Barriers to Participating in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Githambara Micro Catchment, Upper-Tana, Kenya

International Non-Governmental Organizations have popularized payment for ecosystem services (PES) because of their potential to simultaneously achieve rural development and ecological conservation goals (GEF Secretariat 2014). Despite their rapid diffusion, there is insufficient assessment of their potential implications for social and economic stratification (Redford and Adams 2009). Indeed, there is growing evidence that PES may reproduce or even exacerbate existing inequalities in social development and resource access (Kosoyand Corbera2010, Porras 2010). However, the gender dimensions of PES impacts has been the focus of little scholarship, despite concerns about women’s exclusion from participating (e.g., Kariukiand Birner2016) or their inclusion in ways that reduce their decision-making power within the household (e.g., Schwartz 2017). This research uses a feminist political ecology lens to add to this small but growing body of work through an examination of how the PES program implementation influences gendered equity in access and outcomes of the associated sustainable land management (SLM) practices

What women and men want: Considering gender for successful, sustainable land management programs

This case study explores the different barriers that men and women face when implementing sustainable land management (SLM) under the Nairobi Water Fund (NWF) in Kenya. The NWF is a public-private partnership, designed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) as a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme, under which farmers in the Upper Tana River basin receive in-kind payments for implementing sustainable land management practices. They include constructing water pans (see Figure 1) to reduce water extractions from the river in the dry season, building terraces to promote water infiltration and reduce soil erosion, or planting grass strips to reduce erosion when livestock are being fed. SLM also includes the promotion of agroforestry and a suite of riparian zone management practices

Contemporary challenges of participatory field research for land use change analyses: examples from Kenya

This article discusses the evolution of participatory methods and their benefits and pitfalls in contributing to land use and land cover change (LULCC) analyses. Participation has become a practical means of developing a more complete assessment of societal change by bringing local people’s narratives and understandings to bear on the interpretation of data collected using more extractive methods, such as the household survey, or data collected remotely, such as satellite images. Their methodological value lies in their ability to provide insights into the local mediation of external political, economic, and cultural processes. However, the realization of these contributions to LULCC analysis requires sensitivity to community differentiation, competing narratives of change, and the broader social context in which participatory forums take place. Examples from Kenya suggest that participatory feedback workshops present distinct empirical advantages that allow researchers to develop an understanding of critical intersections of social and environmental change through a dialogical process whereby participants themselves frame the central categories and change processes

A synthesis of convergent reflections, tensions and silences in linking gender and global environmental change research

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552This synthesis article joins the authors of the special issue "Gender perspectives in resilience, vulnerability and adaptation to global environmental change" in a common reflective dialogue about the main contributions of their papers. In sum, here we reflect on links between gender and feminist approaches to research in adaptation and resilience in global environmental change (GEC). The main theoretical contributions of this special issue are threefold: emphasizing the relevance of power relations in feminist political ecology, bringing the livelihood and intersectionality approaches into GEC, and linking resilience theories and critical feminist research. Empirical insights on key debates in GEC studies are also highlighted from the nine cases analysed, from Europe,the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Further, the special issue also contributes to broaden the gender approach in adaptation to GEC by incorporating research sites in the Global North alongside sites from the Global South. This paper examines and compares the main approaches adopted (e.g. qualitative or mixed methods) and the methodological challenges that derive from intersectional perspectives. Finally, key messages for policy agendas and further research are drawn from the common reflection