↓ Skip to main content

A synthesis of convergent reflections, tensions and silences in linking gender and global environmental change research

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
Title
A synthesis of convergent reflections, tensions and silences in linking gender and global environmental change research
Published in
Ambio, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0843-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Iniesta-Arandia, Federica Ravera, Stephanie Buechler, Isabel Díaz-Reviriego, María E. Fernández-Giménez, Maureen G. Reed, Mary Thompson-Hall, Hailey Wilmer, Lemlem Aregu, Philippa Cohen, Houria Djoudi, Sarah Lawless, Berta Martín-López, Thomas Smucker, Grace B. Villamor, Elizabeth Edna Wangui

Abstract

This synthesis article joins the authors of the special issue "Gender perspectives in resilience, vulnerability and adaptation to global environmental change" in a common reflective dialogue about the main contributions of their papers. In sum, here we reflect on links between gender and feminist approaches to research in adaptation and resilience in global environmental change (GEC). The main theoretical contributions of this special issue are threefold: emphasizing the relevance of power relations in feminist political ecology, bringing the livelihood and intersectionality approaches into GEC, and linking resilience theories and critical feminist research. Empirical insights on key debates in GEC studies are also highlighted from the nine cases analysed, from Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Further, the special issue also contributes to broaden the gender approach in adaptation to GEC by incorporating research sites in the Global North alongside sites from the Global South. This paper examines and compares the main approaches adopted (e.g. qualitative or mixed methods) and the methodological challenges that derive from intersectional perspectives. Finally, key messages for policy agendas and further research are drawn from the common reflection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 185 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 18%
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 4%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 36 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 60 31%
Environmental Science 29 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 45 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,543,534
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#611
of 1,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,011
of 415,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#14
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 415,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.