876 E. Corbera et al.
TABLE 5 The top 30 institutions and organizations ranked accord- ing to their betweenness score, in decreasing order. For the full data set, see Supplementary Material 1.
Top betweenness
Stanford University Millennium Ecosystem Assessment University of Oxford University of East Anglia University of Maryland University of California, Berkeley Stellenbosch University Cornell University University of Copenhagen Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Harvard University Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Stockholm Resilience Centre Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
University of Sheffield The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity United Nations Environment Programme James Cook University University of Florida Australian National University University of Washington University of Edinburgh Arizona State University University College London North Carolina State University European Commission Joint Research Centre Duke University University of Arizona Baltimore Institute for Ecological Economics
Acknowledgements This research was funded with support from the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation programme (Grant number NE/M007561/1), which is funded by the UK Department for International Development, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. EC and SMA note that this article contributes to ICTA-UAB ‘María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence’ (MDM-2015-0552; MDM-2019-0940). Data collection was supported by Samuel Murphy. We thank Daniel Corbacho-Monné for his help in preparing the figures.
Author contributions Study design: all authors; data collection: SM-A, CH; data analysis: SM-A, LC-M, EC, DB; writing: EC, DB, WMA, with contributions from the other authors.
Conflicts of interest The collection and interpretation of data about the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation programme that has funded this research and appears in the article, has been conducted independently and objectively. We have been free to analyse the pro- gramme’s academic outputs, and have not shared the manuscript of this paper with programme managers prior to submission. William M. Adams is an Oryx Senior Editor.
Ethical standards This research was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal and Human Research of the Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona, and otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards. Data underlying the study are third-party data downloaded from the Web of Science database. The curriculum vitae of the studied authors were obtained through their institutional or per- sonal public websites, and in a few cases they were requested by e-mail and obtained with consent.
References
AGARWAL,B.(2010) Gender and green governance. In The Political Economy ofWomen’s Presence Within and Beyond Community Forestry. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
ASTEGIANO, J., SEBASTIÁN-GONZÁLEZ,E.&CASTANHO, C.D.T. (2019) Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review. Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181566.
BANERJEE,D.&BELL, M.M. (2007) Ecogender: locating gender in environmental social science. Society and Natural Resources, 20, 3–19.
BARRIOS, M., VILLARROYA, A., OLLÉ,C.&ORTEGA,L.(2013) Gender inequality in scientific production. Proceedings of the 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, 1, 811–818.
BORGATTI, S.P. (2002) NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies, Lexington, USA.
BORGATTI, S.P., EVERETT, M.-G. & FREEMAN, L.C. (2002) Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Lexington, USA.
BORGATTI, S.P., MEHRA, S.P., BRASS, D.J. & LABIANCA,G.(2009) Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 13, 5916: 892–895.
BROCKINGTON, D., ADAMS,W.M., AGARWAL, B., AGRAWAL, A., BÜSCHER, B., CHHATRE,
A.etal. (2018)Working governance for working land. Science, 362, 1257.
BURT, R.S.,KILDUFF,M.&TASSELLI,S.(2013) Social network analysis: foundations and frontiers on advantage. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 527–47.
CAREY, M., JACKSON, M., ANTONELLO,A. & RUSHING,J. (2016) Glaciers, gender, and science: a feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research. Progress in Human Geography, 40, 1–24.
CASTREE, N.,ADAMS,W., BARRY, J., BROCKINGTON, D., BÜSCHER, B., CORBERA, E. et al. (2014) Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Climate Change, 4, 763–768.
CHAIGNEAU, T., BROWN, K., COULTHARD, S., DAW, T.M. & SZABOOVA,L.(2019) Money, use and experience: identifying the mechanisms through which ecosystem services contribute to wellbeing in coastal Kenya and Mozambique. Ecosystem Services, 38, 100957.
CORBERA, E., CALVET-MIR, L., HUGHES, H.R. & PATERSON,M. (2016) Patterns of authorship in the IPCCWorking Group III report. Nature Climate Change, 6, 94–99.
DAW, T., BROWN, K., ROSENDO,S.&POMEROY,R.(2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation, 38, 370–379.
DÍAZ-REVIRIEGO, I., TURNHOUT,E.&BECK,S.(2019). Participation and inclusiveness in the intergovernmental science–policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability, 2, 457–464.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMME (2018) Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation Programme Website – About.
espa.ac.uk/about/espa [accessed 26 June 2019].
GAY-ANTAKI,M. & LIVERMAN,D.(2018) Climate for women in climate science: women scientists and the intergovernmental panel
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
