User:Lundathea/sandbox

Since the 1970 and 1980s scholars have argued that women have a closer relationship to nature (Resurreccíon, 2013). The women-environment nexus describes differences in women's and men's relation toward the environment and often describes differences in how women perceive and interact with the natural environment (Hawkins & Ojeda, 2011).

Scholars in development theory like the agricultural economist Ester Boserup have argued that especially in countries of the Global South, women have a stronger material connection to the environment. Women are largely engaged in in agricultural production and resource management (Boserup, 2007; Dankelman & Davidson, 1988) and are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihood and wellbeing (Boserup, 2007).

Ecofeminists like Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva have argued that women’s interaction with the environment provides them with greater knowledge and understanding (Mies & Shiva, 1993). Women’s role as mothers and caretakers creates a deeper connection and greater concern for the environment (Buckingham-Hatfield, 2000). This higher concern for the environment is argued to result in a higher pro-environmental behaviour, for example in women’s efforts in environmental conservation and sustainable resource management (Mies & Shiva, 1993). In recent years, this view has been further promoted by female environmentalists and environmental movements.

At the same time, criticism against the women-environment nexus has been raised from feminist political ecologists like Bernadette Resurreccíon and Farhana Sultana. They argue that is a false generalization to assume that “all women” are close to nature (Resurreccíon, 2013). The emphasis of the greater vulnerability of women climate change, the feminization of poverty starting in the 1990s, brought the topic of the women-environment nexus on the agenda of international climate negotiations. Understanding the women-environment nexus can help to reveal gender inequalities, e.g. in the lack of access to natural resources and land use rights. But it can be essentialist and contribute to a generalization that all women’s identity is bind to the environment (Resurreccíon, 2013; Sultana, 2013).

Global South
According to the United Nations Women Watch “[w]omen in rural areas in developing countries are highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihood, because of their responsibility to secure water, food and energy for cooking and heating.” (UN Women Watch, 2011).

Agriculture production
Studies of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations show that in countries of the Global South, women are involved in agriculture production and domestic food production (FA0, 2011). In Latin America and the Caribbean more than 20% of women are working in the agriculture production and in South Asia nearly 35% (FAO, 2011). The largest share of female workers in the agriculture sector are in North and Northeast Africa, Sub-Sahara Africa and East and Southeast Asia reaching a share of nearly 50% of female workers (FAO, 2011). While an increasing number of women are expanding their involvement in agricultural tasks, they are simultaneously responsible for reproductive and domestic work, e.g taking care of the children and domestic food production, as well as water and firewood collection (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2009)

Land use rights
In developing countries, there is evident gender inequality in land ownership. While women are involved in agriculture production, they do not have the same land rights as men. In Sub-Saharan Africa between 49-96 % percent of agricultural land is owned by men. In South and South-East Asia between 5 and 27 % of agriculture is owned by women, similar to Latin America where the distribution is between 8 up to 31% female landowners (FAO, 2015). “Food security and family wellbeing are [...] important reasons for protecting or enhancing women’s rights to land. Studies have shown that resources controlled by women are more likely to be used to improve family food consumption and welfare, reducing child malnutrition and increasing overall well-being.” (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2009, p. 3)

"World wide, physical violence by husbands against wives is estimated to range between 10% and 50% (p824)". One cause if marital violence is seen in the economic dependence of women due to lack of landownership. Land or property ownership provides women who may be experiencing marital violence with a independent income resource. A study performed in Kerala, India examined the effects of property status and the likelihood of violence against women. According to this study, women's access to land and property ownership reduces the risk of spousal abuse by enhancing the livelihood of women as well as providing an escape route and means for survival if abuse begins.

Moreover, it is argued that land rights greatly shape an individual's relationship with nature and the environment. Tiondi argues that "access to property, land and water rights, particularly in agricultural systems, critically shapes people’s relations with natural resources."

Feminist development theory
Feminist development theory criticizes that development theory has ignored women’s role in industrial and agricultural production in developing countries (Peet & Hartwick, 2009, p. 252).

One of the starting points of the debate of women’s relation toward the environment was the book “Women’s role in economic development” published in 1970 by Danish economist Ester Boserup. Boserup raised concern that international development politics did not adequately address the role of women in agriculture production and development (Kanji, Tan & Toulmin, 2007). Boserup’s book among other scholars created a greater argument about [women in development] (Kanji, Tan & Toulmin, 2007). The following Women in Development debate in the field of development studies saw a greater need of increasing female employment and providing them with a share in resources to better integrate them in the (economic) development process (Peet & Hartwick, 2009, p. 255).

At the same time, in the 1970s, a different view on women in development arose in the debate about Women, Environment and Development (WED). Scholars like Diane Rocheleau, Barbara Thomas-Slayter and Esther Wangari pointed out that the relation of women and the environment is socially constructed. They saw women’s role toward the environment defined by their social roles, e.g their productive role in labor force and their reproductive roles as mothers and caretakers of the household (Peet & Hartwick). These social roles then defined their relationship toward the environment.

Ecofeminism
Ecofeminism is a theoretical perspective on the women-environment nexus. The eco-feminist view sees a connection between the dominance of men over women in patriarchal societies and the dominance of humans over the environment (Buckingham-Hatfield, 2000). Ecofeminist argue that women's role in reproduction creates a closer connectedness with nature and makes them caring more about their environment. Ecofeminism encompasses a variety of views but has a focus of patriarchal oppression and the social constructions relating to women and the environment. Some indicate the biology of women as the reason behind the closeness, while others credit culture and historical factors. An ecofeminist believes in a direct connection between oppression of nature and the subordination of women. Vandana Shiva, is credited with bringing ecofeminism into public consciousness by her reports of the Chipko movement. .

Environmental or ecological feminism
Environmental or ecological feminism tries to reveal that the gender division of labour creates a different human-environment nexus. Rather focusing on an inherent connection between women and the environment, authors like Bina Argawal opposes ecofeminism and argues that a better understanding of women's reproductive role is necessary. The gender division of labor requires a more nurturing and caring role for women, e.g. their responsibility of collection water and firewood. There is not simply an inherent connection between women and nature, but a material connection. Due to gender differences in income, women are at a higher risk of living in poverty. For this reason, access to land is of special importance. If women are given secure land rights, there will be a greater efficiency of resource. Using the gender-specific knowledge can help to improve farming systems. Providing women with the opportunity to own land will increase their empowerment and increase women's participation in decision-making.

Feminist political ecology
Feminist political ecology argues that international politics for climate change need to incorporate a more gender specific analysis of environmental problems and challenges. Similar to environmental or ecological feminism, feminist political ecology views the women-environment nexus as biological given, but socially constructed and influenced by categories like class, race, age, economic status, and geographical locations. Instead of focusing on the women-environment nexus, feminist political ecology looks at the gender-environment nexus.

Women, environment and climate change
According to the United Nations Women Watch “women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men—primarily as they constitute the majority of the world’s poor and are more dependent for their livelihood on natural resources that are threatened by climate change.” (UN Women Watch, 2012) The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change also acknowledges that gender besides other factor like socioeconomic status, race and class influence people’s vulnerability to climate change (IPPC, 2014). While the UN Women Watch view women in the Global South as more vulnerable, due to their dependency on natural resources for their well-being, the IPCC takes a gender-sensitive perspective arguing that gender among other factors like socioeconomic status, race and class has an influence on people’s vulnerability to climate change. A gendered perspective on the vulnerability to climate change can be helpful to highlight gender inequality. However, Feminist political ecologist have raised their concerns about the generalization of “all women” being affected by climate change (Resurreccíon, 2013; Sultana, 2013). Bernadette Resurreccíon, Farhana Sultana and [Bine Argarwal] point out that the relationship towards nature is gender-, class- and location-specific. Cultural and [social norms] play an important role in shaping the women-environment relation (Argawal, 1992).

The generalization has a negative effect in portraying all women in the Global South as ‘poor victims’, and more vulnerable to climate change then men. This view excludes the influence of age, race, class and economic-status. Simultaneously women are portrayed as ‘saviors’ of the environment, because they have a better understanding of nature an resource management. Although this might be true in some cases, Resurreccio is emphasizing that the relation is always context-specific (Resurreccíon, 2013). Both Resurreccíon and Sultana argue that this general view on the women-environment nexus can have a negative influence in international project planning for women empowerment and disaster risk management after environmental hazards. Instead of strengthen women, sometimes climate adaptation and mitigation projects reinforce gender vulnerability, by placing an additional burden of women in engaging them in the projects due to their alright existing tasks (Sultana, 2013).