Revisiting A Theory of Access: A review

References

• Aguirre, C. N. 2013. Work streaming/mainstreaming gendered land use and land cover change (GLUCC): Afro-descendant communities in the Pacific region of Colombia. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
   Google Scholar
• Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In The social life of things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asaba, R. B. 2013. Gender, power and local water governance in rural Uganda. PhD thesis, National University of Ireland, Maynooth.
   Google Scholar
• Bakker, K., and G. Bridge. 2006. Material worlds? Resource geographies and the matter of nature. Progress in Human Geography 30 (1):5–27. doi:10.1191/0309132506ph588oa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barham, B., S. G. Bunker, and D. O’Hearn. 1994. Raw materials industries in resource rich regions. In States, firms and raw materials: The world economy and the ecology of aluminium, 3–39. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beban, A., and T. Gorman. 2015. Gaining and maintaining control: Vietnamese migrants, Cambodian elites and strategies of land control along the Cambodian borderlands. In Land grabbing, conflict and agrarian‐environmental transformations: Perspectives from east and southeast asia. Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University.
   Google Scholar
• Berg, T. R. 2008. Irrigation management in Nepal’s Dhaulagiri zone: Institutional responses to social, political and economic change. SPIRIT PhD Series.
   Google Scholar
• Berkes, F. 1989. Common property resources, ecology and community based sustainable development. London: Belhaven Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, S. 1989. Social institutions and access to resources. Africa, Quaderni 59 (1):41–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, S. 1994. Resource access and management as historical processes-conceptual and methodological issues. Occasional Paper 13:24–45.
   Google Scholar
• Besta, N. A. 2013. Seaweed farming and intra-household gender relations on Songo Songo Island, Tanzania. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Boche, M. 2014. Contrôle Du Foncier, Agricultures D’entreprise et Restructurations Agraires: Une Perspective Critique Des Investissements Fonciers à Grande échelle: Le Cas de La Partie Centrale Du Mozambique. Universite Paris-Sud.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., and L. J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1086/ahr/99.5.1644.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, W., W. S. Prudham, and R. A. Schurman. 2001. Industrial dynamics and the problem of nature. Society & Natural Resources 14 (7):555–570. doi:10.1080/08941920120686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromley, D. W. 1989. Economic interests and institutions: The conceptual foundations of public policy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Calderon Contreras, R. 2011. Access to land-based resources under the influence of land reform: A case study from an agrarian community in Mexico. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Cardozo, M. L. 2013. Smallholder livelihoods and market accessibility in the Peruvian Amazon. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, J., and M. Watts. 1990. Manufacturing dissent: Work, gender and the politics of meaning in a peasant society. Africa, Quaderni 60 (2):207–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, R. 1987. Sustainable livelihoods, environment and development: Putting poor rural people first. Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper IDS. Discussion paper, 240. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, R., and G. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century. UK: Institute of Development Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Cleaver, F. 2002. Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. The European Journal of Development Research 14 (2):11–30. doi:10.1080/714000425
   Google Scholar
• Corbera, E. 2012. Powers of exclusion. Land dilemmas in southeast asia. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (1):221–224. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.656241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Haan, L., and A. Zoomers. 2005. Exploring the frontier of livelihoods research. Development and Change 36 (1):27–47. doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00401.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorondel, S. 2008. They should be killed’: Forest restitution, ethnic groups and patronage in post-socialist Romania. In The rights and wrongs of land restitution: “restoring what was ours, ed. D. Fay and D. James. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dréze, J., and A. Sen. 1989. Hunger and public action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dyke, A. J. 2006. The practice, politics and ecology of non timber forest products in Scotland. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, A. M. 2016. Wabanki Access to Sweetgrass (Hierochloe Odorata) within Coastal Maine’s Diminishing Open Land Tradition. PhD, University of Maine.
