analysis. Global Food Security 23:160–172.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Cooke, S.J.,
    2. J.R. Bennett and
    3. H.P. Jones
    . 2019. We have a long way to go if we want to realize the promise of the ‘Decade on Ecosystem Restoration’.Conservation Science and Practice 1:1–5.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Corbera, E,
    2. K Brown, and
    3. W.N Adger
    . 2007. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 38:587–613.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Corbera, E.,
    2. C.G. Soberanis and
    3. K. Brown
    . 2009. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: An analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68:743–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Davis, M.A. and
    2. L.B. Slobodkin
    . 2004. The science and values of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 12:1–3.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Dhakal, B.,
    2. M. Khadka and
    3. M. Gautam
    . 2020. Impacts of payment for ecosystem services of mountain agricultural landscapes on farming women in Nepal. GeoJournal: 1–35.
  27. ↵
    1. Doss, C and
    2. R. Meinzen-Dick
    . 2020. Land tenure security for women: A conceptual framework. Land Use Policy 99:105080.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Dietz, T.
    2003. Struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Di Gregorio, M.,
    2. M. Brockhaus,
    3. T. Cronin,
    4. E. Muharrom,
    5. L. Santoso,
    6. S. Mardiah
    et al. 2013. Equity and REDD+ in the media: A comparative analysis of policy discourses. Ecology and Society 18 (2).
  30. ↵
    1. Elmhirst, R.
    2011. Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42:129–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Engel, S.,
    2. S. Pagiola and
    3. S. Wunder
    . 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65:663–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Engel, S.
    2016. The devil in the detail: A practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 9:131–77.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Ferraro, P.J. and
    2. A. Kiss
    . 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298:1718–19.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Fischer, J.,
    2. M. Riechers,
    3. J. Loos,
    4. B. Martin-Lopez and
    5. V.M. Temperton
    . 2020. Making the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration a social-ecological endeavour. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Pages 1–9.
  35. ↵
    1. Fraser, N.
    2009. Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalising world. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
  36. ↵
    1. Friedman, R.S.,
    2. E.A. Law,
    3. N.J. Bennett,
    4. C.D. Ives,
    5. J.P.R. Thorn and
    6. K.A. Wilson
    . 2018. How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation research. Environmental Research Letters 13:053001.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Gann. G.D.,
    2. T. McDonald,
    3. B. Walder,
    4. J. Aronson,
    5. C.R. Nelson,
    6. J. Jonson
    et al. 2019. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 27:S1–S46.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. García-Amado, L.R.,
    2. L.R. Pérez,
    3. F.R. Escutia,
    4. S.B. García and
    5. E.C. Mejía
    . 2011. Efficiency of payments for environmental services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a biosphere reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics 70:2361–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Gerring, J.
    2004. What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review 98:341–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Glaser, B.G. and
    2. A.L. Strauss
    . 2009. The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY Transaction Publishers.
  41. ↵
    1. Hanson, S.
    2010. Gender and mobility: New approaches for informing sustainability. Gender, Place and Culture 17:5–23.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Higgs, E.S.
    1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology. 11:338–348.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Hunter, M.L.,
    2. R.K. Hitchcock,
    3. B. Wyckoff-baird and
    4. B. Wyckoffbairdt
    . 2011. Women and Wildlife in Southern Africa. Conservation Biology 4:448–51.
    OpenUrl
    1. International Labour Office (ILO)
    . 2000. ABC of women worker’s rights and gender equality. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.
  45. ↵
    1. Jackson, C.
    2003. Gender analysis of land: Beyond land rights for women? Journal of Agrarian Change 3:453–80.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Johnson, J.M.J.
    2002. In depth interviewing. In Handbook of Interview Review: Context and Method, 103–20. California, CA: Thousand Oaks Sage.
  47. ↵
    1. Johnson, N.L.,
    2. C. Kovarik,
    3. R. Meinzen-Dick,
    4. J. Njuki and
    5. A. Quisumbing
    . 2015. Gender, assets, and agricultural development: Lessons from eight projects. World Development. 83:295–311.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Kaelo, D.
    2007. Human-elephant conflict in pastoral areas north of Maasai Mara National Reserve. Master of Philosophy Thesis, Moi University.
  49. ↵
    1. Kariuki, J. and
    2. R, Birner
    . 2016. Are market-based conservation schemes gender-blind: A qualitative study of three cases from Kenya. Society and Natural Resources. 29:432–447.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Kariuki, J.,
    2. R. Birner and
    3. S. Chomba
    . 2018. Exploring institutional factors influencing equity in two payments for ecosystem service schemes. Conservation and Society. 16:320–37.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Keane, A.,
    2. H. Gurd,
    3. D. Kaelo,
    4. M.Y. Said,
    5. J. De Leeuw,
    6. J.M. Rowcliffe and
    7. K. Homewood
    . 2016. Gender differentiated preferences for a community-based conservation initiative. PLoS ONE 11:1–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Kinzig, A.P.,
    2. P.R. Ehrlich,
    3. L.J. Alston,
    4. K. Arrow,
    5. S. Barrett,
    6. T.G. Buchman,
    7. G.C. Daily
    , et al. 2013. Social norms and global environmental challenges: The complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63:164–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. ↵
    1. Kirsten, F.,
    2. A.S.M. Karaan and
    3. R.A. Dorward
    . 2009. Institutional economics perspectives on African agricultural development. In Institutional economics perspectives on African agricultural development, edited by F. Kirsten, Johann, R Dorward, Andrew, C. Poulton, and N. Vink, 35–73. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
  54. ↵
    1. Lau, J.D.
    2020. Three lessons for gender equity in biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 34:1589–1591.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Law, E.A.,
    2. N.J. Bennett,
    3. C.D. Ives,
    4. R. Friedman,
    5. K.J. Davis,
    6. C. Archibald
    et al. 2018. Equity trade-offs in conservation decision-making. Conservation Biology 32:294–303.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Leach, M. and
    2. C. Green
    . 1997. Gender and environmental history: From representation of women and nature to gender analysis of ecology and politics. Environment and History 3:343–70.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Lubungu, M. and
    2. R. Birner
    . 2018. Using Process Net-map to analyse governance challenges: A case study of livestock vaccination campaigns in Zambia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 156:91–101.
    OpenUrl
    1. Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association (MMWCA)
    . 2018. 2018 Impact report. MMWCA, 2018. www.maraconservancies.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/MMWCA-Social-Impact-Report-2018-Final-V3.pdf.
  59. ↵
    1. Mahanty, S.,
    2. H. Suich and
    3. L. Tacconi
    . 2013. Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: Lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:38–47.
    OpenUrl
    1. Mara North Conservancy
    . n.d. Promoting partnerships in conservation. Mara North Conservancy, Narok, Kenya. www.maranorth.com/reference.html.
  61. ↵
    1. Martin, D.M. and
    2. Lyons, J.E.
    2018. Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 26:1045–1050.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Martin, D.M.
    2017. Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century. Restoration Ecology, 25:668–673.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. McDermott, M.,
    2. S. Mahanty and
    3. K. Schreckenberg
    . 2013. Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy 33:416–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  64. ↵
    1. Meinzen-Dick, R.,
    2. N. Johnson,
    3. A. Quisumbing,
    4. J. Njuki,
    5. J. Behrman,
    6. D. Rubin,
    7. A. Peterman, and
    8. E. Waitanji
    . 2011. Gender, assets and agricultural development programs. 99. CAPRi. Washington D.C.
  65. ↵
    1. Meinzen-Dick, R. and
    2. E. Mwangi
    . 2009. Cutting the web of interests: Pitfalls of formalizing property rights. Land Use Policy 26:36–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  66. ↵
    1. Morgan, D.L.
    1998. The Focus Group Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Books.
  67. ↵
    1. Muradian, R.,
    2. E. Corbera,
    3. U. Pascual,
    4. N. Kosoy and
    5. P.H. May
    . 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69:1202–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  68. ↵
    1. Nabane, N.
    1996. Lacking Confidence? A gender-sensitive analysis of CAMPFIRE in Masoka Village. Wildlife and Development Series. International Institute for Environment and Development in association with the CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group (United Kingdom).
  69. ↵
    1. Nelson, S.H.,
    2. L.L. Bremer,
    3. K.M. Prado and
    4. K.A. Brauman
    . 2020. The political life of natural infrastructure: Water funds and alternative histories of payments for ecosystem services in Valle Del Cauca, Colombia. Development and Change 51:26–50.
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. North, D.
    1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  71. ↵
    1. Ogra, M.V.
    2011. Gender and community-oriented wildlife conservation: Views from project supervisors in India. Environment, Development and Sustainability 14:407–24.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Okali, C. and
    2. L.O. Naess
    . 2013. Making sense of gender, climate change and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa: Creating genderresponsive climate adaptation policy.
  73. ↵
    1. Okpara, U.T.,
    2. L.C. Stringer and
    3. M. Akhtar-Schuster
    . 2019. Gender and land degradation neutrality: A cross-country analysis to support more equitable practices. Land Degradation and Development 30:1368–78.
    OpenUrl
  74. ↵
    1. Pagiola, S.,
    2. A. Arcenas and
    3. G. Platais
    . 2005. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33:237–53.
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Pascual, U.,
    2. R. Muradian,
    3. L.C. Rodríguez and
    4. A. Duraiappah
    . 2010. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 69:1237–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  76. ↵
    1. Pascual, U.,
    2. J. Phelps,
    3. E. Garmendia,
    4. K. Brown,
    5. E. Corbera,
    6. A. Martin
    et al. 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64:1027–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    1. Perring, M.P.,
    2. R.J. Standish,
    3. J.N. Price,
    4. M.D. Craig,
    5. E. Erickson,
    6. T.E., Ruthrof
    et al. 2015. Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades. Ecosphere 6:1–25.
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    1. Peskett, L.,
    2. K. Schreckenberg and
    3. J. Brown
    . 2011. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: Learning lessons for REDD+ from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy 14:216–29.
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Petheram, L. and
    2. B.M. Campbell
    . 2010. Listening to locals on payments for environmental services. Journal of Environmental Management 91:1139–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. ↵
    1. Prach, K.,
    2. G. Durigan,
    3. S. Fennessy,
    4. G.E. Overbeck,
    5. J.M. Torezan and
    6. S.D. Murphy
    . 2019. A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success. Restoration Ecology 27:917–23.
    OpenUrl
  81. ↵
    1. Richardson, B.J. and
    2. T. Lefroy
    . 2016. Restoration dialogues: Improving the governance of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 24:668–73.
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Rocheleau, D. and
    2. D. Edmunds
    . 1997. Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Development 25:1351–71.
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Russell, D. and
    2. M.B. Vabi
    . 2013. Gender analysis for the Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) Phase III.
  84. ↵
    1. Schiffer, Eva
    . 2007. Manual: Net-Map toolbox influence mapping of social networks. Sunbelt Conference of the International Network of Social Network Analysis, May:1–6.
  85. ↵
    1. Sante, D.
    2018. Management Plan 2018. Mara North Conservancy, Kenya.
  86. ↵
    1. Schneider, H.
    2013. The future face of conservation: Could it be female? Oryx 47:1–2.
    OpenUrl
    1. SER (Society for Ecological Restoration International)
    . 2004. SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International.
  88. ↵
    1. Shackelford, N.,
    2. R.J. Hobbs,
    3. J.M. Burgar,
    4. T.E. Erickson,
    5. J.B. Fontaine,
    6. E. Laliberté
    et al. 2013. Primed for change: Developing ecological restoration for the 21st Century. Restoration Ecology 21:297–304.
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. Shapiro-Garza, E.,
    2. P. McElwee,
    3. G. Van Hecken and
    4. E. Corbera
    . 2020. Beyond market logics: Payments for ecosystem services as alternative development practices in the global south. Development and Change 51:3–25.
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. Silvestri, S.,
    2. P. Osano,
    3. J. de Leeuw and
    4. M. Herrero,
    5. P. Ericksen,
    6. J. Kariuki
    et al. 2012. Greening livestock: Assessing the potential of payment for environmental services in livestock inclusive agricultural production systems in developing countries. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.
  91. ↵
    1. Smith, J. and
    2. S.J. Scherr
    . 2003. Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods. World Development, 31:2143–60.
    OpenUrl
  92. ↵
    1. Sommerville, M.,
    2. J.P.G. Jones,
    3. M. Rahajaharison and
    4. E.J. Milner-Gulland
    . 2010. The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 69:1262–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  93. ↵
    1. Songorwa, A.
    1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the communities interested? World Development 27:2061–79.
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    1. Tacconi, L.,
    2. S. Mahanty and
    3. H. Suich
    . 2013. The livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+. Society & Natural Resources 6:1–12.
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    1. Talle, A.
    1988. Women at a Loss. Changes in Maasai Pastoralism and their Effects on Gender Relations. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Studies in Anthropology,
  96. ↵
    1. Thompson, M. and
    2. K. Homewood
    . 2002. Entrepreneurs, elites, and exclusion in Maasailand: Trends in wildlife conservation and pastoralist development. Human Ecology 30:107–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. ↵
    1. Vatn, A.
    2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69:1245–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  98. ↵
    1. Verma, R.
    2014. Land grabs, power, and gender in East and Southern Africa: So, what’s new? Feminist Economics 20:52–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  99. ↵
    1. vonHedemann, N.
    2020. Transitions in payments for ecosystem services in Guatemala: Embedding forestry incentives into rural development value systems. Development and Change 51:117–43.
    OpenUrl
  100. ↵
    1. Westholm, L. and
    2. S. Arora-Jonsson
    . 2015. Defining solutions, finding problems: Deforestation, gender, and REDD+ in Burkina Faso. Conservation and Society 13:189.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. ↵
    1. Whaley, L. and
    2. E.K. Weatherhead
    . 2014. An integrated approach to analyzing (adaptive) comanagement using the ‘Politicized’ IAD Framework. Ecology and Society 19(1):10.
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    1. Williamson, O.E.
    1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 36:269–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  103. ↵
    1. Wortley, L.,
    2. J.-M. Hero and
    3. M. Howes
    2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success: A review of the literature. Restoration Ecology 2:537–543.
    OpenUrl
    1. Wunder, S.
    2008. Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13:279–97.
    OpenUrl
    1. Wunder, S.
    2008. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation: Essays. Conservation Biology 21:48–58.
    OpenUrl
  106. ↵
    1. Wunder, S.
    2005. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. Center for International Forestry Research, no. 42.
  107. ↵
    1. Yang, Y.C.E.,
    2. S. Passarelli,
    3. R.J. Lovell and
    4. C. Ringler
    . 2018. Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services 31:58–67.
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    1. Yin, R.
    2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Books.
  109. ↵
    1. Yin, R. and
    2. M. Zhao
    . 2012. Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socio-economic processes-China’s experience as an Example. Ecological Economics 73:56–65.
    OpenUrl
    1. Young, T.P. and
    2. M.W. Schwartz
    . 2019. The Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is an impetus to get it right. Conservation Science and Practice 1:e145.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Exploring Gender Equity in Ecological Restoration: The Case of a Market-Based Program in Kenya
Juliet Kariuki, Regina Birner
Ecological Restoration Mar 2021, 39 (1-2) 77-89; DOI: 10.3368/er.39.1-2.77
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords