Central to this approach is the notion that human-environmental interactions are gendered. Because of divergent social and cultural roles, men and women experience the environment differently, and have different access to or control over ecological systems. There are three axes of potential gender difference that can provide insights both environmental conflict and environmental change: 1) women's environmental knowledge is different than men's, 2) access to and management of resources are often gender-dependent, and 3) women often have different motivations for social and political action. These differences are the products of socially and culturally created structural positions relative to labor and nature. However, this is not to say that women are closer to nature and that their knowledge of the environment is more accurate than men's. Furthermore, the feminist development studies tool is attentive to other forms of difference outside of gender, such as race, ethnicity, caste, or religion. The feminist development studies tool is useful in political ecology analysis surrounding questions of political and ecological change.
Example: Mollet and Faria 2013
Efforts to conserve and preserve 'nature', including those in the name of ''sustainability'', have shifted control of resources and landscapes from local producers to distance actors and interest. Thus, disabling local systems of livelihood, production, and socio-political organization- in the name of environmental preservation. Local production practices have been narrated as unsustainable and destructive by state authorities or other players in the struggle to control resources.
Premises of thesis: Conduct of conduct through social technologies (coercion, governmentality, and internalization of state rule), Moral economy and common property theory, wilderness/nature are social constructions, and conservation spaces as territory or bounded spaces.