Next Article in Journal
Climate Warming Impacts on Distributions of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) Seed Zones and Seed Mass across Russia in the 21st Century
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Remote Sensing for the Assessment and Monitoring of Forest Health: A Systematic Evidence Synthesis
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Mixing on the Structural Diversity of Serbian Spruce and Macedonian Pine Endemic to Relict Forest Communities in the Balkan Peninsula
Previous Article in Special Issue
Methods for Measuring Frost Tolerance of Conifers: A Systematic Map
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Systematic Review

What Is the Evidence Base Linking Gender with Access to Forests and Use of Forest Resources for Food Security in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Systematic Evidence Map

Department of Urban & Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7012, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
The Salvation Army, Box 5090, 102 42 Stockholm, Sweden
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Jalan, Bogor 16115, Indonesia
Oxford Long-Term Ecology Lab, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2021, 12(8), 1096;
Received: 2 July 2021 / Revised: 26 July 2021 / Accepted: 9 August 2021 / Published: 16 August 2021


In nearly all parts of the world, an important part of people’s livelihood is derived from natural resources. Gender is considered one of the most important determinants of access and control over forests. It is thought that women and men within households and communities have different opportunities and different roles and responsibilities in relation to forest use. It is probable that when women have equal access to forests, better food security outcomes can be achieved for individuals and households that are dependent on forests for their livelihoods. A systematic evidence map of the evidence base linking gender with access to forests and use of forest resources for food security was undertaken. Ten bibliographic databases and 22 websites of international development and conservation organisations were searched using keywords suggested by stakeholders. Other articles were found by emailing authors and organisations to send potentially relevant publications. 19,500 articles were retrieved from bibliographic databases and 1281 from other sources. After iterative screening, 77 studies were included: 41 focussed on Africa, 22 on Asia, 12 on Latin America, 2 were global. Most indicators of food security measure access to food, measured by total consumption, expenditure, or income. Studies showed strong gender specialisation: commercial access and utilisation of forests and forest products dominated by men, whereas access for subsistence and household consumption is almost exclusively the task of women. Despite the large number of studies reviewed, limitations of the evidence base, including methodological heterogeneity, a dominance of case studies as the study design, and unequal geographical representation in study locations, make it difficult to generalise about the overall importance of gender and its effect on access to and use of forests for food security in developing countries. The critical gaps in the evidence base include geographical representation in primary research and a greater breadth of study designs to assess gender implications of access to forest resources globally.

1. Background

More than 1.6 billion people are believed to rely on forests for their livelihood in one way or another. Another 60 million indigenous people rely on woods almost entirely [1]. Nearly half of the world’s population, or those who live on $2 or less per day, is directly supported by the world’s forests [2], which provide resources that operate as safety nets for their livelihoods, such as shelter, food, and fuel wood [3,4,5]. Further, the World Bank claims that “sustainable use of forests requires the participation of all rural populations, including women” [1]. A number of research and publications over the last two decades have linked gender inequities in access to forest resources to higher levels of poverty [6,7,8,9]. Women’s demands and priorities, particularly in connection to natural resources, can easily be disregarded owing to established socio-cultural practices and gendered power dynamics [10,11]. Understanding the role of gender relations in development studies is perhaps more important now than ever in the light of SDG 5 gender Equality—“achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, and SGD 2—“zero hunger” (, accessed on 12 July 2020).
In this systematic map, we define “gender” as a set of social constructs that attribute different attitudes, abilities, personality traits, and behavioural patterns to men and women, as well as systems of differentiation and power, which are evident in an unequal division of resources and labour between men and women. In low-income rural areas in particular, gender relations can define how men and women access forest resources and can place a disproportionately large burden on women to manage the household, including food sourcing responsibilities, compared to men.
According to Ribot and Peluso [8], an understanding of access should extend beyond property rights as previously proposed by Schlager and Ostrom [12]. Access should be seen as the absolute right to enter a given space or physical property. In this systematic map, we conceive access as “the ability to benefit from things in and from the forest”. We also define access as encompassing physical dimensions, such as distance from the forest and legal or other rights of entry into the forest.
In rural areas of low- and middle-income countries, women are frequently in charge of household cooking and firewood collection [13]. According to several studies, women are better educated about medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products (NTFP) than men [14,15,16].
Other research on food security outcomes has also revealed how crucial women are in providing nutritious diets, particularly when it comes to forest resources. [17]. This is an important consideration during the agricultural lean season, since it might seriously affect a household’s food security [2]. In this systematic map, we adopt the definition of food security of the World Food Summit’s Rome Declaration: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” [18]. This was further developed by Arnold et al. in the context of forests [3]. Access to food is insufficient in and of itself, as age, gender, and culture may all play important roles. Forests make an important contribution to diets, particularly in rural communities, and depending on the type of forest produce used, by (a) increasing the diversity of diets, particularly during the agricultural lean season; (b) supplying supplementary calories as snacks or complementary food items; and (c) providing employment for people in towns and rural areas [17,19]. NTFPs may help to alleviate various nutritional and micronutrient deficits, depending on the precise combination of foods [20].
In the absence of a systematic evaluation of all the available evidence of relevance to these issues, we undertook a systematic map following guidelines for the conduct of systematic evidence synthesis [21].

1.1. Objective of the Map

The objectives of the systematic evidence evaluation was to assemble and analyse the evidence base on linkages between gender and forest access and use of forest resources for food security in low- and middle-income countries (, accessed on 12 July 2020).

1.2. Stakeholder Workshop

A stakeholder workshop was held in Bogor, Indonesia, from 18 to 21 February 2014 to discuss the current knowledge base on how gender mediates access to and use of forest resources. Four of the current authors participated in that workshop (NK, JC, LCK, GP), together with eight other academics and policymakers in the field of gender studies. All 12 people contributed to a protocol that defines the method used in the current paper [22]. The protocol provides more information about the stakeholder workshop. The workshop concluded with the decision to undertake a systematic map to assess the extent of the evidence base of relevance to the questions we posed. Stakeholders agreed to use a systematic map methodology to assess the geographic distribution of relevant research to describe the characteristics of the research and the outcomes reported (e.g., food and income security). Systematic maps involve reviewing a large body of literature to define review questions. We, therefore, chose a systematic map because we expected the knowledge base to be insufficient for a full systematic review and meta-analysis, and a systematic map could provide the foundation for further research by identifying what is already known. One of the important aims of the evidence synthesis was to highlight knowledge gaps in research linking gender with forest access and food security.

1.3. Research Questions

The primary research question is: What is the evidence that gender affects access to and use of forest assets for food security?
The sub-questions of the map are:
What is the evidence that women’s access to forest resources (or assets) improves household food security compared to that of men?
What does the evidence show as gender disparities in access to and use of forests?

1.4. Elements of the Review Question

Adapting the commonly used population, exposure, control, and outcomes (PECO) framework to a framework better suited to our question, we formulated a framework based on subject, exposure, and outcomes (SEO). Table 1 shows the elements of this framework.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

Searches were carried out in the following bibliographic databases and aggregators in January–March 2017:
In addition, grey literature was searched in a large number of institutional websites, suggested by stakeholders (see Supplementary Materials—Table S1)

2.2. Search Terms and Languages

The search terms were suggested during the stakeholder workshop and augmented through iterative exploration using QSR Nvivo 11 software (published by QSR International,, accessed on 12 July 2020) to arrive at a final set of terms that successfully retrieved the test library of 20 articles of known relevance to the study (Supplementary Materials—Table S2). The searches were carried out using the English terms listed in Table 2, structured around the SEO framework (Table 1). Keywords were first connected using Boolean operator OR within each column and then using Boolean operator AND across columns. The asterisk (*) indicates truncation of a search term, e.g., the term “forest*” will search “forest”, “forests”, “forestry”, etc. It is a common convention in bibliographic database searching.
The final search strings used in Web of Science and Scopus are shown in Supplementary Materials—Table S4. The search string was adapted slightly to accommodate features of individual database and simplified for Google and Google Scholar to accommodate their less sophisticated search capability (Supplementary Materials—Table S4).

2.3. Article Screening and Study Inclusion Criteria

Articles retrieved were screened sequentially for relevance at the title, abstract, and full-text stages by two reviewers (NK and BSH), who checked their common understanding of the inclusion criteria using random samples of 100 articles and calculating their kappa scores. They engaged in iterative testing and discussion of differences of opinion on inclusion until reaching a kappa score greater than 0.6.

2.4. Study Inclusion Criteria

To be included in the systematic map, a study had to meet all the inclusion criteria:
Subject—study reports how women or men use or access forest resources in low- and middle-income countries. All natural and planted forest types were included.
Exposure—study reports how women- or female-headed households access and use the forest and its resources.
Outcome—study reports an outcome (or effect) related to food security.
Study designs can include quantitative and qualitative studies, which are not limited to peer-reviewed journals. Secondary publications, e.g., literature reviews, were assessed for background and contextual purposes, but were not included in the systematic map.

2.5. Study Quality Assessment

Guidelines for systematic maps state that study quality assessment is not required, but we were interested in assessing the quality of the evidence base if possible. There is no single method that is appropriate for all types of literature contained in systematic reviews or systematic maps. We trialled the use of the environmental risk of bias tool as recommended by Bilotta et al. [23] and an extensively cited hierarchy of study designs from the social sciences [24,25] using a template with a summary explanation of the assigned ratings (Supplementary Materials—Table S5. We tested the template using studies in the test library (Supplementary Materials—Table S2).

2.6. Data Extraction and Coding

A data coding and extraction template was agreed by stakeholders and authors and tested by coders. Table 3 shows the metadata that were coded and extracted. Supplementary Materials—Table S5 shows the data extraction and coding template used.
Fully coded data files and an interactive, online map of all included studies were prepared to report the evidence base discovered through the systematic methods employed. The interactive map was based on an open-source tool developed by Dr Andrew Martin of the University of Oxford. The map can be filtered to explore variables of interest to the review question.

3. Results

All included studies, with details of data extracted and coding applied, are shown in Supplementary Materials—Table S5. An interactive, online map of all is available, which includes coding and data extractions for all included studies, with full bibliographic details. The map can be filtered to explore variables of interest to the review question—see, accessed on 12 July 2020.

3.1. Search Results

Initially 19,500 studies were identified through database searching. In addition, 1281 studies were identified through other sources. After removing duplicates, we screened 14,005 articles by title and abstract. Initial search terms such as gender, forests, and food security led to a high percentage of irrelevant results. This led to the exclusion of 13,379 articles at the title and/or abstract level. For full-text screening, we were able to identify 625 studies across all the different sources. A total of 77 studies met the inclusion criteria. (Figure 1).
We summarise the results obtained from data extraction and coding of all 77 included studies below in a narrative summary of the evidence base. A comprehensive Excel file of the data and codes applied to each individual study is available in Supplementary Materials—Table S5.

3.2. Year of Publication

Figure 2 shows the year of publication of each article in the evidence map, with a generally increasing volume of articles over time, in common with scientific publication.

3.3. Location of First Author’s Institution

We captured the address of the first author of each included study to give an indication of where research relating to gender, food security, and forest access is occurring, Table 4 shows that 60% of the research publications originated in low-and middle-income countries and 40% in high-income countries.

3.4. Location of Studies

Country where data were collected is shown in Figure 3.
Whether study site was coastal or not (coastal = up to 10 km from coast or large lake) is shown in Figure 4.
Elevation of study sites
Studies were grouped into those at low elevation (below 500 m), mid-elevation (500–1000 m), and high (above 1000 m). Where sites had a range of elevations, they are recorded with the highest value (Figure 5).
Rainfall at study sites
Almost half the studies (31) did not report rainfall; of those that did, the range was very wide: from 200 mm/year to over 5000 mm/year.
Urban/rural study sites
The vast majority of studies were from rural sites (72), with only 3 from urban (or urban/peri-urban or rural/urban).
Details of forests and access to forest
The majority of forests accessed were reported as “natural forest” (68 studies), with 4 natural/plantation, 1 plantation, and 4 not reported. The study sites were “adjacent to forest” (63 studies), with 3 inside the forest, 2 at some distance from the forest, and 8 not reporting.
Market access
Market access was mostly low (no road or market far away), or very low (no road and market far)—23 and 7 studies, respectively, with only 18 studies reporting good access. Percentage studies had mixed, good/low results, and 24 did not report data.

