Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene

By J. Ribot. 2014

515 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Sociology and Political Science, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3b4749f71da6dfb3c1f634e554a0b0d592fd4d36

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Guy Jackson
2. K. McNamara
3. A. Nightingale

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Guy Jackson
2. K. McNamara
3. J. Lund
4. A. Nightingale

In Soil Science

1. Guy Jackson
2. K. McNamara
3. A. Nightingale
4. V. G. Vyamana

Citations in the corpus

• Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices (2016, background): “(Ribot, 2014:32).”
• ‘Triple wins’ or ‘triple faults’? Analysing the equity implications of policy discourses on climate-smart agriculture (CSA) (2018, unknown): “Thus, if procedural equity goals are to be achieved, the focus needs to be on root causes and constraints – i.e. asking why farmers are vulnerable rather than limiting the assessment to who and what are vulnerable (Ribot 2014).”
• Community-level climate change vulnerability research: trends, progress, and future directions (2016, background): “…studies in revealing how human and biophysical stresses interact to affect vulnerability aswell as the importance of community-level studies in problem identification and supporting/developing effective adaptation strategies (Schröter et al 2005, Forsyth 2013, Ribot 2014, Schipper et al 2014).”
• Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal (2016, background): “cultural adjustment to climate vulnerability (Ribot, 2014; see also Nightingale & Ojha, 2013).”
• Loss and damage: A review of the literature and directions for future research (2018, methodology): “…the policy tools espoused by the UNFCCC tend to focus more on biophysical hazards and less on the social construction of vulnerability, thus detracting from 40 years or more of vulnerability research (see Gaillard & Mercer, 2012; Kelman, Gaillard, & Mercer, 2015; O'Brien et al., 2007; Ribot, 2014).”