Gender accommodative versus transformative approaches: a comparative assessment within a post-harvest fish loss reduction intervention

Figures & data

Table 1. Aspects and elements of empowerment addressed in this study.

	Resources	Agency	Institutional structures
Aspects and elements of empowerment (relates to framework)	Control over resources and assets	Decision making over use of income Exercising choice (an expression of agency, see van Eerdewijk et al., 2017). Specifically, choices about involvement in livelihood activities.	Gender attitudes toward inequitable norms. Norms and attitudes are key components of institutional structures that determine women’s empowerment (van Eerdewijk et al., 2017).
Adapted from/draws on framework	WEAI modified to fit the capture fisheries value chain context (see Materials and methods)	WEAI modified to fit the capture fisheries value chain context (see Materials and methods) and van Eerdewijk et al. (2017)	Gender attitudes scale (e.g., Gender Equitable Men scale, see Nanda, 2011)
Measured in this study	Changes in perception of individual versus joint ownership of key value chain assets (e.g., fishing gear)	Changes in input into household decision making about income from fishing, processing, and trading Changes in participation in value chain opportunities (fishing, processing, and trading)	Changes in gender attitudes toward inequitable norms about women’s and men’s involvement in capture fishery value chain activities

Note: WEAI: Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (Alkire et al., 2013).

Table 2. Statements included in the gender attitudes scale of the WEFI.

Women should not get involved in fishing fulltime, this is a man’s responsibility Women should not own canoes, fishing nets, and other means to fish Women should primarily be the ones who clean and process fish Women should primarily be the ones who trade or market fish, not men Men should primarily be the ones who transport fish to a market for sale Men should primarily be the ones who control the earnings obtained from the sale of fish Women should primarily be the ones who prepare meals (including fish) for the family or if guests come to visit Men should mostly be the ones who belong to fisheries clubs, organizations, or associations, not women

Note: WEFI: Women’s Empowerment in Fisheries Index.

Table 3. Demographic profiles of study participants (means or %).

Variables	PGNA only (n = 35)	PGNA + GTC (n = 45)
Sex (male = 1)	0.60 (0.50)	0.56 (0.50)
Age (years)	36.94 (13.76)	39.67 (10.21)
Education level (years)	6.38 (3.19)	7.18 (1.69)
Household size	5.66 (3.32)	5.98 (2.70)
Marital status (% married)	88.57	80.00
Reason for being on fishing camp (%)
Fishing	58.82	60.00
Processing	5.88	11.12
Trading	35.30	24.44
Other reasons	0.00	4.44

Notes: PGNA: practical gender needs approach; PGNA + GTC: practical gender needs approach + gender transformative communication. Results presented for sample at baseline only (N = 80). Standard deviations in parentheses.

Table 4. Mean gender attitude scores.

Gender attitude scores	Baseline	Endline	p-Value
Total (n = 77)	18.74 (3.87)	22.6 (3.01)	<0.0001
PGNA only (n = 32)	19.13 (3.90)	21.1 (4.05)	0.0521
PGNA + GTC (n = 45)	18.47 (3.88)	23.8 (1.03)	<0.0001
Women (n = 32)	19.97 (3.23)	23.1 (1.90)	<0.0001
PGNA only (n = 12)	20.67 (2.77)	22.2 (2.33)	0.1655
PGNA + GTC (n = 20)	19.55 (3.47)	23.6 (1.39)	<0.0001
Men (n = 45)	17.87 (4.09)	22.4 (3.59)	<0.0001
PGNA only (n = 20)	18.20 (4.24)	20.5 (4.74)	0.0913
PGNA + GTC (n = 25)	17.60 (4.03)	23.9 (0.60)	<0.0001

Notes: PGNA: practical gender needs approach; PGNA + GTC: practical gender needs approach + gender transformative communication. Missing baseline values for 3 observations (PGNA only, 2 female and 1 male) and therefore dropped from the analysis. N = 154 (across baseline and endline samples). Sample sizes the same at baseline and endline for each sub-group. Standard deviations in parentheses.

Table 5. Levels of involvement in fishing, processing, and trading fish.