3.5. Governance of the Forest

This was reported as state-owned, commons, traditional land tenure, private, or mixes of different regimes (Figure 6).

3.6. Study Design

Number of study sites in the analysis
The number of sites included in the analysis of included studies ranged between 2 and 333, with a mode of 2 and median of 4 (Figure 7).
Sample unit and size
Most studies were conducted at the unit of household (Table 5); the sample size at each study site (e.g., number of interviews or focus groups) ranged from 8 to 8094, with a mean of 165.7692308, median 141, mode 32, and 2 not recorded.
Duration of data collection
Data were collected between 1 and 36 months, with mean of 11.9, median 11, mode 12, and 17 studies not reporting duration of data collection (Figure 8).

3.7. Forest Resources and Food Security, Nutrition Security, and Income

Most studies reported income (72 studies) as a proxy for food security. Food and nutrition security was reported by only 43 and 45 studies, respectively (Figure 9). Food security was achieved through trading (9 studies), harvesting (6 studies), consumption (1 study), or, mostly, a mix of harvesting and processing (54 studies); however, 9 studies did not specify how food security was achieved. Most studies (63) reported a mix of non-timber forest products (NTFP), 10 studies reported wild food as the main NTFP, 1 reported charcoal/firewood, and 1 reported brooms as the main source of NTFP.
Food security outcomes were achieved mostly by a mix of engagements (54 studies), with 9 studies reporting trading, 7 reporting harvesting, 1 processing, and 6 unspecified.

3.8. Research Design

Studies were mostly quantitative (30) or mixed methods (44), with only 3 qualitative studies (Figure 10).
The main difference in the included studies is in their design. Thirty-one studies use regression models, with income as a response variable, whereas household head, gender, education level, age, family size, and distance to market were some of the main explanatory variables [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. Six studies, without employing the rigour of regression, ran analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the socio-economic profiles and income of households derived from the access and utilisation of forest products [57,58,59,60,61,62]. Studies using other research designs are included in the systematic map [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103].

3.9. Impact of Gender

We did not undertake effect size analysis, and the observations below are taken from author reporting of their data. We are aware of the danger of “vote counting” and make no further assessment based on numbers reporting positive/negative or neutral effects. However, it is useful to summarise the state of the evidence base for this systematic map and recommend future metadata analysis of subsets that we present.
The articles were categorised as having a positive gender effect when they reported that women had significantly better access to forests than men and derived food security directly through consumption of forest products or indirectly through income generated by sale of forest products. When articles reported that men derived significantly better access to forests and derived food security directly through consumption of forests products or indirectly through sale of forest products, we categorised such articles as having a negative effect on gender. Some articles, however, reported no significant differences between men and women in their access to forests for food security, and we categorised these as having a neutral gender effect. There were 22 studies that showed strongly positive or positive effects on gender, 41 that showed neither positive nor negative, or mixed results, and 14 that showed negative effects. Table 6 shows the studies, together with details of the country of the study, the setting of the studies, market access, and forest tenure. It also serves to document all the studies included in the systematic map. The interactive map and the associated extraction table (Supplementary Materials—Table S5) show details of the text extracts relating to gender effects on food security.

3.10. Quality of the Evidence Base

Most studies (53) did not satisfy the conditions of the Bilotta’s risk of bias test. Of those that did satisfy the conditions, 17 were rated at low risk of bias, 6 were moderate risk of bias, and 1 high risk of bias. Guidance for the production of systematic maps suggests that critical appraisal is not necessary. We therefore took the decision to include all studies in the systematic map and not attempt any sub-analysis of the set of studies that were tested for potential bias. We note, however, that most studies were case studies, which are very difficult to generalise across sites. This creates substantial gaps in the evidence base.

4. Key Findings

This map sought to establish whether there is evidence that gender affects access to and use of forest assets for food security. After a rigorous assessment of the available evidence, 77 articles satisfied the agreed inclusion criteria. Of these included articles, 22 indicated a strong positive effect on gender, by reporting that women had a significantly better access to forests for food security. Food security was measured directly by reporting access to forest products for consumption or indirectly by income generation through sale of forest products. A large number of articles (41), however, reported mixed results, where the gender impact was both negative and positive for the same study. In such studies, men had better access to the commercial forest products, while women accessed products for subsistence consumption. A smaller number of studies (14) showed a clear negative impact on gender, where men had significantly better access to forest products for food security than women. In all studies across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, there is a strong gender specialisation, with commercial access and utilisation of forests and forest products being dominated by men, whereas access for subsistence and household consumption is almost exclusively the task of women.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at, Table S1 Grey literature resources; Table S2 Test library of references for search comprehensiveness; Table S3 List of World Bank’s low-and middle-income countries; Table S4 Search strings in Web of Science and Scopus and Simplified search string; Table S5 Data coding and extraction template; Critical appraisal template; Studies included on interactive systematic map.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.K., J.C., L.C.-K., K.K. and G.P.; Data curation, N.K., B.S.-H. and G.P.; Formal analysis, N.K. and G.P.; Funding acquisition, N.K., L.C.-K. and G.P.; Investigation, N.K., B.S.-H.; Methodology, N.K., J.C. and G.P.; Supervision, J.C., L.C.-K. and G.P.; Validation, N.K. and G.P.; Visualization, G.P.; Writing—original draft, N.K., J.C., L.C.-K., K.K. and G.P.; Writing—review and editing, N.K. and G.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


Funding was generously provided by a grant from the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) through the Evidence Based Forestry Initiative at the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). The Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs special initiative for food security, through the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), supported the preparatory workshop on conducting systematic map protocols, as well as the participation of LCK. Additional funding for GP was provided by Oxford Systematic Reviews.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


We thank Susanne von Walter for her invaluable input during the stakeholder workshop. We acknowledge, with gratitude and great sadness at her passing, the contribution of Esther Mwangi to the work of this project. We acknowledge William J. Harvey and Leo Petrokofsky of Oxford Systematic Reviews for help with the submission and preparation of the interactive systematic map, respectively. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their great help in improving the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. World Bank. Sustaining Forests: A Development Strategy; World Bank Group: Washington DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguilar, L.; Shaw, D.M.; Quesada-Aguilar, A.E. Forests and Gender; IUCN/WEDO: Gland, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnold, M.; Powell, B.; Shanley, P.; Sunderland, T.C.H. Forests, biodiversity and food security. Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13, 259–264. [Google Scholar]
  4. Binnqüist, C.L.; Shanley, P.; Fantini, A.C. (Eds.) Riches of the Forest: Fruits, Remedies and Handicrafts in Latin America; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  5. Shyamsundar, P.; Ghate, R. Responsibilities and Resources: Examining Community Forestry in South Asia; Working Paper; South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2011; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  6. Agarwal, B. Gender and command over property: A critical gap in economic analysis and policy in South Asia. World Dev. 1994, 22, 1455–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment—Main Report; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2010; p. 340. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ribot, J.C.; Peluso, N.L. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociol. 2003, 68, 153–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. World Bank. Gender in Agriculture Source Book; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bose, P. Forest Rights: The Micro-Politics of Decentralisation and Forest Tenure Reform in Tribal India. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Coulibaly-Lingani, P.; Tigabu, M.; Savadogo, P.; Oden, P.C.; Ouadba, J.M. Determinants of access to forest products in southern Burkina Faso. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11, 516–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schlager, E.; Ostrom, E. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Econ. 1992, 68, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Baland, J.M.; Bardhan, P.; Das, S.; Mookherjee, D.; Sarkar, R. The environmental impact of poverty: Evidence from firewood collection in rural Nepal. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 2010, 59, 23–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  14. Banana, A.Y.; Bukenya, M.; Arinaitwe, E.; Birabwa, B.; Ssekindi, S. Gender, Tenure and Community Forests in Uganda; CIFOR Working Paper; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2012; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mairena, E.; Lorio, G.; Hernández, X.; Wilson, C.; Müller, P.; Larson, A.M. Gender and Forests in Nicaragua’s Autonomous Regions. Legal Architecture; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  16. Shackleton, S.; Paumgarten, F.; Kassa, H.; Husselman, M.; Zida, M. Opportunities for enhancing poor women’s socioeconomic empowerment in the value chains of three African non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13, 136–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ogle, B. People’s dependency on forests for food security: Some lessons learnt from a programme of case studies. In Current Issues in Non-Timber Forest Products Research; Perez, M.R., Arnold, J.E.M., Eds.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 1996; ISBN 979-8764-06-4. [Google Scholar]
  18. World Food Summit. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome, Italy. Available online: (accessed on 12 July 2020).
  19. Hasalkar, S.; Jadhav, V. Role of Women in the use of Non-Timber Forest produce: A Review. J. Soc. Sci. 2004, 8, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ogle, B.M.; Xuan Dung, N.N.; Thanh Do, T.; Hambraeus, L. The contribution of wild vegetables to micronutrient intakes among women: An example from the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2001, 40, 159–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 5.0. Pullin, A.S., Frampton, G.K., Livoreil, B., Petrokofsky, G., Eds.; Available online: (accessed on 12 July 2020).
  22. Chiwona-Karltun, L.; Kimanzu, N.; Clendenning, J.; Bergman Lodin, J.; Ellingson, C.; Lidestav, G.; Mkwambisi, D.; Mwangi, E.; Nhantumbo, I.; Ochieng, C.; et al. What is the evidence that gender affects access to and use of forest assets for food security? A systematic map protocol. Environ. Evid. 2017, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Bilotta, G.S.; Milner, A.M.; Boyd, I.L. Quality assessment tools for evidence from environmental science. Environ. Evid. 2014, 3, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Wells, K.; Littell, J.H. Study quality assessment in systematic reviews of research on intervention effects. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2009, 19, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Farrington, D.P.; Gottfredson, D.C.; Sherman, L.W.; Welsh, B.C. The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. In Evidence-Based Crime Prevention; Sherman, L., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  26. Haddaway, N.R.; Macura, B.; Whaley, P.; Pullin, A.S. ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: Pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 2018, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Angelsen, A.; Jagger, P.; Babigumira, R.; Belcher, B.; Hogarth, N.J.; Bauch, S.; Börner, J.; Smith-Hall, C.; Wunder, S. Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis. World Dev. 2014, 64, S12–S28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  28. Babulo, B.; Muys, B.; Nega, F.; Tollens, E.; Nyssen, J.; Deckers, J.; Mathijs, E. Household Livelihood Strategies and Forest Dependence in the Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 2008, 98, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Das, N. Can gender-sensitive forestry programmes increase women’s income? Lessons from a forest fringe community in an Indian province. Rural Soc. 2011, 20, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Heubach, K.; Wittig, R.; Nuppenau, E.A.; Hahn, K. The economic importance of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for livelihood maintenance of rural west African communities: A case study from northern Benin. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1991–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lybbert, T.J.; Magnan, N.; Aboudrare, A. Household and local forest impacts of Morocco’s argan oil bonanza. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 15, 439–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mbuvi, D.; Boon, E. The livelihood potential of non-wood forest products: The case of Mbooni Division in Makueni District, Kenya. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2009, 11, 989–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Misra, M.K.; Dash, S.S. Biomass and energetics of non-timber forest resources in a cluster of tribal villages on the Eastern Ghats of Orissa, India. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 18, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Narayanan, M.K.R.; Kumar, N.A. Gendered knowledge and changing trends in utilization of wild edible greens in Western Ghats, India. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2007, 6, 204–216. [Google Scholar]
  35. Noss, A.J.; Hewlett, B.S. The contexts of female hunting in central Africa. Am. Anthropol. 2001, 103, 1024–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Odebode, S.O. Contributions of selected non-timber forest products to household food security in Nigeria. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2005, 3, 138–141. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ogle, B.M.; Tuyet, H.T.; Duyet, H.N.; Dung, N.N.X. Food, Feed or Medicine: The Multiple Functions of Edible Wild Plants in Vietnam. Econ. Botany 2003, 57, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Padmanabhan, M. Institutions of Agrobiodiversity Management in Kerala-Gendered Collective Action. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2011, 24, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pouliot, M. Contribution of Women’s Gold to West African Livelihoods: The Case of Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) in Burkina Faso. Econ. Botany 2012, 66, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shackleton, S.E.; Campbell, B.M. The traditional broom trade in Bushbuckridge, South Africa: Helping poor women cope with adversity. Econ. Botany 2007, 61, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shumsky, S.A.; Hickey, G.M.; Pelletier, B.; Johns, T. Understanding the contribution of wild edible plants to rural social-ecological resilience in semi-arid Kenya. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  42. Sinclair, J.; Ham, L. Household adaptive strategies: Shaping livelihood security in the Western Himalaya. Rev. Can. D Etudes Dev. Can. J. Dev. Stud. 2000, 21, 89–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Singh, R.K.; Srivastava, R.C.; Pandey, C.B.; Singh, A. Tribal institutions and conservation of the bioculturally valuable ’tasat’ (Arenga obtusifolia) tree in the eastern Himalaya. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Uzokwe, U.N. Forest dependent survival strategies of rural women in Aniocha South local government area of delta state, Nigeria. Middle East J. Sci. Res. 2014, 20, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Dijk, H.; Onguene, N.A.; Kuyper, T.W. Knowledge and utilization of edible mushrooms by local populations of the rain forest of south Cameroon. AMBIO 2003, 32, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vazquez-Garcia, V. Gender, Ethnicity, and Economic Status in Plant Management: Uncultivated Edible Plants among the Nahuas and Popolucas of Veracruz, Mexico. Agric. Hum. Values 2008, 25, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Worku, A.; Lemenih, M.; Fetene, M.; Teketay, D. Socio-Economic Importance of Gum and Resin Resources in the Dry Woodlands of borana, Southern ethiopia. For. Trees Livelihoods 2011, 20, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yusuf, M.; Teklehaimanot, Z.; Rayment, M. Traditional knowledge and practices on utilisation and marketing of Yeheb (Cordeauxia edulis) in Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst. 2013, 87, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Asfaw, A.; Lemenih, M.; Kassa, H.; Ewnetu, Z. Importance, determinants and gender dimensions of forest income in eastern highlands of Ethiopia: The case of communities around Jelo Afromontane forest. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 28, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chukwuone, N.A.; Okeke, C.A. Can non-wood forest products be used in promoting household food security? Evidence from savannah and rain forest regions of Southern Nigeria. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 25, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gatiso, T.T.; Wossen, T. Forest dependence and income inequality in rural Ethiopia: Evidence from Chilimo-Gaji community forest users. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2015, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hegde, R.; Enters, T. Forest products and household economy: A case study from Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India. Environ. Conserv. 2000, 27, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jones, J.G.; Andriahajaina, F.B.; Ranambinintsoa, E.H.; Hockley, N.J.; Ravoahangimalala, O. The economic importance of freshwater crayfish harvesting in Madagascar and the potential of community-based conservation to improve management. Oryx 2006, 40, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  54. Kabubo-Mariara, J. Forest-poverty nexus: Exploring the contribution of forests to rural livelihoods in Kenya. Nat. Resour. Forum 2013, 37, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kamanga, P.; Vedeld, P.; Sjaastad, E. Forest Incomes and Rural Livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 613–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Madge, C. Ethnography and agroforestry research: A case study from the Gambia. Agrofor. Syst. 1995, 32, 127–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marshall, E.; Newton, A.C. Non-timber forest products in the community of El Terrero, Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve, Mexico: Is their use sustainable? Econ. Botany 2003, 57, 262–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Martin del Campo-Hermosillo, L.E. Genderscape: The Ecology of a Gendering Landscape. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mishra, S.; Chaudhury, S.S. Ethnobotanical flora used by four major tribes of Koraput, Odisha, India. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2012, 59, 793–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Morsello, C.; Ruiz-Mallen, I.; Diaz, M.D.M.; Reyes-Garcia, V. The Effects of Processing Non-Timber Forest Products and Trade Partnerships on People’s Well-Being and Forest Conservation in Amazonian Societies. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e43055. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mujawamariya, G.; Karimov, A.A. Importance of socio-economic factors in the collection of NTFPs: The case of gum arabic in Kenya. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 42, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nesheim, I.; Stoelen, K.A. The Socio-Economic Role of Xate: A Case Study from a Returnee Community in the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala. J. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 5, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  63. Ojo, C.O.; Nuhu, H.S.; Igbankwe, T.A. Gender Analysis of Rural Dwellers Accessibility to Free Natural Resources in Ussa Local Government Area of Taraba State, Nigeria. Asian J. Agric. Rural Dev. 2013, 3, 609–614. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ostwald, M.; Baral, R. Local Forest Protection, Gender and Caste: Dhani Hill, Orissa, India. Geografiska Annaler. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2000, 82, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pouliot, M.; Treue, T. Rural People’s Reliance on Forests and the Non-Forest Environment in West Africa: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso. World Dev. 2013, 43, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Powell, B.; Hall, J.; Johns, T. Forest cover, use and dietary intake in the east usambara mountains, Tanzania. Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Quinonez-Martinez, M.; Ruan-Soto, F.; Aguilar-Moreno, I.E.; Garza-Ocanas, F.; Lebgue-Keleng, T.; Lavin-Murcio, A.; Enriquez-Anchondo, I.D. Knowledge and use of edible mushrooms in two municipalities of the Sierra Tarahumara, Chihuahua, Mexico. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2014, 10, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  68. Remis, M.J.; Robinson, C.A.J. Examining short-term nutritional status among BaAka foragers in transitional economies. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2014, 154, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shackleton, S. Livelihood benefits from the local level commercialization of savanna resources: A case study of the new and expanding trade in marula (Sclerocarya birrea) beer in Bushbuckridge, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 651–657. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shackleton, S.E.; Shackleton, C.M.; Netshiluvhi, T.R.; Geach, B.S.; Ballance, A.; Fairbanks, D.H.K. Use Patterns and Value of Savanna Resources in Three Rural Villages in South Africa. Econ. Botany 2002, 56, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shams, N.; Ahmed, M. Common and Private Property Linkages in the Low-Land Forest-Fishery-Farming Systems of Cambodia. J. Sustain. Agric. 2000, 15, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sharaunga, S.; Mudhara, M.; Wale, E. Values rural households in KwaZulu-Natal hold towards forests and their participation in community-based forest management. Agrekon 2013, 52, 113–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shrestha, M.; Dhillion, S.S. Diversity and Traditional Knowledge Concerning Wild Food Species in a Locally Managed Forest in Nepal. Agrofor. Syst. 2006, 66, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Singh, A.K.; Singh, M.K.; Mascarenhas, O.A.J. Community forestry for revitalising rural ecosystems: A case study. For. Ecol. Manag. 1985, 10, 209–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Siren, A.; Machoa, J. Fish, wildlife, and human nutrition in tropical forests: A fat gap? Interciencia 2008, 33, 186–193. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sunderland, T.; Achdiawan, R.; Angelsen, A.; Babigumira, R.; Ickowitz, A.; Paumgarten, F.; Reyes-Garcia, V.; Shively, G. Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study. World Dev. 2014, 64, S56–S66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  77. Tadesse, G.; Zavaleta, E.; Shennan, C.; FitzSimmons, M. Local Ecosystem Service Use and Assessment Vary with Socio-ecological Conditions: A Case of Native Coffee-Forests in Southwestern Ethiopia. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 42, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  78. Toksoy, D.; Alkan, S. Labor force participation of women in forest villages and their income status: A case study of Trabzon. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 910–915. [Google Scholar]
  79. Uberhuaga, P.; Smith-Hall, C.; Helles, F. Forest income and dependency in lowland Bolivia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Van Hoang, S.; Baas, S.; Keßler, J.A. Uses and conservation of plant species in a national park—A case study of Ben En, Vietnam. Econ. Botany 2008, 62, 574–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  81. Velasquez Runk, J.; Negria, G.O.; Garcia, W.Q.; Ismare, C.Q. Political Economic History, Culture, and Wounaan Livelihood Diversity in Eastern Panama. Agric. Hum. Values 2007, 24, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wickramasinghe, A. Anthropogenic factors and forest management in Sri Lanka. Appl. Geogr. 1997, 17, 87–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wickramasinghe, A.; Pérez, M.R.; Blockhus, J.M. Nontimber forest product gathering in ritigala forest (Sri Lanka): Household strategies and community differentiation. Hum. Ecol. 1996, 24, 493–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Viet Quang, D.; Anh, T.N. Commercial collection of NTFPs and households living in or near the forests. Case study in Que, Con Cuong and Ma, Tuong Duong, Nghe An, Vietnam. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Vodouhe, F.G.; Adegbidi, A.; Coulibaly, O.; Sinsin, B. Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) R. Br. ex Benth. harvesting as a tool for conservation and source of income for local people in Pendjari Biosphere Reserve. Acta Bot. Gall. 2011, 158, 595–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Vodouhe, F.G.; Coulibaly, O.; Greene, C.; Sinsin, B. Estimating the Local Value of Non-Timber Forest Products to Pendjari Biosphere Reserve Dwellers in Benin. Econ. Botany 2009, 63, 397–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wong, G.Y.; Godoy, R. Consumption and vulnerability among foragers and horticulturalists in the rainforest of Honduras. World Dev. 2003, 31, 1405–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Worku, A.; Pretzsch, J.; Kassa, H.; Auch, E. The significance of dry forest income for livelihood resilience: The case of the pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the drylands of southeastern Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 41, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yasuoka, H. Long-term foraging expeditions (Molongo) among the baka hunter-gatherers in the northwestern Congo Basin, with special reference to the wild yam question. Hum. Ecol. 2006, 34, 275–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Becker, L.C. Garden Money Buys Grain: Food Procurement Patterns in a Malian Village. Hum. Ecol. 2000, 28, 219–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Cavendish, W. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Dev. 2000, 28, 1979–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hue, L.T.V. Gender, Doi Moi and Mangrove Management in Northern Vietnam. Gend. Technol. Dev. 2006, 10, 37–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Illukpitiya, P.; Yanagida, J.F. Farming vs forests: Trade-off between agriculture and the extraction of non-timber forest products. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1952–1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jumbe, C.B.L.; Angelsen, A. Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidence from Malawi’s Forest Co-Management Program. Land Econ. 2006, 82, 562–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Koizumi, M.; Mamung, D. Levang Hunter-gatherers’ culture, a major hindrance to a settled agricultural life: The case of the Penan Benalui of East Kalimantan. For. Trees Livelihoods 2012, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Meaza, H.; Demssie, B. Managing fragile homestead trees to improve livelihoods of land-poor farmers in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2015, 36, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Moktan, M.R.; Norbu, L.; Dukpa, K.; Rai, T.B.; Dorji, R.; Dhendup, K.; Gyaltshen, N. Bamboo and Cane Vulnerability and Income Generation in the Rural Household Subsistence Economy of Bjoka, Zhemgang, Bhutan. Mt. Res. Dev. 2009, 29, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mulenga, B.P.; Richardson, R.B.; Tembo, G.; Mapemba, L. Rural Household Participation in Markets for Non-timber Forest Products in Zambia. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2014, 19, 487–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mutenje, M.J.; Ortmann, G.F.; Ferrer, S.R.D.; Darroch, M.A.G. Rural Livelihood Diversity to Manage Economic Shocks: Evidence from South-East Zimbabwe. Agrekon 2010, 49, 338–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nielsen, M.R.; Pouliot, M.; Bakkegaard, R.K. Combining income and assets measures to include the transitory nature of poverty in assessments of forest dependence: Evidence from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Obua, J.; Banana, A.Y.; Turyahabwe, N. Attitudes of local communities towards forest management practices in Uganda: The case of Budongo forest reserve. Commonw. For. Rev. 1998, 77, 113–118. [Google Scholar]
  102. Thomaso, O. Mangroves, people and cockles: Impacts of the shrimp-farming industry on mangrove communities in Esmeraldas Province, Ecuador. In Environment and Livelihoods in Tropical Coastal Zones: Managing Agriculture—Fishery—Aquaculture Conflicts; Hoanh, C.T., Tuong, T., Gowing, J.W., Hardy, B., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2006; Chapter 11. [Google Scholar]
  103. Paniagua-Zambrana, N.Y.; Camara-Leret, R.; Bussmann, R.W.; Macia, M.J. The influence of socioeconomic factors on traditional knowledge: A cross scale comparison of palm use in northwestern South America. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Figure 1. Flowchart of screening decisions (adapted from Haddaway et al. [26]).
Figure 1. Flowchart of screening decisions (adapted from Haddaway et al. [26]).
Forests 12 01096 g001
Figure 2. Number of studies by year of publication.
Figure 2. Number of studies by year of publication.
Forests 12 01096 g002
Figure 3. Location of study sites. (Copyright Australian Bureau of Statistics).
Figure 3. Location of study sites. (Copyright Australian Bureau of Statistics).
Forests 12 01096 g003
Figure 4. Coastal/non-coastal location of study sites.
Figure 4. Coastal/non-coastal location of study sites.
Forests 12 01096 g004
Figure 5. Elevation of study sites.
Figure 5. Elevation of study sites.
Forests 12 01096 g005
Figure 6. Forest tenure.
Figure 6. Forest tenure.
Forests 12 01096 g006
Figure 7. Number of sites included in the analysis.
Figure 7. Number of sites included in the analysis.
Forests 12 01096 g007
Figure 8. Duration of data collection.
Figure 8. Duration of data collection.
Forests 12 01096 g008
Figure 9. Food and nutrition security, and income.
Figure 9. Food and nutrition security, and income.
Forests 12 01096 g009
Figure 10. Research design of studies.
Figure 10. Research design of studies.
Forests 12 01096 g010
Table 1. Elements of the systematic map question.
Table 1. Elements of the systematic map question.
SubjectForest resources and assets in low- and middle-income countries (as defined by the World Bank, 2014)
ExposureWomen- or female-headed households that access and use forest resources and assets
OutcomesChanges in food security, defined by a range of indicators
Table 2. Terms used to search for relevant articles.
Table 2. Terms used to search for relevant articles.
(forest *; tree *; agroforest *; woodland; mangrove; savanna *; shrub; wood; bush; “rights to land”; biodiversity)(Gender; “female headed”; “male headed”; “sexual roles”; “role conflicts”; “woman’s status”; “women’s rights”; “man’s status”; “men’s rights”; “sexual discrimination”; household *; widow)(“food security”; income; cash; wealth; poverty; hunger; nutrition *; malnutrition; vitamin *; diet; livelihood *; rights; diversity; consumption; equity)
[List of 150 low- and middle-income countries—see Supplementary Materials—Table S3 for details](Labour *; “cash crop”; tenure; “tenure system *”; “land tenure”; “agricultural tenure”; “agricultural households”; nonfarm; property; forage *; “staple food”; “land rights”; asset *; resource *; bushmeat; fuelwood; firewood; charcoal; vegetable; plant; fruit; mushroom; timber; honey; access; “forest product”; NTFP; participatory; education)
The asterisk (*) indicates truncation of a search term.
Table 3. Data coding and data extraction elements.
Table 3. Data coding and data extraction elements.
Article Details (Nature of Evidence)ID
Publication type
Source type
Year of publication
Location of primary author (country)
Coverage of evidenceLocation of data collection (country)
Coastal (coastal = up to 10 km from coast or large lake)/not coastal
Rainfall (annual, mm)
Forest type accessed
Study designQualitative or quantitative
Scale of study (local, regional or national, international)
Number of study sites in analysis
Sample size at each study site (e.g., number of interviews or focus groups)
Sample unit (person, household, focus group)
Duration of data collection
Access to forest and marketsDistance to forest
Market access
Main NTFP accessed
Forest tenure
Study details (food security outcomes)Is food security assessed?
Is nutrition security assessed?
Is income assessed?
Food security outcome through specific engagement
Gender effectsPositive, neutral, negative effects
NotesDetails of gender effects (extracts from primary studies)
Critical appraisalQUALITATIVE studies rating
QUANTITATIVE studies rating
Bilotta’s risk of bias (for all studies)
Table 4. Location of first author.
Table 4. Location of first author.
Ethiopia 7 Netherlands 2
India 6 Sri Lanka 2
USA 7 Bhutan 1
South Africa 5 Brazil 1
Nigeria 4 Burkina Faso * 1
UK 5 Cambodia 1
Canada 3 Ghana * 1
Denmark 3 Japan 1
Germany 3 Kenya 1
Norway 3 Malawi 1
Sweden 3 Malaysia 1
Vietnam 3 Tanzania 1
Benin 2 Turkey 1
Bolivia 2 Uganda 1
Indonesia 2 Zambia 1
Mexico 2 NA 1
* Joint institution.
Table 5. Unit of analysis.
Table 5. Unit of analysis.
Sample UnitNumber of Studies
Focus group2
Table 6. Studies reporting positive, neutral/mixed, or negative impact of gender.
