Dear Sonny, Thanks for your question! I would also like to look more carefully into this. Most of the questions in the LSMS are about household-level variables (income, consumption etc.), so this is one of the sections where we are best able to look at differences between individuals. In round 5, 152 men answered this section, and 242 women. The men were slightly more likely to say that life was "much better" (89% vs 86%), whereas 11% of women said it was "better", and 2% "the same". However, these differences are not statistically significant, so it is hard to tell whether this represents any real difference in the way men and women have experienced resettlement. In terms of things that have got better, it seems that men and women appreciate similar improvements. There is a slight difference in their concerns. For men the numbers reporting land and access to forest products as factors that had got worse are very close (53 and 65), whereas for women more report concerns around forest products (70 for land and 105 for forest products). As well as continuing to dig into this with the LSMS, I know that a lot of the qualitative work and consultations have attempted to give voice to women and capture their perspectives. In particular the Participatory Land Use Planning ran separate men's and women's groups. I'd be interested to see some of the results emerging from that, which might help us find out what is behind these differences. For example, do women have a greater role in collecting NTFPs, or is the difference simply driven by statistical effects?