874 E. Corbera et al.


TABLE 4 Top 30 authors ranked according to the number of citations received by their articles, and their betweenness and degree scores, in decreasing order. For the full data set, see Supplementary Material 1.


Top number of ciations


Mooney_HA1 Balvanera_P*1 Carpenter_SR3 Polasky_S1 Schmid_B5


Raffaelli_DG5 Kareiva_P3 Daily_GC*1 Wunder_S5 Pejchar_L*5 Smith_P4


Rounsevell_MDA4 House_JI*5 Scholes_RJ1 Costanza_R5 Cramer_W1 Diaz_S*5


Lavorel_S*1 Thuiller_W5 Araujo_MB5 Leemans_R4 Sarukhan_J5 Bondeau_A*5 Pereira_HM5 Erhard_M5


Schroter_D*5 Zaehle_S5 Smith_B5


Lindner_M5 Duraiappah_AK3


Top betweenness score


Cramer_W1 Reyers_B*2 Polasky_S1


Rounsevell_MDA4 Mace_GM*5


Armsworth_PR5 Lavorel_S*1 Elmqvist_T2 Mooney_HA1 Smith_P4


Martin_lopez_B*2 White_PCL5 Chapin_FS5 Leemans_R4 Williams_M5 Leimona_B5


Hallstrom_LK5 De_groot_R5 Rudd_MA5


Balvanera_P*1 Egoh_BN2 Daily_GC*1 Ferraro_PJ5 Chan_KMA2 Biggs_R2


Bohensky_EL5 Scholes_RJ1 Folke_C2


Nagendra_H5 Robinson_DA5


Top


degree score Polasky_S1


Reyers_B*2 Daily_GC*1


Ruckelshaus_M5 Egoh_BN2


Guerry_AD5 Balvanera_P*1 Folke_C2


Mooney_HA1 Kareiva_P3


Martin_lopez_B*2 Cramer_W1 Chan_KMA2 Elmqvist_T2 Biggs_R2 Tallis_H*5


Carpenter_SR3 Ouyang_ZY5 Gaston_KJ5


Duraiappah_AK3 Gould_RK5


Peterson_GD5 Scholes_RJ1 Ricketts_TH5 Lavorel_S*1 Bennett_EM5 Irvine_KN5 Keeler_BL5 Klain_SC5


Feldman_MW5


*Author is a woman. 1Present in all three categories. 2Present in the top betweenness and degree categories. 3Present in the top cited and degree categories. 4Present in the top cited and betweenness categories. 5Present in only one of the three categories.


sample was authored by scholars based in the EU and North America. This reflects the strong Northern bias common in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Countries, institutions and authors based in the Global North act as hubs in the pro- duction of knowledge across disciplines and issues (Pasgaard et al., 2012;Manzano-Agugliaro et al., 2013; Pan&Vira, 2019; Ramos et al., 2019; Ramos-Rincón et al., 2019). In some fields of enquiry, such as renewable energy, this pattern may be changing as researchers in China, India, Brazil and South Africa increase participation in international research net- works and publish in more highly cited journals (Rizzi et al., 2014). However, we did not find such a trend in our analysis, nor is this the case in the ecosystem services litera- ture more broadly (Zhang et al., 2019).


Our second finding is the centrality of ecology, biological


and physical sciences, and economics to research on the links between ecosystem services and poverty. The social sciences have made limited contributions. Thus, as in other fields where more multidisciplinary and multi-country re- search efforts would seem to be called for, social scientists (with the exception of economists) and scholars from the humanities have had a minimal role (Castree et al., 2014; Vadrot et al., 2016). The distribution of skills and expertise also suggests that the networks producing most research on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation have concen- trated on the natural science and economic questions around ecosystem services rather than the social science questions around poverty alleviation. Social science disci- plines, such as sociology, psychology, political science or geography, can offer valuable insights into poverty dynam- ics and their intersection with ecosystem services (e.g. is- sues of gender, resource governance, law, policy, livelihoods and cultural understandings of nature). Neglect of these issues is a recognized problem in research on natural re- source governance for both conservation and development (Brockington et al., 2018). Research on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation may require wider interdisciplinary collaborations than have so far dominated. Our third finding is that there is a gender gap in the pro-


duction of knowledge about ecosystemservices and poverty. The dominance of men among authors and across all back- grounds reflects the pattern observed in most scientific dis- ciplines and in the publication of peer-reviewed articles (Barrios et al., 2013; Astegiano et al., 2019), although the pat- tern does not hold for all academic fields: e.g. molecular biology and psychology include more women than men, at least at PhD level (Leslie et al., 2015). However, our ana- lysis also shows that a small number of female authors are highly cited and play a key role in the networks producing knowledge. Again, this reflects broader patterns in science; the citation-based impact of the research conducted by the two genders is similar (Barrios et al., 2013; Astegiano et al., 2019). In the context of IPBES, it has been argued that the dominance of natural scientists (and the limited involve- ment of women and Indigenous people) may have fore- closed ‘the option of including incommensurable and dis- senting perspectives and knowledges’ (Díaz-Reviriego et al., 2019,p. 6), with implications for the depth and breadth of insights, as well as for the social legitimacy and representa- tiveness of policy recommendations emerging (Banerjee & Bell, 2007;MacGregor, 2009;Carey et al., 2016). Understand- ing of the role of ecosystem services in poverty alleviationmay require more gender-balanced collaborations than have so far been achieved. Our fourth finding, unexpectedly, is that the Natural


Capital Project and the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation programme have had relatively little impact on the number of peer-reviewed publications about ecosystem


Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 868–877 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320000940


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164