Abstract
Gender plays an important role in human–wildlife coexistence. Women have their own distinct form of environmental knowledge; women shape attitudes and perceptions related to wildlife and influence the use of natural spaces and the nature of human–wildlife interactions. Being a female farmer or practitioner involved in human–wildlife conflict mitigation poses a variety of obstacles and benefits. The way conservation conflicts are perceived and managed is gendered, and this needs to be taken into account when working with local communities to achieve effective and fluent dialogue, planning, implementation, and evaluation. The existing body of evidence is focused mainly in Africa and Asia and suggests that the sharing of landscapes between humans and wildlife has different implications for men and women with respect to their attitudes toward wildlife and how they are impacted by it. Although extensive research has been done in relation to gender, conservation, and natural resource management, the gender perspective of human–wildlife coexistence is underreported. Feminist political ecology emphasizes that gender differences originate in the need to overcome existing social and political barriers and is highlighting the importance of en-gendering research. In Chile, work in the rural sector poses various challenges, especially for women. Rural landscapes are, in general, dominated by men, with low female participation in decision-making spaces. Nonetheless, this appears to be silently changing. In this perspective, we contrast three undocumented experiences of our work as female researchers and facilitators of human–wildlife coexistence (northern case, central case, and southern case). The aim of this perspective piece is to expose current findings for the role of women in human–wildlife coexistence, contrast these with our reports, and propose future directions.
Introduction
Social–ecological systems in rural settlements are dynamic cultural landscapes that are created and shaped by human stewardship and the richness of human–wildlife interactions (; ; ). Within these systems, humans and other-than-human beings establish biotic and cultural communities as cohabitants of a shared landscape (; ; ). In rural landscapes, interactions between these cohabitants can cause some friction due to competition over resources and habitat use. Management of human–wildlife conflicts (HWC) has received increasing attention from researchers because it negatively impacts both wildlife and local communities that have traditionally dwelled on the land (; ; ; ; ). Most of the studies addressing this topic have failed to acknowledge how the impact of HWC on humans differs between genders and is often asymmetrically adverse for women (; ; ). Although extensive research has been done in relation to gender, conservation and natural resource management (), the gender perspective of HWC is rarely considered (; ; ; ) and research on it has hitherto mostly focused on Africa and Asia.
The existing body of evidence suggests that the sharing of landscapes between humans and wildlife has different implications for men and women with respect to their attitudes toward wildlife and how they are impacted by it. Feminist political ecology is highlighting the importance of overcoming “gender blindness” by en-gendering research (; ; ; ; ). Some studies acknowledge that women play a major role in the sustainability and resilience of social-ecological systems, and their influence is critical when it comes to human–wildlife coexistence and harmonic cohabitation of space (; Carter et al., 2016; ; ; ). Women have their own distinct form of traditional environmental knowledge () and shape attitudes to and perceptions of wildlife, as well as influencing the use of natural spaces (; ). They preside over environmental activist groups and therefore influence management decisions and the conservation of biological resources (; ; ). Addressing the gender dimension of human–wildlife interactions could help us identify new drivers of coexistence connected to perceptions, values, and behaviors and, therefore, new effective strategies for coexistence.
To this date, we have almost no information on this topic for Latin America. Particularly in Chile, being a woman involved in HWC poses a variety of obstacles, especially for campesinas1 that subsist in a context of poverty, isolation, and lack of resources (). In this perspective article, we will briefly communicate the need to address the lack of a gender perspective in human–wildlife coexistence research, and how doing so could contribute to alleviating the challenges faced by women involved in HWC (; ; ). We refer to two categories of female stakeholders that play different roles: campesinas (female farmers) and female practitioners (professionals and researchers), although focusing mainly on the first group as traditional dwellers of landscapes and carriers of essential traditional local knowledge (TLK) (; ). For our purposes, campesinas are teachers and traditional keepers and carers of the land, whereas practitioners are observers, facilitators, and apprentices (). Each group contributes to coexistence with their own knowledge and resources. We present three undocumented experiences of our work as female practitioners and facilitators of human–wildlife coexistence in three distinct rural areas in the Andes of Chile: north, central, and south (Table 1). From these experiences, we identify certain gender traits that we believe merit rigorous exploration in future scientific studies worldwide. We discuss what the gender-related variables are that should be looked at in future research with the aim of adding a gender perspective to the field of coexistence. We contrast our experiences with the existing literature that has treated this topic.
