Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Forests are critical spaces that shape and enable gendered subjectivities in culturally and historically specific ways. However, scholarly work on forest or biodiversity conservation continues to take a very perfunctory view on gender–environment relationships. Many projects remain gender blind or view everyday practices of forest resource collection by women through a transactional or economic lens. Research has shown that forests are spaces wherein identities of women are entwined with their everyday activities in the forest. In this article, we demonstrate the gendered nature of forests of the Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) in India, and their different socio-cultural framings. We reveal how the forest spaces of the CTR are used by women for a wide variety of cultural and livelihood needs. We further show how biodiversity conservation practice in such forest spaces alters the activities of women in a myriad of ways. The increasing use of digital technologies in biodiversity conservation shapes how the forest space is observed and governed. We argue that the use of digital technologies for forest governance such as camera traps and drones tends to transform these forests into masculinized spaces that extend the patriarchal gaze of society to the forest. Finally, we reflect on how the use of digital technologies for biodiversity conservation is easily co-opted for purposes beyond conservation that reinforce patriarchal norms and propagate gendered structural violence.

Keywords

Gender surveillance conservation digital technologies forests

Introduction

Forests are vital ecosystems that provide essential resources for human survival and harbour 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. Achieving an equitable and a socially just practice of biodiversity conservation requires the inclusion of gender as a key component. Gender plays a crucial role in local livelihoods and in shaping perceptions related to biodiversity conservation (Espinosa, 2010; Leach, 1994; Agarwal, 1992; Nightingale, 2006; Ogra, 2012; Rocheleau et al., 1996). While there has been some progress in including gendered dimensions in conservation research, many projects remain gender blind (Brown and Fortnam, 2018; Kariuki and Birner, 2016) and scope for improvement remains. Moreover, conservation projects continue to treat gender as a women-versus-men problem and do not consider the multiple lines of difference such as age, caste and class that intersect with gender (Lau, 2020). Biodiversity conservation projects cannot adequately inform gender equity in their interventions unless such intersectional issues and context-specific power dynamics are considered. It has been argued that most research in conservation tends to avoid a gender studies component unless it is highly relevant to its goals and main objectives (Ogra, 2012). Furthermore, explicitly including gendered dimensions in conservation research and practice can result in strengthened conservation outcomes (Lau, 2020) while a failure to do so may lead to undesirable outcomes such as increasing the labour burden of women and increasing their economic and social vulnerability (Arora-Jonsson, 2014). Speaking to this assertion, this research article attempts to make gender a central thread in examining the impacts of digital surveillance technologies in the CTR in north Indian state of Uttarakhand. Specifically, this article explores how gendered geographies around the CTR influence the deployment of these technologies and how these technologies in turn influence such gendered geographies.

Forests as gendered spaces

The forest is where we feel free, in the forest nobody is watching us, and we can be carefree.

(Local resident woman, Interview no. 28)

Forests are complex ecosystems influenced by both biophysical and socio-political factors. Gabrys et al. (2022) emphasized the intertwining of technological, social and ecological dimensions in shaping forest landscapes. These spaces are not just natural environments but are deeply embedded in local socio-political contexts. Gururani (2002) introduced the concept of ‘forests of pleasure and pain’ to highlight how these landscapes are critical cultural spaces that shape gendered identities and subjectivities. In her work, Gururani demonstrates that forests are arenas where women’s identities are closely linked with their daily activities and social roles within these environments. This linkage is not merely utilitarian but is also deeply cultural and historical.

Feminist political ecologists integrate feminist theory with political ecology to address the intricate relationship between gender, the environment and power (Elmhirst, 2015; Sultana, 2015; Sundberg, 2017). It is argued that gender significantly influences access to and control over natural resources, forest conservation and responses to climate change (Elmhirst, 2015; Sultana, 2021). Gender intersects with other social categories such as class, race, caste and ethnicity, and these intersections shape how different groups access and control natural resources (Behzadi, 2019; Cole, 2017; Mollett, 2017). For instance, women especially from marginalized communities often face more significant barriers in accessing resources and participating in decision-making processes related to environmental governance (Tallman et al., 2023; Zaragocin, 2023). Power relations within households and communities shape how forests are managed and conserved and are often rooted in patriarchal structures that limit women’s agency and voice in environmental governance (Andharia and Arvind, 2024; Mollett, 2017; Sultana, 2021).

In this article, we use material from empirical ethnographic fieldwork conducted over 14 months in the CTR in the north Indian state of Uttarakhand, which aimed to uncover the social and political implications of surveillance technologies used in conservation practice. Fieldwork involved participant observations, semi-structured and informal interviews with women forest produce collectors and other relevant stakeholders, as they navigated conservation discourses and practices in forest spaces daily. In addition to the investigation into the effects of surveillance technologies, this fieldwork yielded insights into the gendered dynamics of forests within and in an around the CTR.

Doing research and writing about gender as male persons requires understanding a diverse range of gender identities and expressions, as well as recognition of the potential influence of male privilege on one’s perspective (Lillis et al., 2018). It is essential to recognize that gender is a complex and multifaceted concept, encompassing various identities beyond the binary of male and female. Hence, to write about gender from an informed perspective, it is important to be aware of the social and cultural factors that contribute to gender identities, including expressions of masculinity and femininity (Phillip, 2023). Author 1 (T.S.) did the fieldwork for this study; as a male researcher, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential impact of their male upper caste Hindu privilege. These intersectional privileges have the potential to inadvertently cause biases and shape the interpretation of our observations. To minimize this influence, we actively engaged with diverse gendered experiences and perspectives across castes and class groups and continuously remained open to learning and unlearning preconceived notions about gender norms. This continues to be a learning process which is still ongoing.

In the following section of this article, we expand on the way various social, cultural and political dynamics shape the forests around CTR into spaces of diverse subjectivities resulting into a ‘forest multiple’. The results are presented in a discursive thematic format according to identified analytical categories, while quotes are provided to substantiate interpretation in various sections.

Forests of ‘Haq’ (rights) and ‘Dharm’ (duty)

During the months of winter, women in the villages surrounding the CTR spend a significant amount of time gathering non-timber forest products, such as firewood and grass from nearby forest areas. Although forest produce collection takes place throughout the year, the winter months (October–March) see an increase in the amount of time spent in the forest. This is not only due to the increased need for firewood to heat homes and hot water, but also because there is less work in the agricultural fields. Interviews with women revealed that the act of going to the forest was looked as their ‘Haq’ (right) and bringing back forest resources their ‘Dharm’ (duty). Women forest produce collectors often revealed lifelong associations with the practice of going to the forest and see the forest as a place where lasting relationships with other women are formed. These traditional practices are so ingrained in the daily lives of women from the region, that it drives daily household and societal discourse in the fringe villages surrounding the CTR. Gururani (2002) argued that forests are not only important sources of livelihood for women and their families but also cultural sites where gender, authority and patriarchy are formed. This research provides supportive evidence to that thesis and explicates the intricate socially constructed connotations of labour, pride and tradition embedded in the forest multiple. Through these aspects, this research extends the concept of the forest multiple and challenges the idea of forests as being merely a collection of trees, life forms and ecosystems (Gabrys et al., 2024).