Table 6. Studies reporting positive, neutral/mixed, or negative impact of gender.
StudyGender EffectCountryRural/Urban SettingMarket AccessForest Tenure
Angelsen et al. (2014) [27]PositiveGlobalRuralNRNR
Babulo et al. (2008) [28]PositiveEthiopiaRuralNRNR
Das (2011) [29]PositiveIndiaUnknownNRNR
Heubach et al. (2011) [30]PositiveBeninRuralLowTraditional Land tenure
Lybbert et al. (2010) [31]Positive
Mbuvi & Boon (2009 [32]PositiveKenyaRuralGoodState
Misra & Dash (2000) [33]PositiveIndiaRuralGood (road and market close)
Narayanan & Kumar (2007) [34]PositiveIndiaRuralNRState
Noss & Hewlett (2001) [35]PositiveCentral African RepublicRuralVery low (no road and market far)State
Odebode (2005) [36]PositiveNigeriaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Ogle et al. (2003) [37]PositiveVietnamRuralNRState
Padmanabhan (2011) [38]PositiveIndiaRuralNRState
Pouliot (2012) [39]PositiveBurkina FasoRuralNRState
Shackleton & Campbell (2007) [40]PositiveSouth AfricaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Shumsky et al. (2014) [41]PositiveKenyaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Sinclair & Ham (2000) [42]PositiveIndiaRuralVery low (no road and market far)State
Singh et al. (2015) [43]PositiveIndiaRuralNRState
Uzokwe (2014) [44]PositiveNigeriaRuralLow (no road or market far)
van Dijk et al. (2003) [45]PositiveCameroonRuralLow (no road or market far)
Vazquez-Garcia (2008) [46]PositiveMexicoRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Worku et al. (2011) [47]PositiveEthiopiaRuralLow (no road or market far)
Yusuf et al. (2013) [48]PositiveEthiopiaRuralLow (no road or market far)
Asfaw et al. (2013) [49]Neutral/mixedEthiopiaRuralGoodNR
Chukwuone & Okeke (2012) [50]Neutral/mixedNigeriaRuralNRNR
Gatiso & Wossen (2015) [51]Neutral/mixedEthiopiaRuralGoodCommons
Hegde & Enters (2000) [52]Neutral/mixedIndiaRuralGood (road and market close)NR
Jones et al. (2006) [53]Neutral/mixedMadagascarRuralMixedNR
Kabubo-Mariara (2013). [54]Neutral/mixedKenyaRuralNRMixed
Kamanga et al. (2009). [55]Neutral/mixedMalawiRuralMixedNR
Madge (1995). [56]Neutral/mixedGambiaRuralNRMixed
Marshall & Newton (2003). [57]Neutral/mixedMexicoRuralMixedMixed
Martin del Campo-Hermosillo (2010). [58]Neutral/mixedMexicoUrban-periurbanGoodCommons
Mishra & Chaudhury (2012). [59]Neutral/mixedIndiaRuralGood (road and market close)Commons
Morsello et al. (2012). [60]Neutral/mixedBrazil and BoliviaRural State
Mujawamariya & Karimov (2014). [61]Neutral/mixedKenyaRuralNRCommons
Nesheim & Stoelen (2012). [62]Neutral/mixedGuatemalaRuralVery low (no road and market far)State
Ojo et al. (2013). [63]Neutral/mixedNigeriaRuralNRState
Ostwald & Baral (2000). [64]Neutral/mixedIndiaRuralNRState
Pouliot & Treue (2013). [65]Neutral/mixedGhana and Burkina FasoRuralNRState
Powell & Johns (2011). [66]Neutral/mixedTanzaniaRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Quinonez-Martinez et al. (2014). [67]Neutral/mixedMexicoUrbanGood (road and market close)State
Remis & Jost Robinson (2014). [68]Neutral/mixedCentral African RepublicRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Shackleton (2004). [69]Neutral/mixedSouth AfricaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Shackleton et al. (2002). [70]Neutral/mixedSouth AfricaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Shams & Ahmed (2000). [71]Neutral/mixedCambodiaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Sharaunga et al. (2013). [72]Neutral/mixedSouth AfricaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Shrestha & Dhillion (2006). [73]Neutral/mixedNepalRuralNRState
Singh et al. (1985). [74]Neutral/mixedIndiaRuralNRState
Siren & Machoa (2008). [75]Neutral/mixedEquadorRuralVery low (no road and market far)State
Sunderland et al. (2014). [76]Neutral/mixedGlobalRural–urbanGood (road and market close)Mixed
Tadesse et al. (2014). [77]Neutral/mixedEthiopiaRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Toksoy & Alkan (2010). [78]Neutral/mixedTurkeyRuralVery low (no road and market far)State
Uberhuaga et al. (2012). [79]Neutral/mixedBoliviaRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Van Hoang et al. (2008). [80]Neutral/mixedVietnamRuralLow (no road or market far)
Velasquez Runk et al. (2007). [81]Neutral/mixedPanamaRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Wickramasinghe (1997). [82]Neutral/mixedSri LankaRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Wickramasinghe et al. (1996). [83]Neutral/mixedSri LankaRuralLow (no road or market far)
Viet Quang & Nam Anh (2006). [84]Neutral/mixedVietnamRuralLow (no road or market far)
Vodouhe et al. (2011). [85]Neutral/mixedBeninRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Vodouhe et al. (2009). [86]Neutral/mixedBeninRuralLow (no road or market far)
Wong & Godoy (2003). [87]Neutral/mixedHondurasRuralLow (no road or market far)State
Worku et al. (2014). [88]Neutral/mixedEthiopiaRuralLow (no road or market far)
Yasuoka (2006). [89]Neutral/mixedCameroonRuralLow (no road or market far)
Becker (2000). [90]NegativeMaliRuralLowMixed
Cavendish (2000). [91]NegativeZimbabweRuralNRCommons
Hue (2006). [92]NegativeVietnamRuralGoodCommons–private
Illukpitiya & Yanagida (2010). [93]NegativeSri LankaRuralNRNR
Jumbe & Angelsen (2006). [94]NegativeMalawiRuralMixedNR
Koizumi et al. (2012) [95]NegativeIndonesiaRuralLow (no road or market far)NR
Meaza & Demssie (2015) [96]NegativeEthiopiaRuralMixedMixed
Moktan et al. (2009). [97]NegativeBhutanRuralNRCommons
Mulenga et al. (2014). [98]NegativeZambiaRuralNRCommons
Mutenje et al. (2010). [99]NegativeZimbabweRuralNRCommons
Nielsen & Bakkegaard (2012). [100]NegativeDRCRuralVery low (no road and market far)State
Obua et al. (1998). [101]NegativeUgandaRuralGood (road and market close)State
Ocampo-Thomason (2006). [102]NegativeEcuadorRuralNRState
Paniagua-Zambrana et al. (2014). [103]NegativeColombia, Ecuador, Peru, and BoliviaRural State
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kimanzu, N.; Schulte-Herbrüggen, B.; Clendenning, J.; Chiwona-Karltun, L.; Krogseng, K.; Petrokofsky, G. What Is the Evidence Base Linking Gender with Access to Forests and Use of Forest Resources for Food Security in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Systematic Evidence Map. Forests 2021, 12, 1096.

AMA Style

Kimanzu N, Schulte-Herbrüggen B, Clendenning J, Chiwona-Karltun L, Krogseng K, Petrokofsky G. What Is the Evidence Base Linking Gender with Access to Forests and Use of Forest Resources for Food Security in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Systematic Evidence Map. Forests. 2021; 12(8):1096.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kimanzu, Ngolia, Björn Schulte-Herbrüggen, Jessica Clendenning, Linley Chiwona-Karltun, Kyla Krogseng, and Gillian Petrokofsky. 2021. "What Is the Evidence Base Linking Gender with Access to Forests and Use of Forest Resources for Food Security in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Systematic Evidence Map" Forests 12, no. 8: 1096.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop