Main Article Content
The overall objective of the study was to assess and compare the role of gender in identifying and prioritizing the ecosystem services of trees in croplands. The research was carried out in croplands and species inventory in each cropland was conducted during field observations of every tree species by interviewing the local farmers and/or villagers. A questionnaire containing both close-ended and open-ended questions were designed to collect information about the role of gender in identifying and prioritizing the ecosystem services supplied by each tree species in croplands based on local communities. A total of 15 ecosystem services were identified from trees in croplands by both men and women. The number and type of ecosystem services identified by men and women were different. The differences could be due to different access and benefits from ecosystem services. As a result, their perception and knowledge of ecosystem services could also vary. After identification of each ecosystem service, a paired two-tail t-test was conducted whether the list of individual score values given to each local ecosystem services identified by both men and women were the same or not. The statistical result of the paired t-test showed that the score values of all the ecosystem services that are only identified by both men and women were not statistically significant. This can imply that the commonly identified ecosystem services have more or less similar importance to men and women. The findings in this research demonstrate that ecosystem services identification might cause gender biases on women due to neglected control and access to the ecosystem services of trees in croplands which in turn could have an impact on tree resource management, conservation, and development interventions. Therefore, integrating women in ecosystem service access and control can help build various experiences of gender and balanced institutions which can aid collective and effective tree and forest resource management and to maximize the benefits for all beneficiaries of the ecosystem services.
Tassew T. Assessing and mapping ecosystem services of trees outside the forest. 2017;9:151–164.
Schnell S. Integrating trees outside forests into national forest inventories. Integrating Trees Outside Forests into National Forest Inventories Sebastian Schnell Faculty of Forest Sciences Department of Forest Resource Management Umeå Doctoral Thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2015.
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. In Ecological Economics. 2006;57(2):209–228.
Kremen C. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology. Ecol. Lett. 2005;8(5):468–479.
Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012;74:8–18.
Pagiola S, Bishop J. Assessing the economic value of ecosystem conservation; 2004.
Katrina M. Fortnam gender and ecosystem services. London: Research Gate; 2018.
Yang YCE, Passarelli S, Lovell RJ, Ringler C. Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018;31:58–67.
Hapsari A. Assessing and mapping ecosystem services in Offinso. University of Twente Faculty of Geo-Information and Earth Observation (ITC), MSc Thesis, Enschede, The Netherlands; 2010.
Ghana Forestry Commission. Ghana timber and wood products and applications; 2017.
Djoudi H, Brockhaus M. Is adaptation to climate change gender neutral? Lessons from communities dependent on livestock and forests in Northern Mali. 2011;13(2): 123–135.
Sinare H, Gordon LJ. Ecosystem services from woody vegetation on agricultural lands in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015;200:186–199.
Villamor GB, Van Noordwijk M, Djanibekov U, Chiong-Javier ME, Catacutan D. Gender differences in land-use decisions: Shaping multifunctional landscapes? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014;6:128–133.
Lau JD, Hicks CC, Gurney GG, Cinner JE. Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018;29:91–98.
Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2006;57(2):209–228.
Small N, Munday M, Durance I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017;44:57–67.