   Google Scholar
• Elmhirst, R. 2011. Migrant pathways to resource access in lampung’s political Forest: Gender, citizenship and creative conjugality. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 42 (2):173–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairbairn, M. 2013. Indirect dispossession: Domestic power imbalances and foreign access to land in Mozambique. Development and Change 44 (2):335–356. doi:10.1111/dech.12013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faye, P., and J. Ribot. 2017. Causes for adaptation: Access to forests, markets and representation in eastern Senegal. Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 9 (2):311.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, T., and C. Johnson. 2014. Elinor ostrom’s legacy: Governing the commons and the rational choice controversy. Development and Change 45 (5):1093–1110. doi:10.1111/dech.12110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1978. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 87–104. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1979. On governmentality. London: Ideology Consciousness.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1984. The construction of society. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Ginger, C., M. R. Emery, M. J. Baumflek, and D. E. Putnam. 2012. Access to natural resources on private property: Factors beyond right of entry. Society & Natural Resources 25:700–715. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.633596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, M. J., A. Davis, and J. Little. 2016. Controlling land they call their own: Access and women’s empowerment in northern Tanzania. The Journal of Peasant Studies 43 (4):777–797. doi:10.1080/03066150.2015.1130701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Google Scholar, 2018. http://scholar.google.com
   Google Scholar
• Hall, D. 2015. Land’s Essentiality and Land Governance. In Governing access to essential resources, ed. K. Pistor and O. De Schutter. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, D., P. Hirsch, and T. Li. 2011. Powers of exclusion. Singapore: NUS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. 2003. The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hein, J. I. 2016. Rescaling conflictive access and property relations in the context of REDD + in Jambi, Indonesia. PhD thesis, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, C. C. 2013. Ecosystem service values and societal settings for coral reef governance. PhD thesis, James Cook University.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, C. C., and J. E. Cinner. 2014. Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms mediate diverse ecosystem service benefits from coral reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (50):17791–17796. doi:10.1073/pnas.1413473111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold, T. 2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14 (01):1–16. doi:10.1017/S1380203807002127
   Google Scholar
• Kashwan, P. 2015. Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics 28 (1):5–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khalid, A., I. Nyborg, and B. N. Khattak. 2015. Whose property whose authority? Gendering the legal and customary practices in ownership and access to land: A case of swat, Pakistan. Journal of Rural Studies 41:47–58. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, B. 2011. Spatialising livelihoods: Resource access and livelihood spaces in South Africa. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (2):297–313. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00423.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, J. 2008. Perspectives on access to and management of natural resources. DIIS Working Paper. Paper No. 8, Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Kronenburg García, A. 2015. Contesting control: Land and Forest in the struggle for loita maasai Self-Government in Kenya. Vol. 58. African studies collection. Leiden: African Studies Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Langridge, R., J. Christian-Smith, and K. A. Lohse. 2006. Access and resilience: Analyzing the construction of social resilience to the threat of water scarcity. Ecology 11, 2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawry, S., C. Samii, R. Hall, A. Leopold, D. Hornby, and F. Mtero. 2017. The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: A systematic review. Journal of Development Effectiveness 9 (1):61–81. doi:10.1080/19439342.2016.1160947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, M., R. Mearns, and I. Scoones. 1999. Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27 (2):225–247. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00141-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. 1986. Power. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, C. 1994. Tinkering methodology. Access, control and management of natural resources in sub-Saharan Africa-methodological considerations. Occasional Paper 13:10–23.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, C. 2010. Approaching development: An opionated review. Progress in Development Studies 10 (1):19–34. doi:10.1177/146499340901000102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macpherson, C. B. 1978. Property, mainstream and critical positions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marx, K. 1973. Grundrisse. Trans. Martin nicolaus. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Meinzen-Dick, R. S., L. R. Brown, H. S. Feldstein, and A. R. Quisumbing. 1997. Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development 25 (8): 1303–1315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgroom, J. 2012. Elephants of democracy. PhD thesis, Wageningen University.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. 1998. Material cultures: Why some things matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouzelis, N. 1995. Sociology theory: What went wrong? Diagnosis and remedies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, R. 2012. Review. In Powers of exclusion: Land dilemmas in southeast Asia, ed. D. Hall, P. Hirsch and T. Murray Li. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, R. 2015. Access in a global rattan production network: A case study of rattan originating from central Sulawesi, Indonesia and upgraded for sale in international markets. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.
