| Title |
Beyond dichotomies: Gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-016-0825-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Houria Djoudi, Bruno Locatelli, Chloe Vaast, Kiran Asher, Maria Brockhaus, Bimbika Basnett Sijapati |
| Abstract |
Climate change and related adaptation strategies have gender-differentiated impacts. This paper reviews how gender is framed in 41 papers on climate change adaptation through an intersectionality lens. The main findings show that while intersectional analysis has demonstrated many advantages for a comprehensive study of gender, it has not yet entered the field of climate change and gender. In climate change studies, gender is mostly handled in a men-versus-women dichotomy and little or no attention has been paid to power and social and political relations. These gaps which are echoed in other domains of development and gender research depict a 'feminization of vulnerability' and reinforce a 'victimization' discourse within climate change studies. We argue that a critical intersectional assessment would contribute to unveil agency and emancipatory pathways in the adaptation process by providing a better understanding of how the differential impacts of climate change shape, and are shaped by, the complex power dynamics of existing social and political relations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 15% |
| India | 3 | 11% |
| Kenya | 2 | 7% |
| Germany | 2 | 7% |
| Indonesia | 2 | 7% |
| Sweden | 2 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Benin | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 81% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Scientists | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 635 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% |
| Unknown | 633 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 103 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 90 | 14% |
| Researcher | 89 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 32 | 5% |
| Other | 95 | 15% |
| Unknown | 176 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 164 | 26% |
| Environmental Science | 98 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 42 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 25 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 25 | 4% |
| Other | 80 | 13% |
| Unknown | 201 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#693,602
of 25,891,484 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#87
of 1,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,879
of 418,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,891,484 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 418,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.