Table 1
| Northern case1 | Central case2,3 | Southern case4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Coquimbo region | Valparaiso region | La Araucania region |
| Coordinates | 29° 59′S–71° 9′W | 32°21′S–70°47′W | 38°47′S–71°31′W |
| Industry | Goat | Cattle | Poultry |
| Species in conflict | Puma (Puma concolor) | Guanaco (Lama guanicoe) | Diurnal raptors (Parabuteo unicinctus, Accipiter chilensis, Geranoeatus polyosoma) |
| Habitat | High Andes wetlands and shrubland | High Andes wetlands and shrubland | Andean temperate rainforest |
| Method | Workshops and semi-structured questionnaires | Workshops and semi-structured questionnaires | Semi-structured questionnaires |
| Female participation in animal management | High | Low | High |
| Female participation in study | 60% | <10% | 76% |
| Indigenous communities’ participation in study | None | None | Mapuche, 49% |
| Gender traits | - High participation in animal caring duties - High participation in decision-making and organizational spaces - Mixed networks with female leaders - Strong women-to-women bonds - Deep connection to nature and intangible value for biodiversity | - Low participation in animal caring duties - Traditional practices negatively affected women’s participation in decision-making and organizational spaces - Exclusive men networks - Tangible value for natural resources | - High participation in animal caring duties - Animal care related to home garden and household care - Mixed networks with female leaders - Strong women-to-women bonds - Deep connection to nature and intangible value for biodiversity - Creative conflict management measures |
General description of the three cases where the authors have done work in human–wildlife coexistence (1; 2; 3; 4), including information on women and indigenous participation in the studies. We also present a list of the gender traits identified from our perspective that would be relevant to assess for future research.
The need for a gender perspective in the field of human–wildlife coexistence
Diversifying knowledge and including new perspectives means moving away from male-oriented management measures. The limited amount of information about the relevance of women in HWC management and decision-making within the field might affect their potential to contribute and create change (; ; ). Collaborations between different female stakeholders for environmental management provide different results than male-led experiences () and lead to more democratic and creative management decisions ().
Many female practitioners and political ecologists are currently encouraging their audience to understand and challenge gender essentialist assumptions from ecofeminism that state that women are naturally more sensitive and connected to the environment (). These assumptions are originated in the historical accumulation of management forms and, therefore, are considered endogenous results of women–wildlife coevolution (). Women do have different priorities for conservation and resource management and different drivers for valuing wildlife (). However, the particularities of the woman–nature relationship have a more complex and socio-political origin and are the result of a historical, contextual, situated, and embodied conceptions (). Feminist political ecology emphasizes that gender differences originate in the need to overcome existing social and political barriers (; ; ).
In rural livelihoods, there are often roles for women and roles for men, and, through this article, we are not seeking to criticize the existence of these differentiated roles. The division of tasks, knowledge and responsibilities according to gender can generate complementarity and overlap (). Gender relations are multiple and related to social entities, where factors like power, social class, generation and ethnicity are articulated. Hence, in some human communities, we will find gender relations where women are subordinate; in others, we find complementarity; and in others, we still find more protagonism. The problem arises when women’s labor is less visible, recognized, and validated (; ). When women decide to work in sectors dominated by men, they can suffer from discrimination and have to overcome a number of barriers to achieve validation or be heard (). Extreme situations can even feature sexual or emotional abuse (). This is specially the case for when women try to be part of decision-making spaces (; ; UN Women, 2001).
Women tend to create their own informal networks that are often powerful and highly influential (; ; ). Studies show that women’s participation and leadership in organizations dedicated to natural resource management helps achieve a more creative and productive task force (). Women TLK has different sources to its male counterpart, and women’s interactions with nature have their own unique and distinctive motivations (; ).
Three experiences in Chile that illustrate a global concern
Within rural landscapes of South America, the campesinado has been defined as a rural producer who works relatively small patches of land, with the family being in charge of most or often all of the labor. Campesinos often do not own the land which they work (). In Chile, the campesinado mostly fits with this definition, especially when referring to family farming, but it is relevant to add that total household income from livestock and agricultural exploitation is often very low, which leads to low employment and drives families toward multi-activity performing paid employment (; ). Rurality is changing, with more activities being performed outside the farm, with women taking more part in rural work, and with urban and rural areas increasingly interacting (). With these changes, new gender relationships are appearing that have not yet been analyzed. The relevance of women’s paid and unpaid work is only starting to be recognized, and there is no notion of how this is impacting vulnerability and gender gaps in rural families.
How rural women and men are differentially adapting to these social changes, along with other changes in the landscape of climatic and structural nature, including variations in biodiversity and ecosystem resources, is unknown. This includes adaptation to changes in human–wildlife dynamics. As female practitioners addressing HWC in different areas of Chile, we have had widely different experiences but very similar concerns about how little we know about the role of women in this field worldwide. Through our work, we were able to recognize gender traits that, although they are only experiential and have not yet been evidenced by science, they provide a valuable preliminary insight in relation to gendered roles in human–wildlife dynamics. In 1987, recognized a lack of reliable data on the differences between men– and women–wildlife dynamics and how they were purely based on speculation and biases. After exploring the current literature, we were surprised by the fact that, 35 years later, there is still a major knowledge gap (; ; ; ). The traits that we have identified and their implications are not sufficiently supported by our scientific field, and we believe that this is not because they are not happening elsewhere but because they are rarely studied.
Here, we present three cases of our own experience as female practitioners addressing HWC and coexistence in different rural areas of Chile (Table 1). The main results from these research initiatives have been published (; ; ; ), and, based on these experiences, numerous questions arose regarding the distinct role played by women, particularly campesinas and indigenous women, in human–wildlife coexistence initiatives. After realizing how underrepresented this topic was in the scientific literature, we decided to write this perspective article, with the aim of proposing future directions based on personal experience and available scientific literature. We also represent and communicate the key elements of the role of women through a naturalistic illustration based on and inspired by these experiences to add breadth, clarity, and robustness to the message that we are attempting to convey (Figure 1).
Figure 1
The northern case involves goat farming by campesinos, who are also known as “crianceros”, that practice this subsistence activity mainly in central and north-central Chile. It is characterized by nomadic pastoralism in search of fresh pastures, in which displacement is joined by the family group. Livestock activities are a men-dominated practice, but with high dependence on the support and cohesion of the family (including women and children) (). In this context, mothers and daughters take responsibility from an early age and play relevant roles in caring for the animals and manufacturing goats’ cheese (). Working here, it was not uncommon to find women leading and representing the crianceros guild, and their work appeared to open spaces of trust and dialogue, where women had strong, long-lasting bonds and high networking capacities. This raises the question of whether this high female presence can allow us a better understanding of the dynamics and traditions behind their interactions with wildlife. The puma is the main predator present in the high Andes wetlands and shrublands that can eat their livestock. In this ecosystem, the crianceras freely grazed their goats, often accompanying the animals so that they did not get lost or predated by the puma (Figure 1). This mobile grazing allowed the women to have close contact with nature and built a connection and sense of place. The time investment by the crianceras destined to care for the goats was also important, and the concern that they showed for the health and safety of the animals was evident. From our perspective, there could be a connection between these previous elements and the human–wildlife dynamics, associated with greater knowledge of the natural landscape or willingness to care for it.