   Google Scholar
• Neimark, B., S. Mahanty, and W. Dressler. 2016. Mapping value in a ‘Green’ commodity frontier: Revisiting commodity chain analysis. Development and Change 47 (2):240–265. doi:10.1111/dech.12226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nightingale, A. J. 2011. Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, Caste, Class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 42 (2):153–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, P. E., and G. Marwell. 2001. Whatever happened to critical mass theory? A retrospective and assessment. Sociological Theory 19 (3):292–311. doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, R.H. 2016. Access to Land Reconsidered: The Land Grab, Polycentric Governance and Tanzania’s New Wave Land Reform. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 72: 104–113. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718515003267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, P. E. 1993. Is “rational choice” the best choice for Robert Bates? An anthropologist’s reading of Bates’s work. World Development 21 (6):1063–1076. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(93)90062-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petitt, A. 2016. Women’s cattle ownership in Botswana. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, K. 1945. Origins of our time: The great transformation. London: Victor Gollancz.
   Google Scholar
• Rao, N. 2008. Good women do not inherit land: Politics of land and gender in India. New York: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, M. B., and C. Lund. 2018. Reconfiguring frontier spaces: Territorialization and resource control. World Development 101:388–399. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribot, J. 1998. Theorizing access: Forest profits along senegal’s charcoal commodity chain. Development and Change 29 (2):307–341. doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribot, J. 2007. Representation, citizenship and the public domain in democratic decentralization. Development 50 (1):43–49. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100335
   Google Scholar
• Ribot, J. 2013. Choice, recognition and the democracy effects of decentralization. In The imperative of good local governance: Challenges for the next decade of decentralization. ed. J. Öjendal and A. Dellnäs, 93–120. Tokyo: UNU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ribot, J. 2014. Cause and response: Vulnerability and climate in the anthropocene. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (5):667–705. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.894911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribot, J. 2018. Cause and responsibility in the anthropocene: Sociodicy under a changing sky. In The politics of sustainability – Rethinking sustainability, values and justice. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. http://jesseribot.com/films.
   Google Scholar
• Ribot, J., A. Chhatre, and T. Lankinad. 2008. Introduction: Institutional choice and recognition in the formation and consolidation of local democracy. Conservation and Society 6 (1): 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Ribot, J., and N. L. Peluso. 2003. A theory of access. Rural Sociology 68 (2): 153–181. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocheleau, D., and D. Edmunds. 1997. Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Development 25 (8):1351–1371. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00036-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rytteri, T., and M. Sawatzky. 2013. Forest access regimes: An analysis of the time and space of forest use in southeast Manitoba. Native Studies Review 22 (1&2):83–112.
   Google Scholar
• Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom. 1992. Property-Rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68 (3):249–262. doi:10.2307/3146375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scoones, I. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1):171–196. doi:10.1080/03066150902820503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scoones, I. 2015. Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. Bourton on Dunsmore: Practical Action Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. 1987. Gender and Cooperative Conflicts. WIDER Working Paper. Report No. 18, United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. 1994. Development: Which way now? In Paradigms in economic development: Classic perspectives, critiques, and reflections. ed. R. K. Kanth, 211–232. London: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Sikor, T., and C. Lund. 2009. Access and property: A question of power and authority. Development and Change 40 (1):1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01503.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solesbury, W. 2003. Sustainable livelihoods: A case study of the evolution of DFID policy. ODI Working Paper. Paper No. 217, Overseas Development Institute, London, England.
   Google Scholar
• Sultana, F. 2011. Suffering for water, suffering from water: Emotional geographies of resource access, control and conflict. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 42:163–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svarstad, H., T.A. Benjaminsen, R. Overå, 2018. Power Theories in Political Ecology. Journal of Political Ecology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Benda-Beckmann, K. 1981. Forum shopping and shopping forums: Dispute processing in a Minangkabau village in west Sumatra. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 13 (19):117–159. doi:10.1080/07329113.1981.10756260
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Oakland: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weigelt, J. 2014. Reforming development trajectories?: Institutional change of forest tenure in the Brazilian Amazon. PhD thesis, Humboldt University of Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Westermann, O. 2007. Poverty access and payment for watershed hydrological services: A social feasibility study with case in Tiquipaya Watershed Bolivia. PhD thesis, Roskilde University.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, S. 2013. Beyond rights: Developing a conceptual framework for understanding access to coastal resources at Ebenhaeser and Covie, Western Cape, South Africa. PhD thesis, University of Cape Town.
   Google Scholar
• Wright Mills, C. 2000. The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, M. W. 2010. Geography and gender: Feminism and a feeling of justice. Progress in Human Geography 34 (6):818–827. doi:10.1177/0309132510362931
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar