↓ Skip to main content

The impact of gender-blindness on social-ecological resilience: The case of a communal pasture in the highlands of Ethiopia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
The impact of gender-blindness on social-ecological resilience: The case of a communal pasture in the highlands of Ethiopia
Published in
Ambio, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0846-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lemlem Aregu, Ika Darnhofer, Azage Tegegne, Dirk Hoekstra, Maria Wurzinger

Abstract

We studied how the failure to take into account gendered roles in the management of a communal pasture can affect the resilience of this social-ecological system. Data were collected using qualitative methods, including focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, and participant observations from one community in the highlands of Ethiopia. The results show that women are excluded from the informal institution that defines the access and use rules which guide the management of the communal pasture. Consequently, women's knowledge, preferences, and needs are not taken into account. This negatively affects the resilience of the communal pasture in two ways. Firstly, the exclusion of women's knowledge leads to future adaptation options being overlooked. Secondly, as a result of the failure to address women's needs, they start to question the legitimacy of the informal institution. The case study thus shows how excluding women, i.e., side-lining their knowledge and needs, weakens social learning and the adaptiveness of the management rules. Being blind to gender-related issues may thus undermine the resilience of a social-ecological system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 131 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Lecturer 8 6%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 37 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 31 23%
Environmental Science 20 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 15%
Psychology 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 38 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 June 2022.
All research outputs
#14,387,885
of 24,274,366 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,435
of 1,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,138
of 423,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#22
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,274,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 423,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.