Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Gender quotas increase the equality and effectiveness of climate policy interventions

This article has been updated

Abstract

Interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions strive to promote gender balance so that men and women have equal rights to participate in, and benefit from, decision-making about such interventions. One conventional way to achieve gender balance is to introduce gender quotas. Here we show that gender quotas make interventions more effective and lead to more equal sharing of intervention benefits. We conducted a randomized ‘lab’-in-the-field experiment in which 440 forest users from Indonesia, Peru and Tanzania made decisions about extraction and conservation in a forest common. We randomly assigned a gender quota to half of the participating groups, requiring that at least 50% of group members were women. Groups with the gender quota conserved more trees as a response to a ‘payment for ecosystem services’ intervention and shared the payment more equally. We attribute this effect to the gender composition of the group, not the presence of female leaders.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Distribution of Gini coefficients for the PES payment.
Fig. 2: Difference in total group harvests between PES and pre-PES rounds.
Fig. 3: Average Ginigt and harvesting rate at each round.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

  • 17 April 2019

    In the version of this Letter originally published, the following ‘Journal Peer Review information’ was missing “Nature Climate Change thanks Björn Vollan, Kame Westerman and other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to this work.” This statement has now been added.

References

  1. 1.

    Coleman, E. A. & Mwangi, E. Women’s participation in forest management: a cross-country analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 193–205 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Agarwal, B. Gender Challenges (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2016).

  3. 3.

    Andersson, K. et al. Experimental evidence on payments for forest commons conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 128–135 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Gatiso, T. T., Vollan, B., Vimal, R. & Kühl, H. S. If possible, incentivize individuals not groups: evidence from lab-in-the-field experiments on forest conservation in rural. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12387 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kaczan, D., Pfaff, A., Rodriguez, L. & Shapiro-Garza, E. Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 86, 48–67 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kerr, J. M., Vardhan, M. & Jindal, R. Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. Int. J. Commons 8, 595–616 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Salk, C., Lopez, M.-C. & Wong, G. Simple incentives and group dependence for successful payments for ecosystem services programs: evidence from an experimental game in rural Lao PDR. Conserv. Lett. 10, 414–421 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Southgate, D. & Wunder, S. Paying for watershed services in Latin America: a review of current initiatives. J. Sustain. For. 28, 497–524 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Huang, M., Upadhyaya, S. K., Jindal, R. & Kerr, J. Payments for watershed services in Asia: a review of current initiatives. J. Sustain. For. 28, 551–575 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wunder, S. et al. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustain. 1, 145–150 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Alston, L. J., Andersson, K. P. & Smith, S. Payment for environmental services: hypotheses and evidence. Annu. Rev. Resour. Economics 5, 139–159 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Andersson, K. et al. Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy 72, 510–522 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Andersson, K. & Agrawal, A. Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 866–875 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Iversen, V. et al. High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecol. Econ. 58, 93–107 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Persha, L. & Andersson, K. Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 24, 265–276 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cummins, D. The problem of gender quotas: women’s representatives on Timor-Leste’s suku councils. Dev. Pract. 21, 85–95 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mairena, E. et al. Gender and Forests in Nicaragua’s Indigenous Territories: from National Policy to Local Practice CIFOR Working Paper 151 (CIFOR, 2012).

  18. 18.

    Edlund, L. & Pande, R. Why have women become left-wing? the political gender gap and the decline in marriage. Q. J. Econ. 117, 917–961 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chattopadhyay, R. & Duflo, E. Women as policy makers: evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica 72, 1409–1443 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Olken, B. A. Direct democracy and local public goods: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104, 243–267 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gottlieb, J., Grossman, G. & Robinson, A. L. Do men and women have different policy preferences in Africa? Determinants and implications of gender gaps in policy prioritization. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 48, 611–636 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Devlin, C. & Elgie, R. The effect of increased women’s representation in parliament: the case of Rwanda. Parliam. Aff. 61, 237–254 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Clayton, A., Josefsson, C. & Wang, V. Quotas and women’s substantive representation: evidence from a content analysis of Ugandan plenary debates. Polit. Gend. 13, 276–304 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E. & Sefton, M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 6, 347–369 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Eckel, C. C. & Grossman, P. J. Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dicator experiments. Econ. J. 108, 726–735 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Selten, R. & Ockenfels, A. An experimental solidarity game. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 34, 517–539 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dickinson, D. L. & Tiefenthaler, J. What is fair? Experimental evidence. South. Econ. J. 69, 414–428 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Engel, C. Dictator games: a meta study. Exp. Econ. 14, 583–610 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Leisher, C. et al. Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? A systematic map. Environ. Evid. 5, 6 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Meinzen-Dick, R., Kovarik, C. & Quisumbing, A. R. Gender and sustainability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 29–55 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Doss, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A. & Theis, S. Women in agriculture: four myths. Glob. Food Sec. 16, 69–74 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Greig, F. & Bohnet, I. Exploring gendered behavior in the field with experiments: why public goods are provided by women in a Nairobi slum. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 70, 1–9 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Fearon, J. & Humphreys, M. Why Do Women Co-operate More in Women’s Groups? WIDER Working Paper 163/2017 (World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER), 2017).

