The effects of environmental degradation on livelihoods are significant in many parts of the developing world. This article attempts to quantify the impact of deforestation on women’s work burden in the eastern Himalayas through a primary survey in three villages of Arunachal Pradesh, a state in India. Our findings suggest that although deforestation increases women’s work in forest-related collection and gathering activities, the net impacts are also mediated through processes of commercialization of the subsistence economy. While women share a disproportionately higher work burden in terms of the time spent in collection and processing of forest products, commercialization of some products has also resulted in higher participation of men in collection, marketing, and transport activities. It was found that the quality of village forest is a strong factor in reducing women’s total work burden. Forest degradation increases the work burden of women, as does the distance of agricultural land from house, and dependence on shifting cultivation.
AdhikariB.Di FalcoSalvatoreLovettJon C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: Evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 245–257.
2.
AgarwalBina. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18(1), 119–158.
3.
AgarwalBina. (1994). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in south Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
AgarwalBina. (1997). Gender, environment, and poverty interlinks: Regional variations and temporal shifts in rural India, 1971–91. World Development, 25(1), 23–52.
5.
AgarwalBina. (2010). Gender and green governance: The political economy of women’s presence within and beyond community forestry. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
6.
BoserupE. (1970). Women’s role in economic development. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
7.
ByresElizabethSainjuM. (1994). Mountain ecosystems and women: Opportunities for sustainable development and conservation. Mountain Research and Development, 14(3), 213–228.
8.
ChoudharyN.ParthasarathyD. (2007). Gender, work and household food security. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(6), 523–531.
9.
CookePriscilla A. (1998). Intrahousehold labour allocation responses to environmental goods scarcity: A case study from the hills of Nepal. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 46(4), 807–830.
10.
Council of Professional Social Workers (CPSW). (1992). Women and environment: Impact of environmental degradation on rural women—Case studies from selected villages of Orissa. Bhubaneswar: Council of Professional Social Workers.
11.
CropperMaureenPuriJyotsnaGriffithsCharles. (2001). Predicting the location of deforestation: The role of roads and protected areas in north Thailand. Land Economics, 77(2), 172–186.
12.
DewiSonyaBelcherBrianPuntodewoAtie. (2005). Village economic opportunity, forest dependence, and rural livelihoods in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Development, 33(9), 1419–1434.
13.
FernandesWalterPereiraMelville (2005). Land relations and ethnic conflicts: The case of Northeast India. Guwahati: North Eastern Social Research Centre.
14.
FernandesWalterBarboraSanjay. (2002). Modernisation and women’s status in north eastern India: A comparative study of six tribes. Guwahati: North Eastern Social Research Centre.
Forest Survey of India. (2008). State of forest report 2005. Dehradun: Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.
17.
GasperD. (1993). Entitlement analysis: Relating concepts and contexts. Development and Change, 24(4), 679–718.
18.
Government of Arunachal Pradesh (GoAP). (2005). Arunachal Pradesh human development report 2005. Itanagar: Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
19.
Harriss-WhiteBarbara. (2005). Commercialization, commodification and gender relations in post-harvest systems for rice. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(25), 2530–2542.
20.
Harriss-WhiteBarbaraMishraDeepak K.UpadhyayV. (2009). Institutional diversity and capitalist transition: The political economy of agrarian change in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(4), 512–547.
21.
HeltbergRasmusArndtThomas ChanningNagothuUdaya Sekhar (2000). Fuelwood consumption and forest degradation: A household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India. Land Economics, 76(2), 213–232.
22.
HirwayI. (1999). Conceptual and methodological issues of time use studies. Proceedings of the international seminar on time use studies. New Delhi: CSO, Government of India.
23.
HirwayI. (2009). Mainstreaming time use surveys in national statistical system in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(49), 56–65.
24.
HusainZahid. (1996). Degradation and development of environment in North-East India. In HussainZ. (Ed.), Environmental degradation and conservation in North-east India (pp. 1–28). Delhi: Omsons.
25.
JodhaN.S. (2001). Life on the edge: Sustaining agriculture and community resources in fragile environments. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
26.