The central case describes working with campesinos from the cattle sector of central Chile, who are mostly constituted by men, with only a few cases involving a female presence. Here, livestock management is carried out collaboratively as a community, through male associations. Women, in this case, can have an important role in the family economy, but by performing other activities such as agriculture, maintenance of home gardens, feeding livestock that remains near the house, and housekeeping (; ). Unlike the previous case, here, campesinas did not go to the mountains nor did they co-inhabit spaces with the guanaco. During the summer seasons, when cows and guanacos graze in a shared territory, the women would stay at their homes away from mountain life (Figure 1). They did not participate in the care of the cattle on the mountains. Their perception of the dynamics between livestock and wildlife was closely associated with what their husbands or children passed on to them. Our work in this context was challenged by cultural views and characterized by limited women’s influence and participation. Here, statements such as “women bring bad luck” and “the mountain is a place only for men” created a tense and challenging atmosphere, especially because the main researcher was a professional and postpartum woman who arrived at the meetings with a month-old baby in her arms. This context was particularly challenging, with a marked masculinization of the space and numerous obstacles that made it even more difficult to move forward with the already complex work of HWC management.
The southern case presented here was located in the Andean temperate forest of south-central Chile. In the area, homegardens and poultry family farming are integrated into a broader agroforestry system (; ). The work here was carried out mainly with campesinas and a mixture of Mapuche indigenous and non-indigenous families, which helped create a space for cross-cultural knowledge exchange. In this opportunity, non-lethal methods for managing human-raptor conflict were assessed. Here, it was normal for women to take care of the poultry, whereas men took care of the livestock (). The reason for this probably is because, in almost every case, the chickens stay near to the house and the home garden, which is usually women’s business (Figure 1) (). As in the northern case, here, we witnessed close contact between women and nature. There was creativity and efficiency in the management measures the participants came up with (); they recognized the intangible value of nature and showed great knowledge of wildlife behavior and their role within the ecosystem. Moreover, it was very interesting to see the significance that they gave to symbols and ancestral stories and how this impacted their attitudes toward raptors. This significance might be influenced by indigenous values immersed in the cultural mosaic present in the area.
In the cases presented here, we identified gender traits that vary together with the level of female participation. In the examples with more female participation, we observed greater networking capacities with strong women-to-women bonds, intangible valuation of nature, and a conspicuous difference in the fluidity of the work and communication between practitioners and participants. Women hold unique values and knowledge and carry out fundamental practices for coexistence, identifying that these practices could be a relevant breakthrough for this scientific field. Values and traditions played an important role in the three cases. In the central case, cattle rearing was men’s business, and the presence of women was even considered to be a nuisance. On the contrary, in the northern and southern cases, women played a notorious role in animal care that suggests that the practice of nurturing (their children, plants, and animals) could be highly significant for fulfilling an essential role in domestication, conservation, and human–wildlife coexistence in the rural landscape of Chile (; ). In addition, in the southern case, shared landscapes with the Mapuche community that have extensive knowledge of the natural world and that consider biodiversity as an important part of their worldview could promote coexistence and intangible value of nature and its cohabitants within the non-Mapuche community (; ).
The gender traits that we identify in these case studies make us wonder whether gendered roles, responsibilities and use of space may produce gendered risks. Risk may be more perceived by women; nonetheless, management of conflict has been reported to be predominantly male-oriented (). This is why the specific impact of HWC on women should also be determined. Some studies have reported that the negative impacts of human–wildlife interactions can often be long-term and uncompensated for women, which could certainly have an effect on women–wildlife dynamics (; ; ).
Discussion
Here, we presented three different socio-cultural and ecological contexts, where the role of women varied from case to case. Our objective is to raise our concerns about the scarce amount of scientific evidence about the role of women in human–wildlife coexistence because, from our experience as practitioners, we have observed gender traits that suggest that the role of women is unique and fundamental in the pursuit of coexistence (Figure 1).
To consider gender itself as an explanatory variable to different perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife is to overly simplify the relevance of gendered human–wildlife interactions (). Some studies have reported gender differences in attitudes toward wildlife (; ; ; ; ). Some say that women, in general, show more positive attitudes toward animals, being involved in more conservation initiatives than men (; ; ). Others say that women, in relation to carnivores, tend to show more fear and hold more negative perceptions (; ; ). However, there is still not enough information to identify tendencies and associated factors. Acknowledging that these findings are valuable insights contributing to gender perspective, we consider that it is important to explore beyond the gendered and cultural differences in attitudes toward wildlife.
Future studies should also include other variables for a better understanding of the complexity and relevance of the role of women in human–wildlife dynamics in rural settlements. Feminist political ecology and cross-cultural research could be key frameworks to explore these other variables and address this complexity (). On the basis of the gender traits, we identified from our experiences, and we consider social identity is a relevant variable to include. Whether women identify themself as campesinas, indigenous, conservationists, hunters, urban dwellers, or others could impact their exposure to HWC and engagement in managing it (). From our personal experience, we suggest additionally that time spent with livestock in nature and women's networking capacities as possible variables that could have an impact in their strategies to manage conflict.
Other authors recommend that household responsibilities, economic status, marital status, and number of dependents are also variables to consider because these may impact women’s exposure and vulnerability to gender barriers and wildlife impacts (; ). As stated by and , we also believe that it is relevant to study women’s unequal access to land ownership and the consequent low participation of women in decision-making spaces. This is one of the main reasons behind the division of labor, where women tend to dedicate their time to care duties (). These care duties are basically productive and reproductive unpaid work that make male work available, together with others taking care of other alternative sources of income (looms, crafts) and supporting food production through home gardens, which reduces the monetary cost of feeding ().
Human–nature relations are shaped by how the land is perceived or attributed meaning, which is why landscapes are a continuous work in progress (). We also believe that using a feminist political ecology framework when addressing gender differences is very important to challenge the notion that women are inherently closer to nature. It is our responsibility as female scientists to acknowledge that human gendered interactions have their roots in political issues such as unequal access and control over resources, unequal rights, and reduced access to decision-making spaces (; ). When gender-disaggregating data, research should focus on TLK including the voices of women, men, and children through community-based, participatory and interdisciplinary approaches to achieve effective and fluent dialogue (; ). Doing this not only supports inclusiveness and equity but also creates a space for women’s knowledge to contribute to conservation (; ). This could make a difference in terms of feminist environmental justice by helping women to overcome existing social and political barriers () and make coexistence initiatives more successful and expeditious ().
Funding
The projects on which the authors relied in formulating this perspective article were Centro Ceres Project R19A1002 ANID/REGIONAL, BECAS CHILE Study Abroad Graduate Scholarship 2018-2019 (ANID-Chile), The Peregrine Fund, the Rufford Small Grant, FONDECYT Regular/ANID (1200291), the Center for Intercultural and Indigenous Research–CIIR (ANID/FONDAP/15110006), the Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability–CAPES (ANID PIA/BASAL FB0002), ANID/ REDES (190033), the Vicerrectorı́a de investigación (VRI) from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (GRANT: 7512-023-81), and the ANID – Millennium Science Initiative – Center for the Socioeconomic Impact of Environmental Policies, CESIEP Code NCS13_004.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Nicholas Trapp for proofreading the English language and José Tomás Ibarra for his feedback on the manuscript. We would also like to thank ECOS Co-laboratory, Fundación Yastay and SOSOET for their support during fieldwork, and their feedback in the elements discussed in this paper. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the fundamental participation from campesinos and campesinas who have made this work possible and who have kindly and selflessly shared their knowledge to us, making a vast contribution to science.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Author contributions
RA: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing. SV: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing. JC: Conceptualization and writing. MM: Conceptualization and illustration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2022.1006006/full#supplementary-material
DATASHEET 1Spanish copy of the manuscript.
Footnotes
1.^Campesinado is a concept used to refer to the social group of campesinos and campesinas. Close translations for these terms are “smallholder farmers” or “family farmers”, although they lack the richness, historical perspective, and significance of the Spanish term. The word campesina/o includes “millions of small- and medium-size farmers, marginalized landless people, women farmers, indigenous people, migrants, and agricultural workers from all around the world” (). For the purpose of this perspective article and to use terminology that implies social justice, we will only speak of campesinas for women and campesinos for men farmers.
References
1
AgarwalB. (1997). Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Dev. Change28 (1), 1–44. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.00033
2
AgarwalB. (2009). Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecol. Econ68, 2785–2799. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025
3
AlexanderJ. S.BijoorA.GurmetK.MuraliR.MishraC.SuryawanshiK. R. (2022). Engaging omen brings conservation benefits to snow leopard landscapes. Environ. Cons.49 (3), 1–7. doi: 10.1017/s0376892922000236
4
AlmunaR.CruzJ. M.VargasF.IbarraJ. T. (2020). Landscapes of coexistence: generating predictive risk models to mitigate human-raptor conflicts in forest socio-ecosystems. Bio Cons251, 108795. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108795
5
AndersonW. S. (2020). The changing face of the wildlife profession: Tools for creating women leaders. HWI14 (1), 104–110. doi: 10.26077/e3e1-nf19
6
AnthonyM. L.KnuthB. A.LauberT. B. (2004). Gender and citizen participation in wildlife management decision-making. Soc. Nat. Resour17, 395–411. doi: 10.1080/08941920490430179
7
AranedaP.OhrensO.IbarraJ. T. (2021). Socioeconomic development and ecological traits as predictors of human-bird conflicts. Cons Bio36 (1), e13859. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13859
8
BaezaX. (1970). Algunas consideraciones sobre la trashumancia en el norte chico. Invest. geo20, 141–169. doi: 10.5354/0719-5370.1970.3284
9
BahamondesM.HerreraH. (2009) Agro y campesinado en Chile (Diálogos IPDRS). Available at: https://data.landportal.info/node/80951 (Accessed 18-06-2022).
10
BanerjeeS.SharmaS. (2021). En-gendering human-wildlife interactions in northeast india: towards decolonized conservation. J. Pol. Ecol.28 (1). doi: 10.2458/jpe.5217
11
BarreauA.IbarraM. I. (2019). “Mujeres mapuche y huertas andinas: espacios de fertilidad, soberanía y transmisión de saberes,” in Huertas familiares y comunitarias: cultivando soberanía alimentaria. Eds. IbarraT.CaviedesJ.BarreauA.Pessa.N. (Santiago: Ediciones UC), 127–137.
12
BaruaM.BhagwatS.JadhavS. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Bio Cons157, 309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014
13
BhatiaS.RedpathS. M.SuryawanshiK.MishraC. (2017). The relationship between religion and attitudes toward large carnivores in northern India? Hum. Dimens Wildl1209, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2016.1220034
14
BiskupovicC.CanterosE. (2019). Mobilizing citizen knowledge: finding a place, building the truth. Aust. J. Soc. Sci.36, 7–28. doi: 10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.2019.n36-01
15
CanneyA. C.McGoughL. M.BickfordN. A.WallenK. E. (2021). Systematic map of human-raptor interaction and coexistence research. Animals12 (1), 45. doi: 10.3390/ani12010045
16
CarterN.AllendorfT. D. (2016). Gendered perceptions of tigers in chitwan national park, Nepal. Bio Cons202, 69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.002
17
CarterN. H.LinnellJ. D. C. (2016). Co-Adaptation is key to coexisting with Large carnivores. TREE31 (8), 575–578. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006
18
CidP.et al. (2017) Mujeres rurales en Chile: Sistematización de algunos elementos. división de estudios y capacitación en género, ministerio de la mujer y la equidad de género. Available at: https://minmujeryeg.gob.cl (Accessed 05-07-2022).
19
CoñaP.de MoesbachE. (2010). Lonco pascual coña ñi tuculpazugun. testimonio de un cacique mapuche (Santiago, Chile: Editorial Pehuén).
20
CrespinS. J.SimonettiJ. A. (2019). Reconciling farming and wild nature: Integrating human-wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework. AMBIO48 (2), 131–138. doi: 10.1007/s13280-018-1059-2
21
DickmanA.MarchiniS.ManfredoM. (2013). The human dimension in addressing conflict with large carnivores. Key Top. Cons Bio2, 110–126. doi: 10.1002/9781118520178.ch7
22
ECLAC (2021) Implications of gender roles in natural resource governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. Available at: https://www.cepal.org/ (Accessed 20-07-2022).
23
EspinosaM. C. (2010). Why gender in wildlife conservation? notes from the Peruvian Amazon. Open Anthrop J.3, 230–241. doi: 10.2174/1874912701003010230
24
EyzaguirreP.LinaresO. (2010). Homegardens and agrobiodiversity (Washington DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press).
