Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study
Open accessAbstract
This study uses a multi-case dataset to question current assumptions about the gender differentiation of forest product use. We test some of the commonly held ideas on how men and women access, manage, and use different forest products. Overall, we found significant gender differentiation in the collection of forest products, which seems to support the claim that there are distinctive “male” and “female” roles associated with the collection of forest products. However, we also found that men play a much more important and diverse role in the contribution of forest products to rural livelihoods than previously reported, with strong differences across tropical Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Environmental income is not more important to female-headed households.
“We do not find support for the claim that environmental income is more important to households that are female headed (c.f. Babulo et al. (2008); see also Sunderland et al. (2014) for further discussion).”
From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Sunderland et al. (2014)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S. (2014) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,147 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., Reyes-García, V., & Shively, G.
- Affiliations
- Center for International Forestry Research (ID)
- Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
- University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- World Development
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-12
- Volume
- 64
- Pages
- S56-S66
- ISSN
- 0305-750X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1991027171
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 11.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- World Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/E021816/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Ecology and Conservation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Sciences and Humanities
- Keywords
- gender differentiation, women in forestry, gender roles, forest product collection, rural livelihoods, gender division of labor, tropical Asia, Africa, Latin America
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