KalpagamU. (1999). Women, work and domestic duties: Income planning for housewives. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 42(4), 567–580.
27.
KaurR. (1991). Women in forestry in India. Policy research and external affairs. Working paper: Women in development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
28.
KelkarG.NathanD. (1991). Gender and tribe: Women, land and forests in Jharkhand. New Delhi: Kali for Women.
29.
KelkarG.NathanD. (2001) Gender relations in forest societies in Asia. Gender, Technology and Development, 5(1), 1–31.
30.
KrishnaS. (2004). Gender, tribe and political participation: Control of natural resources in North-eastern India. In KrishnaSumi (Ed.), Livelihood and gender: Equity in community resource management (pp. 17–63). New Delhi: SAGE.
31.
KrishnaS. (2005). Gendered price of rice in North-eastern India. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(25), 2555–2562.
32.
KumarS.HotchkissD. (1988). Consequences of deforestation for women’s time allocation, agricultural production and nutrition in hill area of Nepal. Research Report 69. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
33.
LeachM.MearnsR.ScoonesI. (1999). Environment entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development, 27(2), 225–247.
34.
MasozeraMichel K.AlavalapatiJanaki R.R. (2004). Forest dependency and its implications for protected areas management: A case study from the Nyungwe forest reserve, Rwanda. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19(S4), 85–92.
35.
Mata GreenwoodAdriana. (1999). Gender issues in labour statistics. International Labour Review, 138(3), 221–343.
36.
MiesM. (1994). Gender and global capitalism. In SklairLeslie (Ed.), Capitalism and development (pp. 107–122). London & New York: Routledge.
37.
MishraA. (2006). Occupational structure and gender-based segregation in North-east India: The case of Arunachal Pradesh. Social Change and Development, 4(1), 125–145.
38.
MishraDeepak K. (2001). Political economy of agrarian change in Arunachal. Man and Development, 23(3), 40–50.
39.
MishraDeepak K. (2004). Institutional sustainability in natural resource management: A study on Arunachal Pradesh (India). Asian Profile, 32(6), 583–594.
40.
MishraDeepak K. (2006). Institutional realities and agrarian transformation in Arunachal Pradesh: Changing realities and emerging challenges. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(3), 314–327.
41.
MishraDeepak K. (2007a). Gender, forests and livelihoods: A note on the political economy of transition in North-east India. Social Change, 37(4), 65–90.
42.
MishraDeepak K. (2007b). Rural non-farm employment in Arunachal Pradesh: Growth, composition and determinants. NLI Research Studies Series No. 075/2007. Noida: V.V. Giri National Labour Institute.
43.
MishraDeepak K.UpadhyayV. (2007). In the name of the community: Gender, development and governance in Arunachal Pradesh. In KrishnaSumi (Ed.), Women’s livelihood rights: Recasting citizenship for development (pp. 167–208). New Delhi: SAGE.
44.
MitraAmitavaMishraDeepak K. (2011). Environmental resource consumption pattern in rural Arunachal Pradesh. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(3), 166–170.
45.
MukhimPatricia. (2005). Gender concerns and food security in rice farming systems of North-east India. Dialogue, 7(1), 126–154.
46.
NathanD. (2000). Timber in Meghalaya. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(4), 182–186.
47.
NongbriTiplut. (2001). Timber ban in North-east India: Effects on livelihood and gender. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(21), 1890–1900.
48.
Planning Commission. (2009). Arunachal Pradesh Development Report. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.
49.
Rama RaoG.LadusinghL.PritamjitR. (2004). Nutritional status of children in North East India. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, 19(3), 39–56.
50.
ReddyV.R.BeheraB.RaoD. Mohan. (2001). Forest degradation in India: Extent and determinants. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(4), 531–551.
51.
SalamM.A. (2007). Agricultural transformation in North-east India: With special reference to Arunachal Pradesh. New Delhi: Mittal.
52.
ShimrayU.A. (2004). Women’s work in Naga society: Household work, workforce participation and division of labour. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(17), 1698–1711.
53.
XaxaV. (2004). Women and gender in the study of tribes in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 11(3), 345–367.