  34. 34.

    Hayo, B. & Vollan, B. Group interaction, heterogeneity, rules, and co-operative behaviour: evidence from a common-pool resource experiment in South Africa and Namibia. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 81, 9–28 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Croson, R. & Gneezy, U. Gender differences in preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 47, 448–474 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Miller, L. & Ubeda, P. Are women more sensitive to the decision-making context? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 83, 98–104 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Agarwal, B. Participatory exclusions, community forestry and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev. 29, 1623–1648 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Agarwal, B. Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2785–2799 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mwangi, E., Meinzen-Dick, R. & Sun, Y. Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 16, 17 (2011).

  40. 40.

    Suna, Y., Mwangi, E. & Meinzen-Dick, R. Is gender an important factor influencing user groups’ property rights and forestry governance? Empirical analysis from East Africa and Latin America. Int. For. Rev. 13, 205–219 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J. Rules, Games, and Common-pool Resources (Univ. Michigan Press, 1994).

  42. 42.

    Kimbrough, E. O. & Vostroknutov, A. The social and ecological determinants of common pool resource sustainability. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 72, 38–53 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Miteva, D. A., Pattanayak, S. K. & Ferraro, P. J. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 28, 69–92 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 29 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gelcich, S., Guzman, R., Rodriguez-Sickert, C., Castilla, J. C. & Cardenas, J. C. Exploring external validity of common pool resource experiments: insights from artisanal benthic fisheries in Chile. Ecol. Soc. 18, 2 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Beaman, L., Duflo, E., Pande, R. & Topalova, P. Female leadership raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls: a policy experiment in India. Science 335, 582–586 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Giri, K. & Darnhofer, I. Nepali women using community forestry as a platform for social change. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 1216–1229 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Franceschet, S. & Piscopo, J. M. Gender quotas and women’s substantive representation: lessons from Argentina. Polit. Gend. 4, 393–425 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Tinker, I. Quotas for women in elected legislatures: do they really empower women? Womens Stud. Int. Forum 27, 531–546 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Desposato, S. & Norrander, B. The gender gap in Latin America: contextual and individual influences on gender and political participation. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 39, 141–162 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Guidelines for Community Forestry Development Programme Second Revision (Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forests, Community Forest Division, 2009).

  52. 52.

    Bolton, G. E., Katok, E. & Zwick, R. Dictator game giving: rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. Int. J. Game Theory 27, 269–299 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Intons-Peterson, M. J. Imagery paradigms: how vulnerable are they to experimenters’ expectations?. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 9, 394–412 (1983).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    West, B. T., Welch, K. B. & Galecki, A. T. Linear Mixed Models (Taylor & Francis, 2015).

  55. 55.

    Imai, K., Keele, L. & Yamamoto, T. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat. Sci. 25, 51–71 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Mwangi and M. C. Lopez for collaboration during the design and implementation of the experiment in the field, the 440 men and women who agreed to participate in our lab-in-the-field experiments and Z. Cruz, T. Kusumajati and B. Naftal for coordinating the field-research activities in the three countries. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grants DEB-1114984, BCS-1115009, SMA-328688 and SES-1757136) as well as the Center for International Forestry Research (through grants from the European Commission and the UK Department for International Development).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

K.P.A. conceived the project, N.J.C. and T.G. developed the analytical approach, N.J.C. analysed the data, and K.P.A., T.G. and N.J.C. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krister P. Andersson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Journal peer review information: Nature Climate Change thanks Björn Vollan, Kame Westerman and other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–6, Supplementary Figures 1–6, Supplementary Tables 1–8, Supplementary Methods and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cook, N.J., Grillos, T. & Andersson, K.P. Gender quotas increase the equality and effectiveness of climate policy interventions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 330–334 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0438-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing