Around the world, Indigenous peoples have stories about wildlife that reflect knowledge and feelings about animals and their relationship to humans. Different people's experiences speak to the variety of interactions people have with animals in the spaces where humans and non-human animals live and interact. These stories are often told by women, reflecting the ways in which gender mediates human–environment relations. Yet gendered differences in knowledge and experience are rarely addressed in wildlife conservation research and action. Even community-based conservation efforts often ignore or marginalize the knowledge and experiences of women. We present women's stories and experiences of wildlife from Maasai communities in Tanzania and Soliga communities in India. We show that women have the desire and knowledge to participate in conservation decision-making but are currently marginalized from community conservation practice. We argue that including women in research and action is key for successful community-based wildlife conservation.

Sacred forests or groves are patches of forest vegetation that are traditionally protected by local communities because of their religious or cultural significance. The ecological aspects of sacred forests have been the focus of most of the scholarly discourse; little scholarship has examined how local people perceive their sacred areas. This scholarly lacuna is especially pronounced with respect to women, as the majority of sacred forests have traditionally been the domain of the men. Until recently, the sacred forests tradition in most regions endured with minimal participation of women, but with changing socio-economic and cultural conditions, sacred forests are declining. By examining women's perspectives regarding their relationship with their sacred forests, this research informs the scholarship on gender and sacred forests, and explores the role women can play in forest conservation. In 2015–2017, we conducted village meetings and in-depth interviews in four villages located in and around the Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary in the Western Ghats region of Maharashtra state, India. We found that apart from rules and taboos governing the protection of these sacred forests, taboos also revolve around the access and interaction of women with the sacred forests, with women having less control and decision-making power than men. Nevertheless, women expressed interest in continuation of the tradition of sacred forests, and the younger generation wants some of the gendered rules to change. We recommend including women in management and decision-making processes to strengthen the institution of sacred forests.

Gender is an explanatory factor in multiple dimensions of conservation, including women's access to and participation in conservation programmes, with gender bias in wildlife research persisting globally. There is reason to believe the current global wildlife crime crisis is no exception, with a lack of critical examination of gendered roles in security for biodiversity conservation. Despite the emergence of high-profile all-women ranger units (e.g. Akashinga in Zimbabwe) there has been a lack of systematic integration of gender within biodiversity protection. Theoretical and methodological applications from criminology have become progressively more common in response to an increase in a wide range of environmental crimes with consequences for women and their communities. Here we consider the implications of the lack of knowledge of women's direct and indirect roles in wildlife security. We used the criminology and conservation literature to identify key gaps in research, and relevant and robust typologies and frameworks informed by criminology to structure future research on women as offenders, protectors (handlers, managers, guardians) and victims of wildlife crime. We argue that more intentional research into the direct and indirect roles of women in wildlife crime is needed to address wildlife crime, protect biodiversity and support social justice in response to wildlife crimes.

There has been a rapid expansion in the use of payments for environmental services (PES) as a key conservation finance policy. However, there is insufficient understanding of how gender can affect PES implementation and outcomes. We present results from a case study in Viet Nam, where a national PES programme has been in place for a decade. Through panel household survey data, focus groups and interviews, we examined how women have been involved in PES policies, what the impacts have been on decision-making by men and women, participation rates and use of PES income over time, and the potential conservation outcomes. Our research confirms that resource use varies between men and women, and changes in access rights can fall disproportionately on women. Participation in PES has been lower for female-headed households and for women within male-headed households, although gradually more equitable participation has evolved within households. Female-headed households reported expending more yearly effort on PES activities despite protecting less land, and also increased their conservation activities over time as they presumably became more familiar with PES. Use of income from PES also showed differences between male and female-led households, with men more likely to spend funds on non-essential goods. Within households, although men initially decided how to spend PES money, decision-making has become more equitable over time. We conclude with some recommendations on how to increase attention to gender in PES projects and future research to improve outcomes.

Many in the conservation sphere have noted that robust and gender-equitable stakeholder engagement is crucial in achieving conservation outcomes, ensuring project sustainability and supporting human well-being. However, despite policies, international agreements and increasing requirements of donors, gender is still often viewed as an add-on rather than as a fundamental element of effective conservation. In an effort to overcome this, Conservation International has invested in nearly 20 project sites since 2014 to support targeted gender integration into existing conservation projects. We conducted a survey with practitioners across these sites to examine the barriers to and enablers of gender integration, and practitioners’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges involved in this. Our findings demonstrate the importance of both external drivers (funding requirements) and a supportive environment (capacity building, technical and financial support) in incentivising a focus on gender. Respondents also reported a suite of benefits (e.g. increased participation, higher quality of the project) and costs (mainly financial) related to gender integration. In documenting these efforts to build gender-related capacity, and the associated benefits and challenges, we highlight the importance of gender-responsive conservation initiatives, and evaluate a method of achieving this. As conservation practitioners may be more inclined to listen to each other (given their shared objectives) rather than to gender specialists, this research can help to shift practitioner dialogue and conservation practice to be more open and responsive to gender.

There is evidence from the development and humanitarian sectors that purposeful engagement of women can increase the impact of development. We conducted a literature review to examine whether this is also evident in conservation and natural resource management. The following themes emerged from our review: existing societal and cultural norms affect and generally limit how women can engage in conservation and natural resource management; women interact differently with the environment than men, so if they are excluded, their knowledge and perspectives on particular resources may not be considered in conservation actions; and there is often a lack of resources or dedicated effort by conservation or natural resource management programmes to understand and address the barriers that prevent women's engagement. Although there was evidence of a positive relationship between the engagement of women and environmental outcomes, some studies showed that positive conservation outcomes do not necessarily benefit women, and when women are not considered, conservation activities can perpetuate existing inequities. We conclude that although the importance of integrating gender into conservation is acknowledged in the literature, there is a need to examine how women can be meaningfully engaged in conservation. This must go beyond treating women as a homogenous group, to consider intersectionality including race, ethnicity, age, religion, poverty and disability. In addition, conservation and natural resource management institutions need to address the inclusion of women in their own staff and programmes.

Research into the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being, including poverty alleviation, has blossomed. However, little is known about who has produced this knowledge, what collaborative patterns and institutional and funding conditions have underpinned it, or what implications these matters may have. To investigate the potential implications of such production for conservation science and practice, we address this by developing a social network analysis of the most prolific writers in the production of knowledge about ecosystem services and poverty alleviation. We show that 70% of these authors are men, most are trained in either the biological sciences or economics and almost none in the humanities. Eighty per cent of authors obtained their PhD from universities in the EU or the USA, and they are currently employed in these regions. The co-authorship network is strongly collaborative, without dominant authors, and with the top 30 most cited scholars being based in the USA and co-authoring frequently. These findings suggest, firstly, that the production of knowledge on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research has the same geographical and gender biases that characterize knowledge production in other scientific areas and, secondly, that there is an expertise bias that also characterizes other environmental matters. This is despite the fact that the research field of ecosystem services and poverty alleviation, by its nature, requires a multidisciplinary lens. This could be overcome through promoting more extensive collaboration and knowledge co-production.