25
FAO (2012). Invisible guardians-women manage livestock diversity. FAO animal production and health paper no. 174 (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation).
26
FawazJ.SotoP. (2012). Mujer, trabajo y familia. tensiones, rupturas y continuidad en sectores rurales de Chile central. J. Genre Studies La Ventana4, 218–254.
27
Fernández-GiménezM. E.RaveraF.Oteros-RozasE. (2022). The invisible thread: Women as tradition keepers and change agents in Spanish pastoral social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc.27 (2), 1–17. doi: 10.5751/es-12794-270204
28
FortmannL. (1990). “Women’s role in small farm agriculture,” in Agroecology and sustainable agricultural systems. Eds. AltieriM.HechtS. (Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press), 35–43.
29
GalluzziG.EyzaguirreP.NegriV. (2010). Home gardens: Neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodiv Cons19 (13), 3635–3654. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9919-5
30
GitungwaH.GustafsonC. R.JimenezE. Y.PetersonE. W.MwanzalilaM.MakwetaA.et al. (2021). Female and male-controlled livestock holdings impact pastoralist food security and women’s dietary diversity. One Health Outlook3, 3. doi: 10.1186/s42522-020-00032-5
31
GoreM. L.KahlerJ. S. (2012). Gendered risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict: Implications for participatory conservation. PloS One7 (3), e32901. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032901
32
Guerrero-GaticaM.MujicaM. I.BarcelóM.Vio-GarayM. F.GelcichS.ArmestoJ. J.et al. (2020). Traditional and local knowledge in Chile: Review of experiences and insights for management and sustainability. Sustainability12, 1767. doi: 10.3390/su12051767
33
HarawayD. (2014). A cyborg manifiesto (Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press).
34
HerzogH. A. (2007). Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoos20 (1), 7–21. doi: 10.2752/089279307780216687
35
HuntsingerL.OviedoJ. L. (2014). Ecosystem services are social-ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: the case of california’s Mediterranean rangelands. Ecol. Soc.19 (1), 8. doi: 10.5751/ES-06143-190108
36
IbarraJ. T.CaviedesJ.BenavidesP. (2020). Winged voices: Mapuche ornithology from south American temperate forests. J. Ethnobiol40 (1), 89–100. doi: 10.2993/0278-0771-40.1.89
37
IbarraT.CaviedesJ.AltamiranoT. A.UrraR.BarreauA.SantanaF.et al. (2021). Social-ecological filters drive the functional diversity of beetles in homegardens of campesinos and migrants in the southern Andes. Sci. Rep.11 (1), 1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91185-4
38
KellertS. R.BerryJ. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl Soc. Bull.13, 363–371.
39
KhumaloK. E.YungL. A. (2015). Women, human-wildlife conflict, and CBNRM: Hidden impacts and vulnerabilities in kwandu conservancy, Namibia. Cons Soc.3, 232–243. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.170395
40
LamasM. (2013) El Género: La construcción cultural de la diferencia sexual capítulo: Programa universitario de estudios de género. Available at: https://www.legisver.gob.mx/ (Accessed 25-08-2022).
41
LiamputtongP. (2008). Doing cross-cultural research: Ethical and methodological perspectives (Berlin, Germany: Springer Science + Business Media).
42
MenegozK.CovarrubiasJ. (2019). “Huerteras de San fabián de alico: fortaleciendo el conocimiento tradicional para la construcción de sistemas agroecológicos,” in Huertas familiares y comunitarias: cultivando soberanía alimentaria. Eds. IbarraT.CaviedesJ.BarreauA.Pessa.N. (Santiago: Ediciones UC), 103–111.
43
MontecinosS.CastroR.de la ParraM. A. (2003). Mujeres. espejos y fragmentos (Santiago, Chile: CyC Aconcagua).
44
MorehouseA. T.BoyceM. S. (2017). Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores. Ecol. Soc.22 (3), 4. doi: 10.5751/ES-09415-220304
45
NyphusP. J. (2016). Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour41, 143–171. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634
46
OgraM. V. (2008). Human-wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum39, 1408–1422. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.12.004
47
PainemalM.ÁlvarezA. (2016). Mujeres y pueblos originarios. luchas y resistencias hacia la descolonización (Santiago, Chile: Editorial Pehuén).
48
PlieningerT.BielingC. (2012). Resilience and the cultural landscape: understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
49
ReygadasL.RamosT.MontoyaG. (2007). “Los Dilemas del desarrollo en la selva lacandona. movimientos sociales, medio ambiente y territorio en dos comunidades de chiapas,” in Territorios rurales. movimientos sociales y desarrollo territorial en américa latina. Ed. BengoaJ. (Santiago, Chile: RIMISP), 200–236.
50
RocheleauD. E. (1989). Gender division of work: Resources, and rewards in agroforestry systems. second Kenya national seminar on agroforestry (Nairobi, Kenya: International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF), 228–245.
51
RozziR. (2012). Biocultural ethics: Recovering the vital links between the inhabitants, their habits, and habitats. Environ. Eth34 (1), 27–50. doi: 10.5840/enviroethics20123414
52
SandbergS. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead (New York, USA: Knopf, New York).
53
SkogenK.GhosalS.SkulandS.KrishnanS. (2019). “Predators in human landscapes,” in Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Eds. FrankB.GlickmanJ. A.MarchiniS. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
54
SodhiN. S.DavidarP.RaoM. (2010). Empowering women facilitates conservation. Biol. Cons143, 1035–1036. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.014
55
TinklerJ. E.ZhaoJ. (2020). The sexual harassment of federal employees: Gender, leadership status, and organizational tolerance for abuses of power. J. Public Adm Res. Theory30 (3), 349–364. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muz037
56
TrevesA.WallaceR. B.Naughton-TrevesL.MoralesA.. (2006). Co-Managing human-wildlife conflicts: A review. Hum. Dimens Wildl11, 383–396. doi: 10.1080/10871200600984265
57
UN Women (2001) Gender mainstreming: strategy for promoting gender equality. Available at: https://www.un.org/ (Accessed 20-07-2022).
58
Van EedenL. M.NewsomeT. M.CrowtherM. S.DickmanC. R.BruskotterJ.. (2019). Social identity shapes support for management of wildlife and pests. Biol. Cons231, 167–173. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.012
59
VargasS. (2021). Underlying factors of the perception of conflict between wildlife and livestock in the north center of Chile. PhD Thesis. (La Serena, Chile: Universidad de La Serena).
60
VargasS. P.Castro-CarrascoP. J.RustN. A.RiverosJ. L.. (2021). Climate change contributing to conflicts between livestock farming and guanaco conservation in central Chile: a subjective theories approach. Oryx55 (2), 275–283. doi: 10.1017/S0030605319000838
61
VargasS. P.HargreavesM.Del ValleJ. P.HodgesA.BeltramiE.ToledoM. F.. (2022). Coexistence in times of climate crisis: A participatory mapping to understanding conservation conflicts in the central Andes of Chile. Front. Conserv. Sci.3, 731382. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2022.731382
62
WestermannO.AshbyJ.PrettyJ. (2005). Gender and social capital: The importance of gender differences for the maturity adn effectiveness of natural resource management groups. World Dev.33 (11), 1782–1799. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.018
63
WoodsJ. (2012) A word about the word campesino. heifer international. Available at: https://www.heifer.org/ (Accessed 19-08-2022).
Summary
Keywords
conflict, rural landscapes, campesinas, gender perspective, traditional local knowledge, Chile
Citation
Almuna R, Cortés J, Medina MÁ and Vargas SP (2022) We are silently paving the way toward human–wildlife coexistence: The role of women in the rural landscapes of southern Andes. Front. Conserv. Sci. 3:1006006. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2022.1006006
Received
28 July 2022
Accepted
03 November 2022
Published
24 November 2022
Volume
3 - 2022
Edited by
Tanja M. Straka, Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Reviewed by
Sofia Boza, University of Chile, Chile
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Almuna, Cortés, Medina and Vargas.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Solange P. Vargas, svargas@userena.cl; Rocío Almuna, rocio.am92@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Human-Wildlife Interactions, a section of the journal Frontiers in Conservation Science
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.