	Baseline	Endline	p-Value
Fished over the past 12 months (1 = yes)
PGNA only (n = 35)	0.57 (0.50)	0.60 (0.50)	0.8116
PGNA + GTC (n = 45)	0.58 (0.50)	0.89 (0.32)	0.0007
Women who fished over the past 12 months
PGNA only (n = 14)	0.14 (0.36)	0.07 (0.27)	0.5585
PGNA + GTC (n = 20)	0.05 (0.22)	0.75 (0.44)	<0.0001
Men who fished over the past 12 months
PGNA only (n = 21)	0.86 (0.36)	0.95 (0.22)	0.3047
PGNA + GTC (n = 25)	1.00 (0.00)	1.00 (0.00)	…
Processed fish over the past 12 months (1 = yes)
PGNA only (n = 35)	0.31 (0.47)	0.80 (0.41)	<0.0001
PGNA + GTC (n = 45)	0.53 (0.50)	0.91 (0.29)	<0.0001
Women who processed fish over the past 12 months
PGNA only (n = 14)	0.43 (0.51)	0.71 (0.47)	0.1363
PGNA + GTC (n = 20)	0.55 (0.51)	0.85 (0.37)	0.0392
Men who processed fish over the past 12 months
PGNA only (n = 21)	0.24 (0.44)	0.86 (0.36)	<0.0001
PGNA + GTC (n = 25)	0.52 (0.51)	0.96 (0.20)	0.0002
Traded fish over the past 12 months (1 = yes)
PGNA only (n = 35)	0.63 (0.49)	0.91 (0.28)	0.0040
PGNA + GTC (n = 45)	0.60 (0.50)	0.89 (0.32)	0.0014
Women who traded fish over the past 12 months
PGNA only (n = 14)	0.93 (0.27)	0.86 (0.36)	0.5585
PGNA + GTC (n = 20)	0.85 (0.37)	0.90 (0.31)	0.6429
Men who traded fish over the past 12 months
PGNA only (n = 21)	0.43 (0.51)	0.95 (0.22)	0.0001
PGNA + GTC (n = 25)	0.40 (0.50)	0.88 (0.33)	0.0002

Notes: PGNA: practical gender needs approach; PGNA + GTC: practical gender needs approach + gender transformative communication. N = 160 (across baseline and endline samples). Sample sizes the same at baseline and endline for each sub-group. Standard deviations in parentheses.

Table 6. Levels of involvement in making ‘large input’ into household decisions about the income generated from fishing and processing and trading fish.

Made ‘large input’ into decisions about income from…	Baseline	Endline	p-Value
Fishing
PGNA only (baseline n = 20, endline n = 21)	0.85 (0.37)	0.67 (0.48)	0.1804
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 26, endline n = 40)	0.65 (0.49)	0.88 (0.33)	0.0320
Fishing (women)*
PGNA only (baseline n = 2, endline n = 1)	0.50 (0.71)	1.00 …	…
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 1, endline n = 15)	1.00 …	0.93 (0.26)	…
Fishing (men)
PGNA only (baseline n = 18, endline n = 20)	0.89 (0.32)	0.65 (0.49)	0.0880
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 25, endline n = 25)	0.64 (0.49)	0.84 (0.37)	0.1113
Processing fish
PGNA only (baseline n = 11, endline n = 28)	1.00 (0.00)	0.79 (0.42)	0.1000
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 24, endline n = 40)	0.58 (0.50)	0.90 (0.30)	0.0026
Processing fish (women)
PGNA only (baseline n = 6, endline n = 10)	1.00 (0.00)	0.90 (0.32)	0.4577
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 11, endline n = 17)	0.45 (0.52)	0.94 (0.24)	0.0025
Processing fish (men)
PGNA only (baseline n = 5, endline n = 18)	1.00 (0.00)	0.72 (0.46)	0.1994
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 13, endline n = 23)	0.69 (0.48)	0.87 (0.34)	0.2077
Trading fish
PGNA only (baseline n = 22, endline n = 32)	0.91 (0.29)	0.81 (0.40)	0.3355
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 27, endline n = 40)	0.74 (0.45)	0.85 (0.36)	0.2742
Trading fish (women)
PGNA only (baseline n = 13, endline n = 12)	0.85 (0.38)	0.92 (0.29)	0.6060
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 17, endline n = 18)	0.65 (0.49)	0.94 (0.24)	0.0280
Trading fish (men)
PGNA only (baseline n = 9, endline n = 20)	1.00 (0.00)	0.75 (0.44)	0.1062
PGNA + GTC (baseline n = 10, endline n = 22)	0.90 (0.32)	0.77 (0.43)	0.4090

Notes: PGNA: practical gender needs approach; PGNA + GTC: practical gender needs approach + gender transformative communication. Most sample sizes differ for sub-groups across baseline and endline (as indicated). Standard deviations in parentheses.

*Sample sizes were too small to test the differences in percentage points concerning women who made ‘large input’ into household decisions about income from fishing from baseline to endline.

Figure 1. Changes in fishing gear ownership status of men from PGNA + GTC camps. Notes: PGNA + GTC = practical gender needs approach + gender transformative communication. 18 men at baseline and 21 at endline were included in the analysis. Both changes in ownership status from baseline to endline were statistically significant at the 5% level. Numbers on y-axis indicate percentages (%).

van Eerdewijk, A., Wong, F., Vaast, C., Newton, J., Tyszler, M., & Pennington, A. (2017). White paper: A conceptual model of women and girls’ empowerment. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute (KIT).

 Google Scholar

Nanda, G. (2011). Compendium of gender scales. Washington D.C.: FHI 360/C-Change.

 Google Scholar

Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., Seymour, G., & Vaz, A. (2013). The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index. World Development, 52, 71–91. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.06.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar