Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2025WT2/Gendered green violence: Adverse affects of neoliberal fortress conservation on women

From UBC Wiki

What is Fortress Conservation?

A complicated and nuanced term, the phrase "fortress conservation" has often been thrown around in discussion of the intersection between governmental or privatized conservation efforts and Indigenous land rights. But as the argument becomes increasingly convoluted, it's important to set strict parameters around what fortress conservation actually means.

The Broader Definition

Fortress conservation, also known as “protectionist” conservation, is the term used to describe a method of conservation that involves completely barring a section of land from any and all human involvement, with very strict guidelines and barriers for interaction. At its core, fortress conservation hinges on the dichotomous worldview belief that humans are separate entities from nature, and are therefore something threatened ecosystems must be protected from. It hinges on claiming that nature and biodiversity can only be fully protected when removed from human influence.[1]

The notion of fortress conservation is a concept rather than an actual model–the term itself originated as a critique for the methods used to establish these threatened ecosystems.[2] This is because, in the process of establishing strict and human-free barriers around forested or conserved land, Indigenous populations are often displaced or even slaughtered to remove any and all human influence. With Indigenous populations across the globe, humans are inextricably linked with countless ecosystems, so creating an artificial separation to preserve the land automatically results in affecting these populations and creating displaced or harmed peoples known as “conservation refugees."[3]

A Critical Term

Seeing as the establishment of areas under fortress conservation requires government overreach, there is a heavy colonial influence involved with these areas[2]. The goal of fortress conservation is a noble one–recent times have showed a devastating impact on global ecosystems. However, fortress conservation as a model makes the assumption that humanity itself is the issue and therefore has no business getting involved with ecosystem processes.[3] It’s an assumption that runs deep, even within present-day conservation practices and philosophies–John Muir, often heralded as the “Father of the National Parks”[4] and praised in many conservation circles, was a proponent of fortress conservation practices, which were later popularized by Roosevelt within the United States and beyond. The normalization of fortress conservation principles is a deeply ingrained phenomenon

Unfortunately, it’s not as simply as just blocking off an area. In order to enforce keeping entire swaths of land completely free of human influence regardless of who may have originally been inhabiting that land, tactics such as militarization, violence, and strict police presence can run rampant.[3] As Indigenous populations around the world are subjected to strict laws and heavily enforced land use in the name of conservation, the human cost of fortress conservation practices is coming under more and more scrutiny, with the intersectional implications of gender-based violence and conservation refugees now being considered.

Areas Affected

Many countries around the world have national parks and protected areas, many of which have been established through fortress conservation and the expulsion of locals and indigenous peoples from their land. This list is not exhaustive.

Global South

This image shows a tiger sitting on a road with greenery in the background
Tiger in Banerghatta National Park

India

In India, fortress conservation has been implemented by the government through the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) which uses a voluntary relocation scheme with monetary incentives to encourage indigenous households to leave their forests for the protection of mega-carnivores, despite the existence of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act.[5]

This image shows a landscape in Virunga National Park. There is a mountain surrounded by greenery, with and overcast sky.
Landscape in Virunga National Park

The Democratic Republic of Congo

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the existence of Virunga National Park is one example of fortress conservation. The park was established in 1925 during Belgian colonial rule, inspired by the creation of Yellowstone National Park in the United States of America.[6] In its creation the original inhabitants of the lands were expelled from it without regard to their own land sovereignty.[6] The park is maintained through various organizations, many of which are NGOs, and through partnerships with the European Commission (EC).[7] The EC, an entity based abroad, helps fund the militarization of National Parks in the DRC, and management of these parks is often contested.[7] The militarization of national parks in the DRC has contributed to the development of armed resistance from local communities, further exacerbating violence in the area.[7]

This image shows a sea turtle swimming in blue water. There are rocks below it and other marine life swimming.
A turtle in the Chagos Archipelago

Chagos

In the Chagos Archipelago, fortress conservation was implemented in 2010 when a large area surrounding the Chagos Archipelago was considered a Marine Protected Area.[8] The protected area encompasses, and exempts, Diego Garcia, a U.S.-U.K overseas military base.[8] The military base was first developed in the 1960’s, and in its development expelled a population of approximately 1,500 indigenous people from the islands.[8] These indigenous islanders, who now have populations residing in Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the U.K. were denied their right to return to their indigenous lands, which now reside within the protected area.[8]

Cameroon

In South-east Cameroon, the Baka Pygmies, an indigenous group that relies on a sustainable use of the environment for their livelihoods.[9] When the government of Cameroon expanded its protected areas in 2001, the Baka Pygmies were evicted from their traditional forests, heavily limiting their ability to hunt and engage in cultural practices and rituals.[9] After the protected areas were established, illegal poaching in the area was found to have risen.[9]

This image shows the Rapti River in Chitwan National Park under a blue sky surrounded by grasses, with a hill in the distance.
The Rapti River in Chitwan National Park

Nepal

In Nepal, fortress conservation is seen in national parks such as the Chitwan National Park, which expanded in 1977 expelling 26 village clusters which previously resided within park boundaries.[10] 16 small villages in an area of the park known as old Padampur were left, and experienced a declining economy due to not the local people not being employed by the park or the tourism industry.[10] During this time, poaching became a large issue in the park.[10] When local people in old padampur began to discuss voluntary resettlement due to the declining conditions, the government began putting less and less money into community infrastructure.[10] 1995, resettlement of old Padampur began by the request of the locals, and they began a 9 year process to relocate to New Padampur.[10]

Tanzania

In Tanzania, fortress conservation exists in National parks such as Mikumi National Park which was established in 1963.[11] At this time 70 local families were compensated and relocated to nearby villages. There is little available information on the nature of the resettlements, which continued after expansion of the park in 1975.[11] Locals in surrounding communities have reported harassment by park staff. While local peoples are not seemingly against the existence of the park, income levels of surrounding communities are very low.[11]

Global North

Canada

This image shows Athabasca Falls in the winter, with snow and trees around a deep river gully, and a mountain in the distance.
Athabasca Falls in Jasper National Park

In Canada, National Parks have been established through fortress conservation by dispossessing indigenous peoples from their lands.[12] Jasper National Park was established through the forcible eviction of indigenous First Nations and Métis people from their homes and homesteads in 1909, after the Park’s establishment in 1907.[12] These families were dispersed into the nearby communities of Hinton, Edson, and Grande Cache.[12] First Nations and Métis originally used the lands of Jasper National Park for traditional purposes such as travel, hunting, and trapping, but were denied access to these lands to make way for settler recreation and settlement.[12] Nowadays, Jasper uses the Aboriginal Engagement program to engage with indigenous groups and leaders to discuss indigenous relations with the park.[12]

The United States of America

In 1872, Yellowstone, the first national park in the world was founded, leading to the expulsion of many indigenous people from their traditional land.[13] The establishment of Yosemite National Park later became known for the eviction of the Ahwahneechee indigenous people, who's who's history living inside and along the park lasted until their final eviction in the 1970s.[14] They now are petitioning for land use rights.[14]

This image shows many reindeer and a man in a large coat and red hat. There are fences in the background.
Sámi reindeer herder in Sweden

Northern Europe

In countries in Northern Europe, fortress conservation has been observed through the management of Sámi traditional land use.[15] The Sámi indigenous people were semi-nomadic and traditionally interacted with the natural landscape in such a way that it was vital to their way of life, but they left few cultural traces in the wild, leading Finnish people to believe that Sámi land was a wilderness without a people.[15] The Finnish culture that then developed on Sámi land was incompatible with the Sámi way of life, as Finnish and Sámi conservation worldviews are opposing.[15] The prevailing Finnish culture and bureaucracy has caused Sámi to be isolated from their traditional and cultural ways of life which are heavily tied to the land, requiring Sámi to engage in bureaucracy and the legal system to access important aspects of their culture.[15][16] Efforts to include Sámi interests in natural landscape conservation has currently failed to consider the full extent of Sámi culture.[16]

Aotearoa (New Zealand)

In New Zealand, a version of fortress conservation can be observed in the management of land. The Maori indigenous people rely heavily on the natural world for their way of life, however during western colonization, they were isolated from this lifestyle and made to go through Western bureaucracy when attempting to access their traditional lands.[2] Maori people did not have a large decision-making role in this system.[2] Nowadays, there is an attempt in New Zealand to emphasize community based conservation and co-management as conservation mechanisms in partnership between the Maori and the Pakeha (non-Maori white settlers).[2]

General Criticisms

One of the most significant criticisms of fortress conservation is rooted in the criticism of western colonialism and belief in the dichotomy of nature and man. Fortress conservation is often seen as a means of protecting "untouched" wilderness, which ignores the reality of cultures which thrive within and alongside nature.[17] Fortress conservation can often isolate and impoverish communities that rely on the land that is partitioned in fortress conservation.[11][10] It can also create conservation refugees who have been displaced from their original lands.[3] In countries in the Global South, some criticisms of fortress conservation relate to land use and management rights, human-animal conflict, economy, and gendered discrimination.[18][7] Fortress conservation can have a negative impact on women's economic status, education, and well-being that is disproportionate to the impact on men.[19] [20][21][22][23][24] In countries in the Global North, fortress conservation branches into discourse on land use and ownership rights, as indigenous people have and continue to have to advocate for the use and sovereign management of their traditional territories.[12][15][16] There is little literature on the impacts of fortress conservation on gendered discrimination within the Global North, however the colonization and eviction of indigenous peoples from traditional lands heavily impacts cultural practices, which can impact societal gender roles. Further, indigenous women experience violence and a much higher rate than non-indigenous women in the global north due to systemic inequalities.[25] Fortress conservation is known to be a strategy of colonialism,[26] and upholds systems that push inequalities for indigenous women.

A Deep Dive: Impacts of Fortress Conservation on Women

Women's Economic Status and Fortress Conservation

Huts in Virunga National Park

Fortress conservation disproportionately impacts women as they rely on natural resources such as firewood, water, and charcoal to provide for their families. [19] According to the World Bank, 50% of women’s income is from the forest in some form. [20] By restricting access to forested areas, fortress conservation exacerbates economic insecurity and food scarcity. [20] Women previously living in Parc National Des Virunga were displaced by Belgian conservationists and lost access to fertile croplands. They were not compensated for the loss of access or loss of resources. Resultantly, these women were forced into poverty and had to illegally enter the park to provide for their families. [19]

Young girl going to collect water in Nigeria

Fortress conservation has immediate impacts, such as sudden resource loss, but it also contributes to longer-term economic marginalization. Economic displacement, that is restricting access to protected areas and making it harder for people to continue to collect their necessities (eg. food, firewood, etc.), is a prevalent issue in fortress conservation.[27] Studies suggest that economic displacement is the most common type of displacement when it comes to protected areas and people subject to it are less likely to receive compensation, both for the loss of resources and for the opportunity costs. [27] [28]In the long term, protected areas that do not allow sustainable use (71% of protected areas) may create longer-term economic inequalities.[28] This primarily impacts women, because they rely on natural resources, or sustainable use, for their income and livelihoods. [19]

Women’s Education and Fortress Conservation

Women’s education levels are often indicative of women’s health, well-being, and economic status. Educated women are more likely to have a say over their reproductive care and finances, which results in reduced child and maternal mortality rates and increased overall life expectancy. [21] However, women often have fewer opportunities to receive an education, and this disparity is more pronounced in developing countries. [21]

The negative economic impacts of fortress conservation result in poverty for the affected families, and when families experience poverty, particularly in developing nations, girls are more likely to drop out of school.[22] This is because young girls tend to take on more household tasks (eg. cooking, taking care of children, etc.) than their male counterparts of the same age, especially if their mother works and the children are part of a large family.[22] Girls who drop out of school often end up taking care of their younger siblings or resort to child prostitution to earn money for their families. [22]

In many countries where school fees are high and families are facing poverty, there tends to be a pro-male bias when deciding which of their children get to continue their schooling.[29] This means boys are more likely than girls to be in school and to complete their education.

Currently, most fortress conservation projects are underway and being actively implemented in the Global South, where women and girls are already less likely to receive an education (compared to women and girls in the Global North). [22] The economic hardship or poverty brought on by fortress conservation could result in more women and girls being forced to leave school and limiting their opportunities.

Women's Health and Fortress Conservation

Woman standing beside a field of maize in Harare, Zimbabwe (2009)

Women’s health and access to care is another factor in the disproportionate impact of fortress conservation. More educated women are more likely to seek prenatal care and contraception, keeping them in school longer and reducing long-term economic hardship. The type of care women seek and are able to access is largely influenced by employment status, which is influenced by education.[30] However, women and girls’ access to education is interrupted by fortress conservation and the associated economic hardship, which forces girls to drop out of school or otherwise be unable to complete their education.[22] This disruption may limit their future opportunities and perpetuate cycles of poverty and disadvantage.

The negative economic impacts of fortress conservation primarily affect women, who are reliant on natural resources to provide for their families,[31] and this can have negative health impacts. When access is restricted to protected areas that these women have relied on, there is a lack of resources, including a lack of food. For example, in Cantanhez Forest National Park in Guinea-Bissau, the women living there experienced food insecurity and malnutrition, which they attribute to the fortress conservation of the area.[32]

Women's Risk of Gender-Based Violence and Fortress Conservation

Women living near protected areas are also particularly at risk of gender-based violence perpetrated by park rangers, as seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo, near the Salgona National Park. Women living near the park report cases of extortion, torture, rape, and other forms of gender-based violence.[24] For instance, there is a reported case where 4 young women were accused of fishing in the river inside the park, they were then beaten and raped by a group of ICCN (International Climate Councils Network) guards; the actions of the guards were allegedly overseen by the station head.[24]

Lulilaka River, Salonga National Park

There is a similar case occurring in Kahuzi-Biega National Park, where access to the park has been limited and the traditional inhabitants, the Batwa people, have been forced into poverty as a result of lack of access to resources.[24] There are reports of young women leaving in the morning to attempt to earn some money through resource collection, and are instead raped by park rangers.[24] There are documented reports of gender-based violence, torture, and other human rights violations in protected areas in Tanzania[33] , Nepal[34] , and many other countries.

Women are more vulnerable to this abuse because they are more reliant on natural resource collection. When accessing protected areas, legally or illegally, women can become victims of assault or other attacks by forest guards or others who use the remote locations as an opportunity for these attacks.[23]

Potential Solutions

According to Montgomery, a professor of conservation science, multi-step solutions that are personalized so that we are able to address each community's needs would be a good way to help combat the negative effects of fortress conservation.[35] Two examples of multi-step solutions that can help combat the negative effects of fortress conservation are community-based conservation and human heritage-based conservation. Community-based conservation & human heritage-based conservation work to protect the community and its members. This would include working with the local, already established communities and including them to find and implement solutions that work with and respect their local beliefs and traditions. This conservation practice should begin efforts by engaging locals in their native language and providing advanced coursework to build leaders within the community. This solution would include inclusivity, partnership and trust building which will help to promote better solutions that result in a multifaceted, positive outcome for both the environment and inhabitants.