A ‘sasu’ (mother-in-law) always prefers a ‘bwari’ (daughter-in-law) who goes to the forest daily to collect wood and grass. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 27)

The older women taunt me while we are working in the forest and say that if we don’t get a suitor soon, they will get me married to the big ‘Haldu’ (Adina cordifolia) tree that we often climb to lop leaves from. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 36)

Forests and folk culture

The hill forests of Uttarakhand have been major sites of environmental movements since colonial times. These movements also led to a resurgence of folk culture in the form of resistance songs against colonial forestry practices and alcoholism in the region. These songs also expressed profound distress regarding the circumstances of women and other disadvantaged individuals (Dogra, 1989). Over the last few decades, these songs or ‘Nyaulis’ started evolving into detailed descriptions of love, nature and seasonal changes and are also often used by women to express their everyday realities. Through the rendition of these ‘Nyaulis’, women were able to bring to life the difficulties they face, such as the sadness of a new bride, the cruelty of a mother-in-law, the anticipation of a loving partner, the hardships of labour in the forest, caste discrimination and other social issues that epitomize the difficulties of life. The interviews and observations conducted as part of this research with women forest produce collectors in the vicinity of the CTR revealed how the forest served as a space for such expressions through song for these women. The common pattern in the songs reflected themes of resistance and frustration towards government forest authorities and of restricted access to the forest.

We sing because we feel alive in the forest, in the village we have housework and other duties, outside marriage functions singing is not encouraged within the household. (Local Resident Woman, Interview no. 43)

These women taunt us regularly through their songs, the other day while on a patrol we came across these women who were initially singing a Nyauli, as soon as they saw me, they started singing a parody on us forest guards. (Forest Guard, Interview no. 223)

In addition, songs sung in the forest also acted as a vital measure to deter large wildlife such as elephants and tigers. This is practised by a set method of spending time in forests that are deemed ‘dangerous’ or that have dense vegetative undergrowth. A chorus of melodies are sung while entering such parts, and while within them, women work in clusters constantly singing or making loud noises. This singing is particularly aimed at deterring wildlife and as a mode to judge distances between groups of women collecting forest resources in the dense undergrowth.

Accidents happen when tigers get surprised by our presence, we sing loudly before entering the forest and while collecting firewood, to let them know that we are here. (Local resident women, Interview no. 41)

Forests as private and intimate spaces

Constrictive social norms and a society deeply rooted in patriarchal norms have resulted in many activities that are deemed social taboos for women in the hilly state of Uttarakhand. The gendered nature of alcohol and tobacco consumption coupled with associated social taboos restricts women to engage in these activities anywhere in public view of their village or in their homes. Participant observations and interviews conducted as part of this research revealed that under this backdrop, the forest is a space that allows for women to engage in these activities. Some women would break off from a larger group collecting forest produce and go to an area not visible to the larger group to smoke ‘beedis’ (locally made cigarettes). These practices deeply intersect with other identity markers of caste, class and age. For instance, women from marginalized backgrounds such as the oppressed castes risk further marginalization if they are seen smoking or consuming alcohol.

Women from this village mainly go to the forest for ‘galat kaam’ (wrong kind of things) rather than for firewood or grass, they are very cunning. (Forest Guard (upper caste), Interview no. 223)

In rural settings, the ability of young couples to engage in romantic relationships is often hindered by a variety of factors such as lack of privacy, societal taboos and patriarchal surveillance from village elders. Consequently, these couples often seek out alternative public locations such as parks, temple grounds or other such public spaces. However, it has been argued that such locations do not always offer the same level of privacy and acceptability (Brunson, 2014) as what a forest space might. During one author’s interviews and observations, it came to light that forest areas serve as a venue for rural women and men engage in personal moments of intimacy. Inside the forest, it is not unusual to find rocks or tree trunks marked with inscriptions of love art, names and poems made by couples. Nonetheless, young couples refrain from visiting forests near their own villages due to concerns of being noticed by someone they know.

We spend time with my girlfriend in the jungles near the village of ‘Tedha’, too many women from our village enter the jungle here. (Local resident man, Interview no. 9)

Sometimes these young couples find their way into the CTR, we catch them, file a case and call their parents to discipline them. (Range Forest Officer, Interview no. 215)

Forests as spaces of escape and freedom

Alcoholism, leading to domestic violence, is a widespread problem in rural Uttarakhand, causing immense distress to women in the region (Pande et al., 2017). A survey conducted by the Uttarakhand state commission for women disclosed that every second woman in the state was a victim of domestic violence (Khanna, 2015). Our interviews revealed that prevalence of alcoholism in villages and accompanying violence were frequent topics of discussion. The motivation for women to spend long hours in forest spaces was often associated with escaping such situations. In contrast, men frequently criticized and belittled their wives, daughters and mothers for visiting the forest every day. Intrigued by the interest in interviewing women who collected forest produce, some men demanded to be interviewed as well, expressing their disapproval of women’s activities in the forest as a means of avoiding household responsibilities.

Women feel free in the forest, they don’t have to tolerate the prying eyes of their father in law’s and suffer the taunts and violence of their husbands. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 61)

Although employment and financial incentives associated with tourism in the CTR have resulted in some selective upward economic mobility, it has been restricted to the villages dominated by powerful caste groups and landed elites. Men from these revenue villages are now employed as tourist guides, safari game drivers or staff in hotels and lodges, and some have even established their own tourism-related businesses, such as homestays. However, these men prefer their wives and daughters to stop or reduce their visits to the forest, citing concerns about their safety and morality and due to the fact that it contradicts the standard tourism narrative of the forest as a wild and inviolate space.

I go as a tourist safari guide to the tiger reserve everyday and tell tourists about all the disturbances in the forest, it is embarrassing to sometimes come across my wife collecting forest produce with other women while I am explaining such things, the other guides make fun of me.

(Local resident man, Interview no. 51)

We now have a gas cylinder and an electric water heater in my house because we have started a homestay, still my mother and wife go to the forest. (Local resident man, Interview no. 58)

The above sections of this article aim to illustrate the complex and gendered relationships between nature and society in the forests of the CTR. Furthermore, the argument presented herein posits that gendered practices of forest produce collection extend beyond merely fulfilling material or livelihood needs but are also shaped by culturally specific practices that shape identities and gendered social relations. Women residing around the CTR use the forest as a multifaceted space for material requirements, cultural associations, seeking privacy or escaping patriarchal violence. The forests of the CTR are hence not a fixed space but constitute a landscape with multiple meanings and relations. It is important for scholars doing research on forests, conservation or environmental governance to account for these locally specific and multiple constitutions of forests. In the following sections of this article, we will demonstrate how digital technologies of surveillance in gendered spaces such as the forests of CTR impact women’s interactions with the forest multiple and the myriad of social relations discussed in this section. We start by engaging with the literature on feminist surveillance studies and connecting it to the use of digital technologies for conservation.

