Gender differences in the perceived impacts of coastal management and conservation

The study examines how gender influences the ways people engage with and are affected by coastal management and conservation, recognizing that equitable and inclusive management supports better social and ecological outcomes while advancing human rights and gender equality. While coastal management often includes area closures and fishing restrictions with varied objectives, few approaches explicitly address gender equity in their design or evaluation. Understanding gender-differentiated perceptions of management outcomes is important for legitimacy, effectiveness, and the development of social safeguards. In the context of growing global commitments—such as the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines, and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) with its Gender Action Plan—the paper addresses gaps in operationalizing gender-responsiveness across diverse contexts. The study aims to answer: (i) Are there gender differences in whether people perceive impacts of coastal management and conservation at the individual and community levels? (ii) Does the degree of perceived impact differ by gender? (iii) How do women and men describe the types of impacts of management and conservation on human well-being?

The paper situates its inquiry within an expanding literature showing that inclusive and equitable natural resource governance enhances social and ecological outcomes. Prior research highlights that gender shapes participation, access, and benefits in small-scale fisheries and coastal resource use, disputing assumptions that fishing is a male-only activity. Traditional and contemporary management practices can have gendered effects through harvest restrictions, taboos, and access protocols. Systematic reviews and case studies show that women’s participation in governance can improve problem-solving and conservation outcomes and that co-management impacts can be uneven across social groups. Policy frameworks increasingly mandate gender equality and responsiveness—particularly the GBF’s Gender Action Plan and human rights-based approaches in the SSF Guidelines—yet practical guidance for integrating gender into coastal management remains limited. Studies underscore the need for gender-sensitive value chain analyses, intersectional approaches that consider multiple identities, and social safeguards (e.g., gender risk assessments) to identify and mitigate adverse impacts on marginalized groups.

Study design and sites: The study surveyed residents of 76 coastal communities dependent on coral reef fisheries across six countries (Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar). Communities were selected for proximity/dependence on reef fisheries and association with existing or planned locally, co-, or government-managed area-based management. The purpose was to elicit subjective perceptions of local management irrespective of management approach. Sampling and data collection: Between 2017 and 2019, 3063 individuals (1239 women, 1824 men) were surveyed using household questionnaires. Within each community, households were systematically sampled using an every ith household approach based on population and desired sample size (6 to 157 surveys per community), ensuring a random and geographically representative sample. Purposive sampling targeted heads of households or adults able to speak for the household, with stratification to ensure representation of women and men. Surveys were conducted by trained interviewers in local languages/dialects. Ethical approval was obtained from the Wildlife Conservation Society Institutional Review Board, and surveyors were trained in human subjects’ research. Survey instrument: The instrument collected data on management processes and outcomes and demographics, within the Marine and Coastal Monitoring framework grounded in Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework. For this study, questions focused on perceived impacts of management at both community and individual levels. Respondents were first asked whether they perceived any impacts, then asked open-ended questions on perceived positive and negative impacts, and finally asked to rate the overall degree of impact at the community and individual levels using a five-point Likert-type scale (very bad, bad, neutral, good, very good). Data processing and analysis: Likert responses were converted to ordinal values. Whether respondents perceived impacts was tested for associations with gender using chi-square analyses. The relationship between gender and the perceived degree of impact was analyzed with Cochran-Armitage trend tests to account for ordered data. Analyses were conducted at global and country levels in R (v4.0.3). Open-ended responses were iteratively coded in NVivo R1 to derive themes, which were organized into six human well-being domains (cultural, economic, environmental, governance, health, social) following established frameworks. Country teams helped interpret responses to ensure culturally and linguistically appropriate coding.