Benefits and implementation efforts include:

  • People get to stay on their land- “Heritage of local human communities”
  • Community members have a vested interest to conserve the resources of the land
  • Communities can be involved in anti-poaching and conservation efforts
  • Communities know the nuances of the land the best and can “incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into conservation practices”
  • Reduces gender-based violence when remaining in their own communities
  • Keeps community economy stable and maintains livelihoods
  • Gains trust by working together and collaborating with the communities
  • Provides education to keep community in the area and help them become part of the solution

[35]

Conclusion

Overall, fortress conservation has detrimental impacts on the livelihoods of women and occurs across the globe. These impacts range from a lack of access to education to poverty and food insecurity. While many of these impacts are immediate, short-term results, they can have longer-term economic and health consequences. The solution is to replace fortress conservation initiatives with community-based conservation to apply solutions that are compatible with local cultures and knowledge. This will likely take more effort and communication than fortress conservation initiatives, but community-based collaborative conservation has been shown to reduce negative outcomes for local communities and will be necessary to ensure their livelihoods.

References

  1. ↑ Luoma, Colin (2023). "Reckoning with Conservation Violence on Indigenous Territories: Possibilities and Limitations of a Transitional Justice Response". International Journal of Transactional Justice. 17: 89–106.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 "Critique of Fortress Conservation". SESMAD. 2025. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":17" defined multiple times with different content
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Dowie, Mark (2009). Conservation Refugees. The MIT Press. ISBN 9780262516006.
  4. ↑ Sapignoli, Maria; Hitchcock, Robert K. (2023). People, Parks, and Power. Springer. ISBN 978-3031392665.
  5. ↑ Mahalwal, Sonam; Kabra, Asmita (October 2023). "The slow violence of fortress conservation creates conditions for socially unjust 'voluntary' relocation". Biological Conservation. 286: 1–3, 10 – via Science Direct.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Marjinen, Esther (January 2017). "The 'green militarisation' of development aid: the European Commission and the Virunga National Park, DR Congo". Third World Quarterly. 38: 1574–1577 – via JSTOR.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Marjinen, Esther (12 February 2018). "Public Authority and Conservation in Areas of Armed Conflict: Virunga National Park as a 'State within a State' in Eastern Congo". Development and Change. 49 – via Wiley Online Library.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Sand, Peter H. (February 23, 2012). "Fortress Conservation Trumps Human Rights?: The "Marine Protected Area" in the Chagos Archipelago". The Journal of Environment & Development. 21 – via Sage Journals.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Pemunta, Ngambouk Vitalis (25 July 2018). "Fortress conservation, wildlife legislation and the Baka Pygmies of southeast Cameroon". GeoJournal. 84 – via Springer Nature Link.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Dhakal, Narayan P.; Nelson, Kristen C.; David Smith, J. L. (03 Jun 2008). "Resident Well-Being in Conservation Resettlement: The Case of Padampur in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal". Society & Natural Resources. 24: 600–613 – via Taylor & Francis Online. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Vedeld, Paul; Jumane, Abdallah; Wapalila, Gloria; Songorwa, Alexander (August 2012). "Protected areas, poverty and conflicts A livelihood case study of Mikumi National Park, Tanzania". Forest Policy and Economics. 21 – via Science Direct. line feed character in |title= at position 39 (help)
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 Youdelis, Megan (March 21, 2016). ""They could take you out for coffee and call it consultation!": The colonial antipolitics of Indigenous consultation in Jasper National Park". Environment and Planning. 48 – via Sage Journals.
  13. ↑ Subhankar, Banerjee; Dunaway, Finis (January 2023). "Beyond Fortress Conservation: Postcards of Biodiversity and Justice". Environmental History. 28: 180–181 – via Chicago Journals.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Neumann, Roderick (23 October 2024). "Reimagining National Parks for the Twenty-First Century: Lessons from Yosemite's Past". Annals of the American Association of Geographers – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Soikkeli, Anu (27 Dec 2021). "The Sámi cultural landscape as the scene of collective memory and identity — challenges in preserving". Landscape History. 42 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Östlund, Lars; Norstedt, Gudren (15 December 2021). "Preservation of the cultural legacy of the indigenous Sami in northern forest reserves – Present shortcomings and future possibilities". Forest Ecology and Management. 502: 7–10 – via Science Direct.
  17. ↑ Cronon, William (Jan., 1996). "The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature". Environmental History. 1 – via JSTOR. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ↑ ding-fortress-conservation-democratic-republic-congo "From Abuse To Power: Ending Fortress Conservation In the Democratic Republic of Congo" Check |url= value (help). The Oakland Institute: 1–61. 2024.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 Trogisch, Lisa (2022). "Navigating fearscapes: women's coping strategies with(in) the conservation-conflict nexus in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo". Gender, Place & Culture: 350–373. line feed character in |title= at position 63 (help)
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Wang, Ling; Wang, Enheng; Mao, Xuegang. "Sustainable poverty alleviation through forests: Pathways and strategies". Science of the Total Environment.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Riaz, Sofia; Pervaiz, Zahid (2018). "The impact of women's education and employment on their empowerment: an empirical evidence from household level survey". Quality & Quantity. line feed character in |title= at position 57 (help)
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 Abuya, Benta; Oketch, Moses; Peter, Musyoka (2013). "Why do pupils dropout when education is 'free'? Explaining school dropout among the urban poor in Nairobi". Journal of Comparative and International Education. line feed character in |title= at position 41 (help)
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Castañeda, Camey; Sabater, L.; Owren, C (E). n-Summ.pdf "Gender-based violence and environment linkages: Summary for policy makers" Check |url= value (help) (PDF). ICUN: 1–29. line feed character in |title= at position 27 (help); |first4= missing |last4= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 ding-fortress-conservation-democratic-republic-congo "From Abuse To Power: Ending Fortress Conservation In the Democratic Republic of Congo" Check |url= value (help). The Oakland Institute: 1–61. 2024.
  25. ↑ National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. "Reclaiming power and place : the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls". Canada Commons.
  26. ↑ Domínguez, Lara; Luoma, Colin (25 February 2020). "Decolonising Conservation Policy: How Colonial Land and Conservation Ideologies Persist and Perpetuate Indigenous Injustices at the Expense of the Environment". land. 9 – via ProQuest.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Brockington, David; Wilkie, David (November 5, 2022). "Protected areas and poverty". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences. line feed character in |journal= at position 15 (help)
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Jago, Sophie (2024). "Reducing negative economic and equity implications associated with conserving 30% of the planet by 2030". Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 22: 8–11.
  29. ↑ Shahidul, S.M; Zehadul Karim, A.H.M (2015). 40ac013257c0f8a14d223466aaaff260e9567 "Factors Contributing to School Dropout Among the Girls: A Review of the Literature" Check |url= value (help). European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences: 25–37.
  30. ↑ Self, Sharmistha (2021). "Review of Development Economics: Female Autonomy and Health Care in Developing Countries". Review of Development Economics: pp. 185-198. line feed character in |title= at position 33 (help)CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  31. ↑ Wang, Ling (December 2023). "Sustainable poverty alleviation through forests: Pathways and strategies". Science of the Total Environment. line feed character in |title= at position 21 (help)
  32. ↑ Vasquez, Winy; Sutherland, Terry (May 14, 2020). "Protected Areas and Food Security: Unravelling the Issues". Participatory Biodiversity Conservation: pp. 53-68.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  33. ↑ Reddy, Micah (2025). project-plagued-by-allegations-of-violence-and-abuse-terminated-in-tanzania/ "$150M World Bank project plagued by allegations of violence and abuse terminated in Tanzania" Check |url= value (help). International Consortum of Investigative Journalists. line feed character in |title= at position 61 (help); line feed character in |journal= at position 42 (help)
  34. ↑ "Nepal: Violations in the name of conservation". Amnesty International. August 9, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2025.
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Montgomery, Robert (11 February 2020). "Positioning human heritage at the center of conservation practice". Conservation Biology. 34 (5): 1122–1122 – via PMC.


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2025WT2/Gendered_green_violence:_Adverse_affects_of_neoliberal_fortress_conservation_on_women&oldid=860504"