Feminist surveillance studies and digital technologies for conservation

The practice of surveillance involves multiple power relationships (Lyon, 2006), including aspects of gender. Literature on the gendered dimensions of surveillance has a long history, even if often not explicitly labelled as such. Social and moral customs have propagated gendered surveillance long before the advent of contemporary surveillance technologies (Koskela, 2012). Within the broader disciplines of gender and cultural studies, topics such as ‘ways of seeing’ (Berger, 1972), ‘practices of looking’ (Sturken and Cartwright, 2009), ‘the male and female gaze’ (Chatterji, 2022; Mulvey, 1989 [1975]; Oliver, 2017), ‘ways of appearing’ (Conor, 2004) and other gendered surveillance practices have been established topics of discussion. Rosalind Gill (2019) has argued that surveillance studies have remained largely male-dominated, focusing on men both as objects and actors. Gill contends that surveillance is, in fact, a feminist issue. By highlighting emerging work in feminist surveillance studies, Gill moves beyond top-down theorization of surveillance and explores the links between neoliberalism and new digital technologies that are producing novel, powerful and regulatory gendered ‘gazes’.

Embodied impacts of surveillance

The field of vision is extremely gendered (Nast and Kobayashi, 1996), and even the seemingly harmless practices of seeing and being seen are gendered (Gardner, 1995; Rose, 1993). Monahan’s (2009) foundational work explored how surveillance technologies have gendered outcomes. By examining the gender dimensions of surveillance systems in public domains like healthcare, social welfare and transportation, Monahan (2009) argued that such systems ‘artificially abstract bodies, identities, and interactions from social contexts in ways that both obscure and aggravate gender and other social inequalities’.

Dubrofsky and Magnet (2015) made an important intervention to address this in mainstream surveillance studies. By drawing from critical race studies, gender studies and queer theory, they set out the commitment of feminist surveillance studies to projects that are intersectional and interventionist in their orientation (Gill, 2019). This work examines top-down surveillance and the ways it intersects with gendered, classist, racist and colonial systems of exclusion. For example, studies have shown how surveillance of sex workers and their clients (Wright et al., 2015), airport scanners (Hall, 2015), reproductive technologies (Dasgupta and Dasgupta, 2015) and even birth certificates (Moore and Currah, 2015) authorize some bodies while criminalizing and marginalizing others through ostensibly neutral technologies.

Women’s bodies have been violently dismembered and reconstituted using new visual technologies (Gill, 2019). They have been subjected to institutional scrutiny, regulation and surveillance (Mason and Magnet, 2012). Research on beauty practices and body image reveals how women’s appearances are subject to intense discipline and regulation even when beauty practices are seemingly freely chosen (Gill, 2019). Furthermore, visualization technologies have been used for heightened surveillance and gendered policing by state institutions, especially in the area of social welfare. For instance, electronic benefit transfer systems in the United States had consequences on the individual budgeting strategies and choices of poor, often racialized women (Monahan, 2017). Similarly, in India, social security schemes such as ‘Aadhaar’ monitor women’s pregnancies and abortion details, leading to a risk of social ostracization in case of a privacy breach (Tandon, 2022). This digital trail of choices made over one’s body is created under the vision of the state, which in turn hampers the autonomy of women over decisions related to their own bodies (Tandon, 2022).

Gendered surveillance: Voyeurism and control

Research on video surveillance has provided the basic framework for addressing gender issues in surveillance practice. Surveillance by video has been broadly interpreted as part of ‘male policing’ (Brown, 1998, 2007). Such research has pointed out the voyeuristic uses of video surveillance where men, sitting comfortably in control rooms, have the power to monitor unsuspecting women and others from a distance. Studies have shown that voyeurism is one of the primary motivations for surveillance operators to watch women (Norris and Armstrong, 2020 [1997]). Koskela (2000) described such voyeuristic practices through video surveillance as the masculinization of space, where women are subjected to increased scrutiny without necessarily receiving any protection from sexual assault or harassment.

Murray (2018) argued that surveillance results in women conforming to gendered expectations and becoming acutely aware of the consequences of not doing so. Murray’s analysis reveals that surveillance exacerbates structural violence against women by determining their every move even when they manage to stay safe from direct physical violence. Such surveillance practices are closely connected to stalking and can have extremely serious consequences that perpetuate violence against women.

In their landmark paper on surveillance and violence against women, Mason and Magnet (2012) demonstrated how surveillance technologies reflect the cultural context in which they are deployed. These contexts are often rife with entrenched gender inequalities and violence against women. Yet, the implications of surveillance technologies on physical and structural violence against women are understudied within the discipline of surveillance studies, barring a few notable exceptions (Harris and Vitis, 2020; Monahan, 2017; Shelby, 2020).

Surveillance technologies leading to voyeurism and violence against women may be the clearest point for feminist critique. However, a cause for greater concern is surveillance that leads to control over bodies through abstract representations that result in social contexts being indiscernible (Monahan, 2009). For instance, Egan (2006 [2004]) found how surveillance cameras were used to enforce control over women working in strip clubs by their male managers, ensuring they did not take unreported tips by performing sexual acts. Such forms of surveillance and disembodied control are embedded in all spheres of public life, facilitating state control and normalizing inequalities (Coleman, 2004; Taylor, 2002; Zuboff, 2019). When society and social contexts are already marked by patriarchal power structures, surveillance technologies tend to reinforce and exacerbate these structures.

Digital technologies for conservation and surveillance

The gendered implications of surveillance technologies have been studied in contexts such as border control, healthcare, social welfare and transportation (Hegde, 2019; Monahan, 2009). However, their impact on environmental conservation and forest spaces remains underexplored. The use of digital devices in environmental conservation has evolved from their initial roles in law enforcement and surveillance (Duffy et al., 2019). These devices have sparked extensive debate regarding their social, political and environmental impacts (Gabrys et al., 2022; Parris-Piper et al., 2023; Ritts et al., 2024; Sandbrook et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2020; Simlai and Sandbrook, 2021; Young et al., 2022). Although surveillance studies have long examined the effects of surveillance, they have yet to fully explore its impact in environmental conservation contexts (Simlai, 2022).

Advancements in digital technologies have significantly transformed environmental and conservation monitoring (Gabrys et al., 2022). These technologies, including acoustic sensors, cameras and drones (Ritts et al., 2024; Sandbrook et al., 2018), offer cost-effective, flexible and efficient large-scale monitoring capabilities, ushering in a new era of surveillance geographies (Pritchard et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2023; Von Essen et al., 2023). In addition, artificial intelligence and facial recognition algorithms enhance these technologies’ capabilities to track and identify individuals, bolstering state power and law enforcement (Duffy et al., 2019; Simlai and Sandbrook, 2021). Women are frequently placed as objects of surveillance gaze, and this applies to them being viewed through digital technologies used in conservation.