- Perception of presence of impacts: About half of respondents (51%, n=1579) noted community-level impacts and 42% (n=1308) noted individual-level impacts, with many noting both. Significant gender differences existed in perceiving impacts at the individual level (χ2(1, n=3063)=26.601, p≤2.5e-7) and community level (χ2(1, n=3063)=12.764, p=0.0003). 37% of women versus 46% of men perceived individual-level impacts; 47% of women versus 54% of men perceived community-level impacts. - Degree and direction of impacts: The overall degree (Likert-scale) of individual- and community-level impacts did not differ significantly by gender across the total sample. At the country level, gender was generally not significantly related to perceived degree of impacts, except for Fiji at the community level. - Types of impacts by domain: At the individual level, economic impacts were most frequently mentioned by both genders. At the community level, environmental benefits and governance-related costs were most frequently cited by both genders; cultural impacts were least mentioned and primarily in Melanesia. - Notable gender differences in themes: • Health: Women more often cited food security benefits at both individual and community levels (e.g., Solomon Islands, Kenya), though in Papua New Guinea men did so more often. • Environment: Women more frequently mentioned increased fish/invertebrates as a community benefit, especially in Melanesia (e.g., taboos/closures increasing fish abundance). • Economic: Women more often reported increased income from the sea as a benefit in several countries (Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Solomon Islands) and also more often reported decreased income or that “fishing is harder” as a cost in some contexts; men more often mentioned access to markets/gear/infrastructure as benefits and uneven/lacking assistance as a cost (notably in Indonesia). • Governance: Men more often expressed lack of trust in leadership/management; women more often reported restricted access to fishing grounds as a negative impact, with variation across countries. • Social: Country-specific patterns emerged. In Kenya, men more often cited education/training/skills benefits; men more often mentioned safety concerns (Indonesia, Kenya, Papua New Guinea). In Fiji, women more often highlighted benefits for future generations, whereas in Papua New Guinea men did so more often. • Culture: Least cited overall, appearing mainly in Melanesian countries and in similar proportions by gender (e.g., regulated openings of tabu areas supporting cultural events and food availability).

The study directly addresses whether gender differences exist in perceived impacts of coastal management at individual and community levels, whether the degree/direction of impacts differs by gender, and how impact types are described. Findings show that men are more likely than women to perceive impacts overall, with women more often noting community-level than individual impacts, while the assessed degree and direction of impacts do not significantly differ by gender. However, the types of impacts articulated vary by gender, most notably in economic, governance, and health domains. These results suggest that management practices may be more aligned with men’s activities and benefits, potentially overlooking women’s access and needs (e.g., restricted access, fishing becoming harder), which can undermine both equity and effectiveness. The findings underscore the importance of engaging all genders—potentially via differentiated approaches—to co-design conservation and management, including conducting gender risk assessments and integrating social safeguards to identify and mitigate gendered harms. They also highlight the need to map gendered fisheries spaces and value chains to design targeted, gender-responsive interventions (e.g., support for women’s trading networks and market access). Considering gender norms and intersectional identities is crucial to understand uneven impacts and to develop interventions that are context-appropriate, rights-based, and aligned with GBF gender targets. By aligning with global policy commitments and embedding gender-responsive planning from the outset, coastal management can better sustain biodiversity, fisheries, and human well-being.

The study demonstrates significant gender differences in whether impacts of coastal management and conservation are perceived, while showing no significant gender difference in the assessed degree or direction of those impacts. Women and men describe different types of impacts, especially within economic, governance, and health domains. These insights contribute to operationalizing gender-responsive coastal management by identifying domains and themes where gendered differences are most pronounced, informing targeted interventions, social safeguards, and co-design processes. The authors recommend: (1) building capacity through local gender expertise and sustained training; (2) co-designing programs that integrate all genders’ perspectives early (e.g., via gender risk assessments); and (3) developing targeted, context-specific interventions informed by gendered mapping of fisheries and value chains. Future research should employ case studies and qualitative methods to probe underlying drivers, apply intersectional analyses beyond binary gender categories, and investigate why many respondents perceive no impact, to better align management with community needs across genders.

The analysis leverages an existing, multi-country monitoring dataset, limiting depth on causal drivers of observed gender differences. The study focuses on women and men due to socio-cultural context and data limitations, not capturing non-binary identities. While broad in scope, it cannot fully account for intersectional factors (e.g., age, resource user type, ethnicity) that may shape perceptions and outcomes. Country-level variations indicate context-specific dynamics that require deeper qualitative inquiry (e.g., focus groups, case studies). A substantial proportion of respondents reported no perceived impact, suggesting potential misalignment between management actions and diverse community needs that warrants further investigation.