Photographs of people taken by digital technologies such as camera traps can change the nature of conservation law enforcement, giving rise to new regimes of surveillance such as ‘conservation surveillance’, defined as keeping a watch on someone or something for natural resource management and preservation (Sandbrook et al., 2018). These technologies are rapidly changing the perception of conservation by citizens, especially in protected areas (Shrestha and Lapeyre, 2018), and even more so outside them (Simlai, 2015) contributing to coercive conservation strategies (Jackman et al., 2023; Parris-Piper et al., 2023; Sauls et al., 2023)). The use of surveillance technologies is central to the militarization of conservation (Büscher and Ramutsindela, 2016; Duffy et al., 2019; Lunstrum, 2014). The ease with which surveillance technologies can shift objectives between tracking animals and monitoring people, or between warfare and securitized conservation, is crucial to understanding how intensive surveillance regimes are integral to conservation governance alongside other intelligence-gathering techniques based on military-styled counter-insurgency methods (Duffy et al., 2019; Jackman et al., 2023; Massé, 2020; Millner et al., 2024; Simlai, 2022). It has also been argued that conservation actors use digital technologies to create disciplined conservation actors (Sandbrook et al., 2018) and establish new forms of governance (Bersaglio et al., 2023; Millner et al., 2024; Ritts et al., 2024). Much of the work on the impacts of digital technologies for conservation and surveillance is ungendered and does not engage with concepts from feminist surveillance studies. This article provides one of the first few studies examining the impacts of digital technologies for conservation on gendered forest spaces in the global south.

The disciplinary and the gendered regulatory gaze of digital surveillance technologies

Our interviews with women forest produce collectors in the forests of CTR revealed how these technologies were resulting in disciplinary and regulatory control over the bodies of women. Our observations demonstrate the significant transformation in the behaviour of these women, their work patterns and their daily conduct due to the presence of digital technologies in the forest space. For instance, women recounted occasions where they felt observed and watched due to the presence of camera traps. The deployment of camera traps within these forests transpires without the knowledge or consent of women who use these spaces daily and invariably triggers an inhibiting influence. Women even reported a decrease in the gathering of forest resources that are legally permitted, such as firewood and clumps of grass, while completely avoiding the collection of other non-timber forest products such as herbs and honey. However, this self-disciplining behaviour was not noticed in some women who came from more powerful groups and identities such as being upper caste. These women cared little about the presence of cameras and in fact even dictated where they should be deployed by forest authorities.

When there are cameras in the forest, I feel like I am doing something wrong or stealing something from the forest, even when I am picking up dried and dead firewood (sukhi lakdi). (Local Resident Women, Interview no. 63)

I do not really care about the cameras, we do not go to the forest for the wrong reasons unlike some others, my husband is the village headman, and we have good relations with the forest guards. (Local resident Woman, Interview no. 11)

The lack of information about the deployment and purpose of cameras in forest spaces causes fear and confusion among women. Women tend to abruptly halt conversations as they pass by camera traps placed in the forest. As demonstrated before, women utilize forest spaces for various social associations, including personal and household discussions. The presence of camera traps triggers an evident shift in women’s behaviour and conduct in forest spaces. When aware of these devices, women consciously reduce chatter among themselves, refrain from discussing private matters and avoid taking each other’s names while collecting forest produce. Furthermore, women completely stop engaging in certain activities that are considered taboo by the restrictive and patriarchal nature of local traditions.

The woman from the nearby village was smoking a ‘beedi’ and walked past a camera, she was lucky that the camera was inactive, otherwise it would have been a matter of great shame. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 61)

We don’t know who is watching us from these cameras, is it clicking our photo? Or recording a video, can it hear us? (Local resident woman, Interview no. 27)

The presence of camera traps was not just censoring conversations among women but also stopping them from loud singing of songs and ‘nyaulis’. As discussed before, loud singing of songs is not just of cultural importance but also serves as an essential countermeasure to deter large wildlife such as elephants and tigers. Women who use forest spaces that are also frequented by tourists are often discouraged by forest authorities to be seen during tourist game drives or safaris. This is done to improve the tourist experience of authentic wilderness immersion, free from human presence. This notion of separating humans from nature and maintaining nature as wild and pure has been widely challenged in political ecology work and in some modern conservation narratives (Brockington and Wilke, 2015; Büscher and Fletcher, 2015).

Tourists don’t like to see groups of women with headloads of firewood and grass coming out of the bush when they have been sold a complete natural experience. (Senior Forest Official, Interview no. 262)

The melodic songs of women forest produce collectors and high-pitched exchanges were perceived as a disturbance to the forest and were being policed. During interviews, numerous groups of women voiced their concerns about the growing risk of animal attacks in the forest spaces of CTR and how the deployment of camera traps were playing a role in it. For example, women reported that while collecting forest produce from forest spaces where camera traps were deployed, and that were frequented by tourist vehicles, women consciously lowered their singing volumes or avoided singing altogether. Moreover, the presence of camera traps and coercive regulation by forest authorities were driving women to relocate to deeper forest areas that were unfamiliar. This has a significant safety implication, as a chance encounter with large wildlife increases when they are not making loud noises while collecting forest produce.

There is a ‘baaghin’ (tigress) with cubs in this part of our forest, if we don’t sing or talk

loudly there is a chance of her being surprised and attack us as any protective animal would do. (Interview no. 37)

Since they put cameras in this area we are being forced to go deeper into the forest where the vegetation is too dense, this increases risk of us running into elephants. (Interview no. 48)

Aerial surveillance and control

Our interviews also revealed that the use of aerial surveillance technologies such as drones was amplifying the means through which women’s bodies were being controlled and disciplined, particularly for those from marginalized communities. For instance, women from traditional pastoral communities such as the ‘Van Gujjars’ were subjected to drone surveillance in increasingly pervasive ways. During this study, multiple incidents revealed that where drones were deliberately flown near and above Van Gujjar women who were returning from the forest carrying firewood and grass on their heads. This action resulted in the women becoming frightening and dropping their gathered produce while fleeing to find cover. The women disclosed that the uncertain legal status of permissible activities within the forest, disputes concerning resource collection zones and a historical prejudice against pastoralism by government authorities influenced their responses to surveillance. Furthermore, much of the fear and panic among the women stemmed from fear of a loud flying object and its associations with traditional policing and the military. Such conservation practices by the state also feed into the ‘green militarization’ (Duffy et al., 2019; Lunstrum, 2014) discourse where military methods, such as the use of paramilitary force are regularly used in tandem with traditional law enforcement (Massé, 2020; Mkono et al., 2023; Simlai, 2015).

Government authorities fly a small helicopter over the forest sometimes, we get scared of the buzzing noise and the sound, it makes. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 17)

They show drones in the tv that military uses, and now there are military people patrolling the boundaries of Corbett too. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 43)

These observations reveal how digital technologies of surveillance were projecting biopower over women forest produce collectors. The use of camera traps and drones exercise power over women’s bodies and action inducing self-disciplinary behaviours that regulate the collection of forest resources, thereby promoting the conservation of the forest ecosystem, which is considered essential for the well-being of the population as a whole. However, as demonstrated the disciplining and regulating effects of these technologies are not evenly distributed across different social groups. Women from marginalized backgrounds are more likely to exhibit self-disciplinary behaviours when under surveillance, while women from more privileged backgrounds may not be affected in the same way. This intersectionality highlights the complex interplay between power, surveillance and social hierarchies, and the ways in which biopolitics are shaped by broader socio-political contexts. Moreover, biopower is implemented through diverse systems, rather than a singular tool or technology. In the practice of conservation using digital technologies of surveillance, biopower can be observed by linking physical security concerns like poaching to a sequence of reactive law enforcement methods which evaluate risks, expenses and predict probable events while establishing boundaries for a population (Simlai and Sandbrook, 2021).

The voyeuristic gaze of digital surveillance technologies in conservation

The objectification and surveillance of women’s bodies is not limited to physical spaces but extends to digital spaces as well (Monahan, 2009). Research on video surveillance has provided the basic framework for addressing gender issues in surveillance practice. Such surveillance has been broadly interpreted as part of ‘male policing’ (Brown, 1998; Brown et al., 2020). This research has pointed out the voyeuristic uses of video surveillance, where men sitting comfortably in control rooms have the power to monitor unsuspecting women and others from a distance. Studies have shown that voyeurism is one of the primary motivations for surveillance operators to watch women (Koskela, 2002; Norris and Armstrong, 2020 [1997]; Setiyawan et al., 2022), leading to the masculinization of space where women are subjected to increased scrutiny without any protection from sexual assault or harassment (Koskela, 2000). These combined practices lead to women’s bodies being surveilled, scrutinized and regulated in both physical and digital spaces, contributing to their objectification and oppression (Koskela, 2012). The following section reveals how digital surveillance technologies used in the forest spaces of the CTR facilitates voyeuristic practices and contributes to occurrences of sexual harassment, causing social disgrace and in turn compromising the efficacy of conservation interventions.

Women in the forest spaces of the CTR tie their dresses or ‘sarees’ above their knees to enhance ease of movement during the collection of forest produce. However, the presence of camera traps in the forest resulted in a heightened sense of self-awareness and deterred women from adopting this practice. Our interviews revealed that women spent considerable time adjusting their dresses and made sure they are adequately ‘covered’, in case they were to be photographed by a camera trap. This self-policing also increased the amount of time taken for them to collect firewood and grass.

We cannot walk in front of the cameras or sit in the area with our Kurtis above our knees, we are afraid that we might get photographed or recorded in a wrong way. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 27)

Camera traps are often deployed by forest authorities in dry stream beds called ‘nullahs’, as they are frequently used by wildlife like tigers and elephants. These ‘nullahs’ are also important entry and exit points used by women to enter forest spaces. Interviews with local social activists, forest personnel and women forest produce collectors revealed that local forest personnel secretly and regularly deploy camera traps in these ‘nullahs’ to keep an ‘eye’ on such entry and exit points all over the CTR. In the year 2017, an image of a semi-nude women relieving herself was inadvertently captured by one such camera trap. The woman was autistic, came from a marginalized caste group and was unable to express her experience of being photographed to her family or other women. To make matters worse, young men who had recently been appointed as temporary forest personnel accessed the photograph and circulated it on local social media groups. In response to this image-based abuse, residents from the woman’s village destroyed camera traps in the adjacent forest areas and issued threats to set a forest personnel station ablaze. This case was further seen as an instance of deliberate caste-based discrimination aimed at the residents of a village where all households belonged to marginalized caste groups.

We broke and set fire to every camera trap we could find after the daughter of our village was humiliated in such a brazen way. (Local resident, Interview no. 40)

The forest administration of CTR have a long-standing conflict with our village, we are poor and have little political power, they would never have done this if the woman was not from a marginalised caste group. (Local social rights activist, Interview no. 63)

Digital surveillance technologies like camera traps have the potential to perpetuate voyeurism, abuse and violence against women. Research has also shown that video surveillance can lead to the control of individuals through abstract representations that obscure social contexts (Monahan, 2009). Studies have shown how surveillance cameras were employed by male managers in strip clubs to exert control over female workers, ensuring they did not receive unreported tips for performing sexual acts (Egan, 2006 [2004]). This type of surveillance and disembodied control pervades various aspects of public life, enabling state control and perpetuating inequalities. The analysis in this section demonstrates that surveillance technologies in the forest spaces of CTR enable such disembodied control over the bodies of women forest produce collectors. In societies already characterized by patriarchal power structures, surveillance technologies often intensify these imbalances and tensions as seen from the quote below.

What are they trying to monitor by flying the drone where women from our village go to relieve themselves? Can they dare to do the same in the upper caste villages? (Local resident man, Interview no. 44

Social control, moral policing and sousveillance

Surveillance technologies have dramatically enhanced the capabilities of state policing globally. This has intensified existing state approaches to the surveillance of seemingly problematic individuals (Manning, 2008). For instance, in Iran, CCTV cameras deployed to regulate traffic have been used for enforcing women’s hijab compliance (Akbari, 2021). Research has also shown that existing social dynamics and cultural customs influence the ways in which surveillance technologies are used to uphold public morality (Alhadar and McCahill, 2011). In this section, we argue that digital surveillance technologies such as camera traps can function as instruments of social control, reinforcing patriarchal norms and perpetuating gendered structural violence.

Expansion of the tourism industry driven by the CTR has led to a considerable percentage of men from surrounding villages securing employment opportunities. The financial status of households in these villages has enabled the procurement of cooking gas and water heating instruments, which were previously two primary reasons for women to collect firewood from the forest. Nevertheless, women from these villages continue to visit forest spaces for reasons outlined in the earlier section of this article. Our interviews reveal that men from these villages frequently express disapproval of women venturing into the forest, a practice which according to them is no longer necessary. While some concerns are rooted in the growing danger of animal attacks, the majority of these men- husbands, father-in-law’s and even sons think of women as ‘wasting time’ and ‘enjoying themselves’ in the forest.

They leave the kids unattended for hours together and go to the forest to enjoy themselves they need to spend more time home. (Local resident man, Interview no. 33)

Camera traps placed in nearby forests are often welcomed by men who disapprove of women spending extended periods of time in the forest. Furthermore, discussions with lower-level forest authorities indicated that the placement of camera traps in certain forest spaces beyond the jurisdiction of the CTR is frequently dictated by local men residing in the fringe villages surrounding the CTR. This is typically driven by a desire to control the time spent by women in the forest or prevent them from entering it altogether. It was also disclosed that certain men regularly expressed interest in viewing camera trap images of their spouses, seeking confirmation of whether their wives were genuinely entering the forest, or engaging in other activities.

We are very happy when the Forest Department installs cameras in this part of the forest, our women come back early or don’t go at all. (Local resident man, Interview no. 36)

As mentioned before, forest spaces are used by young couples seeking privacy, away from the prying and policing eyes of society. Discussions with local police authorities indicate that the police often benefit from and even request deployment of camera traps by the forest department. The use of surveillance technologies for moral policing in India is not a novel concept. The state of Uttar Pradesh in north India has used CCTV cameras and facial recognition systems to identify young couples and then summoning their parents to discipline them (Ara, 2021). The deployment of conservation monitoring tools towards these ends is a worrying trend and can lead to perpetuating gendered violence.

One of our camera traps captured an image of a couple doing ‘matargasti’ [romance] in the forest, we immediately reported it to the police. (Range Forest Officer, Interview no. 253)

The analysis in this section suggests that camera traps contribute to the extension of society’s ‘male gaze’ within forest areas. These devices function as tools for exerting social control, reinforcing patriarchal norms and perpetuating gender-based violence. However, they may also serve as tools for women’s resistance or be employed in reverse surveillance. A form of inverse surveillance through which the surveilled monitor the surveillors to challenge the surveillance state has been called sousveillance (Mann, 2004). Studies have demonstrated that specific populations utilize tools like wearable computing devices, cameras and smartphones to observe, document and share events that offer an alternative narrative distinct from those presented by law enforcement agencies. Moreover, research has highlighted instances where employees use smartphones and software provided by their employers to capture abusive behaviour directed at them by the same employers (Koeppel, 2011). Such actions can also challenge unfavourable and exploitative performance evaluations, resulting in empowering resistance and undermining Foucauldian panopticism (Koskela, 2000). Our interviews reveal a single event where a woman led their abusive husband in front of a deployed camera trap with the objective to record domestic violence. Although such instances of utilizing camera traps as tools of reverse surveillance or sousveillance are overshadowed by their role in propagating gendered structural violence, they remain significant and warrant further investigation.

She runs to the camera near her house whenever her husband get drunk and beats her, that way she escapes being beaten and can also have proof if things get out of hand. (Local resident woman, Interview no. 110)

Conclusion

In this article, we illuminate the gendered implications of digital surveillance technologies on women’s social, cultural and political spaces, affecting their actions and autonomy. The multifaceted role of forests in the lives of women near the CTR highlights the need to incorporate gendered perspectives and local cultural practices in forestry, conservation and environmental governance research. A feminist political ecology approach illustrates how gendered power relations influence human–environment interactions. This approach emphasizes the necessity of considering gender as a central component in environmental issues, recognizing that women often have different relationships with natural resources compared to men due to their distinct social roles and responsibilities.

In the context of CTR, we demonstrate that women’s forest activities are deeply tied to their cultural and livelihood needs. Conservation practices often overlook these gendered dimensions, leading to outcomes that exacerbate gender inequalities and marginalize women’s voices in environmental governance. Forests serve not only as sources of livelihood but also as spaces for cultural articulation, privacy and refuge from societal norms and domestic abuse. This article underscores the socio-cultural values associated with work, pride and tradition in the gendered forest spaces of CTR, where women assert relationships, challenge gender authority and oppose patriarchal norms. Understanding the various ways women engage with and experience forests is crucial for fostering inclusive and effective forest management strategies. It is vital to recognize the diverse constitution of forest spaces across intersections of caste, class, age, disability and gender.

We also expand the scope of feminist surveillance studies to encompass forest environments by examining the effects of digital surveillance technologies within CTR. Traditionally, feminist surveillance studies focus on urban environments, exploring how women navigate surveillance in public spaces, workplaces and homes. Our research is novel in demonstrating how similar surveillance technologies are applied in forest environments, where women’s interactions with the environment differ significantly from those in urban areas. In urban settings, surveillance often addresses crime prevention, workplace monitoring and public safety. Conversely, the forest environment introduces new dynamics where surveillance technologies like camera traps and drones are used ostensibly for conservation. However, these technologies also function as tools of social control and moral policing, reinforcing patriarchal norms and affecting women who rely on the forest for their livelihoods and cultural practices.

Forest environments necessitate different behaviours and practices from women, such as collecting firewood, herbs and other products. We show how surveillance technologies disrupt these practices, leading to self-disciplinary behaviours and altering traditional roles and interactions within the forest. This contrasts with urban environments, where surveillance often affects behaviours in public and semi-public spaces like streets and shopping areas. We also highlight how surveillance in forest environments disproportionately impacts women from marginalized communities, such as the Van Gujjar pastoralists. By revealing the intricate ways digital surveillance technologies intersect with gendered power relations in forest environments, we bring feminist surveillance studies into conversation with feminist political ecology. This comprehensive understanding of how surveillance impacts women’s lives across different contexts underscores the importance of considering diverse environments and socio-cultural settings in surveillance studies. It ensures that feminist critiques of surveillance are inclusive and globally relevant, filling a critical gap in existing literature predominantly focused on urban contexts.

In conclusion, this research article shows that digital technologies such as camera traps and drones reinforce gendered power dynamics and perpetuate the objectification and control of women’s bodies. Intended for conservation purposes, these technologies contribute to self-disciplinary behaviours among women forest produce collectors, especially those from marginalized backgrounds. Furthermore, they facilitate voyeuristic practices, leading to sexual harassment and social disgrace, ultimately undermining the efficacy of conservation interventions. The lack of consent and knowledge about these technologies exacerbates existing socio-political inequalities and perpetuates the notion of biopower. Moving forward, it is crucial to address the complex interplay between power, surveillance and social hierarchies and to critically assess the use of digital surveillance technologies in conservation practices to ensure they do not inadvertently contribute to the oppression and marginalization of vulnerable populations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 866006).

ORCID iD

Trishant Simlai

This article is part of the Environment and Planning F: Philosophy, Theory, Models, Methods and Practice special issue on ‘The Forest Multiple: Composing and Digitalizing Wooded Worlds’, edited by Jennifer Gabrys, Michelle Westerlaken, Kate Lewis Hood, Yuti Ariani Fatimah and Trishant Simlai.

Dr. Trishant Simlai is a post doctoral research associate in the department of sociology at the University of Cambridge.

Professor Chris Sandbrook is a professor of conservation and society and the director of the MPhil in conservation leadership at the University of Cambridge.

References

Agarwal

(1992) The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1): 119–158.

Akbari

(2021) The threat of automating control: Surveillance of women’s clothing in Iran. In: Završnik

Badalič

(eds) Automating Crime Prevention, Surveillance, and Military Operations. London: Springer, pp.183–199.

Alhadar

McCahill

(2011) The use of surveillance cameras in a Riyadh shopping mall: Protecting profits or protecting morality? Theoretical Criminology 15(3): 315–330.

Andharia

Arvind

(2024) Vulnerability, gender and environmental stress: Value contestations in sustainable development discourse. In: Prasad

(ed.) Gender, Environment and Sustainable Development. New Delhi, India: Routledge, pp.23–35.

Ara

(2021) Lucknow police to use AI cameras to track women in distress, activists slam privacy invasion. Available at: https://thewire.in/women/uttar-pradesh-lucknow-police-artificial-intelligence-camera-women (accessed 20 April 2023).

Arora-Jonsson

(2014) Forty years of gender research and environmental policy: Where do we stand? Women’s Studies International Forum 47: 295–308.

Behzadi

(2019) Women miners’ exclusion and Muslim masculinities in Tajikistan: A feminist political ecology of honor and shame. Geoforum 100: 144–152.

Berger

(1972) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books.

Bersaglio

Enns

Goldman

, et al. (2023) Grounding drones in political ecology: Understanding the complexities and power relations of drone use in conservation. Global Social Challenges Journal 2: 47–67.

10.

Brockington

Wilkie

(2015) Protected areas and poverty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140271. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.027

11.

Brown

(2007) From cult of masculinity to smart macho: Gender perspectives on police occupational culture. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance 8: 205–226.

12.

Brown

(1998) Aspects of discriminatory treatment of women police officers serving in forces in England and Wales. The British Journal of Criminology 38(2): 265–282.

13.

Brown

Fortnam

(2018) Gender and ecosystem services: A blind spot. In: Mace

Schreckenberg

Poudyal

(eds) Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation. New York: Routledge, pp.257–272.

14.

Brown

Baldwin

Dierenfeldt

, et al. (2020) Playing the game: A qualitative exploration of the female experience in a hypermasculine policing environment. Police Quarterly 23(2): 143–173.

15.

Brunson

(2014) ‘Scooty girls’: Mobility and intimacy at the margins of Kathmandu. Ethnos 79(5): 610–629.

16.

Büscher

Fletcher

(2015) Accumulation by conservation. New Political Economy 20(2) https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2014.9238

17.

Büscher

Ramutsindela

(2016) Green violence: Rhino poaching and the war to save Southern Africa’s peace parks. African Affairs 115(458): 1–22.

18.

Chatterji

(2022) The Female Gaze: Essays on Gender, Society, and Media. Philadelphia, PA: Global Collective Publishers.

19.

Cole

(2017) Water worries: An intersectional feminist political ecology of tourism and water in Labuan Bajo, Indonesia. Annals of Tourism Research 67: 14–24.

20.

Coleman

(2004) Images from a neoliberal city: The state, surveillance and social control. Critical Criminology 12(1): 21–42.

21.

Conor

(2004) The Spectacular Modern Woman: Feminine Visibility in the 1920s. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

22.

Dasgupta

(2015) The public fetus and the veiled woman: Transnational surrogacy blogs as surveillant assemblage. In: Dubrofsky

Magnet

(eds) Feminist Surveillance Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

23.

Dogra

(1989) Chipko poet and his songs. Himal Southasian. Available at: https://www.himalmag.com/chipko-poet-and-his-songs/ (accessed 20 April 2023).

24.

Dubrofsky

Magnet

(eds) (2015) Introduction: Feminist surveillance studies: Critical interventions. In: Dubrofsky

Magnet

(eds) Feminist Surveillance Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

25.

Duffy

Massé

Smidt

, et al. (2019) Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biological Conservation 232: 66–73.

26.

Egan

(2004 [2006]) Eyeing the scene: The uses and (re) uses of surveillance cameras in an exotic dance club. In: Eley

Dirks

Ortner

(eds) Culture, Power, and History. Leiden: Brill, pp.199–221.

27.

Elmhirst

(2015) Feminist political ecology. In: Bridge

McCarthy

Perreault

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. New York: Routledge, pp.519–530.

28.

Espinosa

(2010) Why gender in wildlife conservation? Notes from the Peruvian Amazon. The Open Anthropology Journal 3(1): 230–241.

29.

Gabrys

Westerlaken

Urzedo

, et al. (2022) Reworking the political in digital forests: The cosmopolitics of socio-technical worlds. Progress in Environmental Geography 1(1–4): 58–83.

30.

Gabrys

Westerlaken

Fatimah

(2024) Actually existing smart forests: A proposal for pluralizing eco-technical worlds. Environment and Planning F. Epub ahead of print 26 July 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825241264393

31.

Gardner

(1995) Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

32.

Gill

(2019) Surveillance is a feminist issue. In: Oren

Press

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Feminism. London: Routledge.

33.

Gururani

(2002) Forests of pleasure and pain: Gendered practices of labor and livelihood in the forests of the Kumaon Himalayas, India. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 9(3): 229–243.

34.

Hall

(2015) The Transparent Traveler: The Performance and Culture of Airport Security. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

35.

Harris

Vitis

(2020) Digital intrusions: Technology, spatiality and violence against women. Journal of Gender-Based Violence 4(3): 325–341.

36.

Hegde

(2019) Itinerant data: Unveiling gendered scrutiny at the border. Television & New Media 20(6): 617–633.

37.

Jackman

Millner

Cunliffe

, et al. (2023) Protecting people and wildlife from the potential harms of drone use in biodiversity conservation: Interdisciplinary dialogues. Global Social Challenges Journal 2(1): 68–83.

38.

Kariuki

Birner

(2016) Are market-based conservation schemes gender-blind? A qualitative study of three cases from Kenya. Society & Natural Resources 29(4): 432–447.

39.

Khanna

(2015) Every second woman in U’khand victim of domestic violence. The Pioneer. Available at: https://www.dailypioneer.com/2015/india/every-second-woman-in-ukhand-victim-of-domestic-violence.html (accessed 21 April 2023).

40.

Koeppel

(2011) More people are using smartphones To secretly record office conversations. Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/smartphones-spying-devices-2011-7 (accessed 20 April 2023).

41.

Koskela

(2000) The gaze without eyes: Video-surveillance and the changing nature of urban space. Progress in Human Geography 24(2): 243–265.

42.

Koskela

(2002) Video surveillance, gender, and the safety of public urban space: Peeping Tom goes high tech? Urban Geography 23(3): 257–278.

43.

Koskela

(2012) You shouldn’t wear that body: The problematic of surveillance and gender. In: Haggerty

Ball

Lyon

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. New York: Routledge, pp.49–56.

44.

Lau

(2020) Three lessons for gender equity in biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 34(6): 1589–1591.

45.

Leach

(1994) Rainforest Relations: Gender and Resource Use Among the Mende of Gola, Sierra Leone. London and Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press for the International African Institute.

46.

Lillis

McMullan

Tuck

(2018) Gender and academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 32: 1–8.

47.

Lunstrum

(2014) Green militarization: Anti-poaching efforts and the spatial contours of Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104(4): 816–832.

48.

Lyon

(ed.) (2006) Theorizing Surveillance. New York: Routledge.

49.

Mann

(2004) Sousveillance: Inverse surveillance in multimedia imaging. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia, pp.620–627.

50.

Manning

(2008) A view of surveillance. In: Leman-Langlois

(ed.) Technocrime: Technology, Crime and Social Control. New York: Taylor & Francis, pp.209–242.

51.

Mason

Magnet

(2012) Surveillance studies and violence against women. Surveillance & Society 10(2): 105–118.

52.

Massé

(2020) Conservation law enforcement: Policing protected areas. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110(3): 758–773.

53.

Millner

Newport

Sandbrook

, et al. (2024) Between monitoring and surveillance: Geographies of emerging drone technologies in contemporary conservation. Progress in Environmental Geography 3: 17–39.

54.

Mkono

Rastegar

Ruhanen

(2023) Empowering women to protect wildlife in former hunting tourism zones: A political ecology of Akashinga, Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 31: 1090–1106.

55.

Mollett

(2017) Gender’s critical edge: Feminist political ecology, postcolonial intersectionality, and the coupling of race and gender. In: MacGregor

(ed.) Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment. New York: Routledge, pp.146–158.

56.

Monahan

(2009) Dreams of control at a distance: Gender, surveillance, and social control. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 9(2): 286–305.

57.

Monahan

(2017) Regulation belonging: Surveillance, inequality, and the cultural production of abjection. Journal of Cultural Economy, 10(2): 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2016.1273843

58.

Moore

Currah

(2015) Legal sexed: Birth certificates and transgender citizens. In: Dubrofsky

Magnet

(eds) Feminist Surveillance Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

59.

Mulvey

(1989 [1975]) Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. In: Mulvey

(ed.) Visual and Other Pleasures. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.14–26.

60.

Murray

(2018) Disciplining women: South African literary representations of gendered surveillance and violence. English Academy Review 35(2): 71–82.

61.

Nast

Kobayashi

(1996) Re-corporealizing vision. In: Duncan

(ed.) Bodyspace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. London: Psychology Press.

62.

Nightingale

(2006) The nature of gender: Work, gender, and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24(2): 165–185.

63.

Norris

Armstrong

(2020 [1997]) The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV. New York: Routledge.

64.

Ogra

(2012) Gender mainstreaming in community-oriented wildlife conservation: Experiences from nongovernmental conservation organizations in India. Society & Natural Resources 25(12): 1258–1276.

65.

Oliver

(2017) The male gaze is more relevant, and more dangerous, than ever. New Review of Film and Television Studies 15(4): 451–455.

66.

Pande

Tiwari

Arya

(2017) Socio-economic wellbeing and mental health profile of rural hill women of Uttarakhand, India. In: Nel

Chand

Pelc

(eds) Societies, Social Inequalities and Marginalization: Marginal Regions in the 21st Century. London: Springer, pp.41–51.

67.

Parris-Piper

Dressler

Satizábal

, et al. (2023) Automating violence? The anti-politics of smart technology in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 278: 109859.

68.

Phillip

(2023) Is there a ‘post-patriarchal’ Indian man? An ethnography of ‘new’ discourses of neoliberal masculinities in India. In: Massoumian

Nightingale

Van der Gaag

(eds) Patriarchy in Practice: Ethnographies of Everyday Masculinities, p.79.

69.

Pritchard

Sauls

Oldekop

, et al. (2022) Data justice and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 36(5): e13919.

70.

Ritts

Simlai

Gabrys

(2024) The environmentality of digital acoustic monitoring: Emerging formations of spatial power in forests. Political Geography 110: 103074.

71.

Rocheleau

Thomas-Slayter

Wangari

(1996) A feminist political ecology perspective. In: Thomas-Slayter

Rocheleau

Wangari

(eds) Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences, pp.3–26.

72.

Rose

(1993) Progress in geography and gender. Or something else. Progress in Human Geography 17(4): 531–537.

73.

Sandbrook

Clark

Toivonen

, et al. (2021) Principles for the socially responsible use of conservation monitoring technology and data. Conservation Science and Practice 3(5): e374.

74.

Sandbrook

Luque-Lora

Adams

(2018) Human-bycatch: Conservation surveillance and the social implications of camera traps. Conservation and Society 16: 493–504.

75.

Sauls

Paneque-Gálvez

Amador-Jiménez

, et al. (2023) Drones, communities and nature: Pitfalls and possibilities for conservation and territorial rights. Global Social Challenges Journal 2(1): 24–46.

76.

Setiyawan

Lestari

Setiyowati

(2022) Cybersex and Religion: Intimacy, Resistance, and Negotiation of Islamic Students In Indonesia. The Journal of Society and Media 6(1): 104–120.

77.

Sharma

Fiechter

George

, et al. (2020) Conservation and people: Towards an ethical code of conduct for the use of camera traps in wildlife research. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 1(2): 12033.

78.

Shelby

(2020) Techno-physical feminism: Anti-rape technology, gender, and corporeal surveillance. Feminist Media Studies 20(8): 1088–1109.

79.

Shrestha

Lapeyre

(2018) Modern wildlife monitoring technologies: Conservationists versus communities? A case study: The Terai-Arc landscape, Nepal. Conservation and Society 16(1): 91–101.

80.

Simlai

(2015) Conservation ‘Wars’: Global rise of green militarisation. Economic and Political Weekly 50: 39–44.

81.

Simlai

(2022) Negotiating the panoptic gaze: People, power and conservation surveillance in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Doctoral Dissertation.

82.

Simlai

Sandbrook

(2021) Digital surveillance technologies in conservation and their social implications. In: Conservation Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.239–249.

83.

Sturken

Cartwright

(2009) Practices of Looking: An introduction to visual culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

84.

Sultana

(2015) Emotional political ecology. In: The International Handbook of Political Ecology. Cheltenham Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.633–645.

85.

Sultana

(2021) Political ecology 1: From margins to center. Progress in Human Geography 45(1): 156–165.

86.

Sundberg

(2017) Feminist political ecology. In: Richardson

Castree

Goodchild

, et al. (eds) Marston International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, The Earth, Environment and Technology. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0804

87.

Tallman

Collins

Salmon-Mulanovich

, et al. (2023) Water insecurity and gender-based violence: A global review of the evidence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 10(1): e1619.

88.

Tandon

(2022) Privacy and Reproductive Health: Curtailing Rights and Choices. Socio-Legal Review 17(2): 2.

89.

Taylor

(2002) State surveillance and the right to privacy. Surveillance & Society 1(1): 66–85.

90.

Turnbull

Searle

Hartman Davies

, et al. (2023) Digital ecologies: Materialities, encounters, governance. Progress in Environmental Geography 2(1–2): 3–32.

91.

Von Essen

Turnbull

Searle

, et al. (2023) Wildlife in the Digital Anthropocene: Examining human-animal relations through surveillance technologies. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 6(1): 679–699.

92.

Wright

Heynen

van der Meulen

(2015) ‘It depends on who you are, what you are’: ‘Community safety’ and sex workers’ experience with surveillance. Surveillance & Society 13(2): 265–282.

93.

Young

Roche

Lennox

, et al. (2022) Ethical ecosurveillance: Mitigating the potential impacts on humans of widespread environmental monitoring. People and Nature 4(4): 830–840.

94.

Zaragocin

(2023) Feminist futurities: Latinx geographies and Latin American decolonial feminist geographies. Gender, Place & Culture 30(4): 588–595.

95.

Zuboff

(2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.

The gendered forest: Digital surveillance technologies for conservation and gender-environment relationships

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Forests as gendered spaces

Forests of ‘Haq’ (rights) and ‘Dharm’ (duty)

Forests and folk culture

Forests as private and intimate spaces

Forests as spaces of escape and freedom

Feminist surveillance studies and digital technologies for conservation

Embodied impacts of surveillance

Gendered surveillance: Voyeurism and control

Digital technologies for conservation and surveillance

The disciplinary and the gendered regulatory gaze of digital surveillance technologies

Aerial surveillance and control

The voyeuristic gaze of digital surveillance technologies in conservation

Social control, moral policing and sousveillance

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References