Abstract
Castree et al.(2014) are correct that a ‘single, seamless concept of integrated knowledge’ cannot do justice to the diversity of meanings that need to be brought to bear in addressing the challenges of global environmental change. We also agree with them that environmental social sciences and humanities (ESSH) can make important contributions to global environmental change (GEC) science. However, their charge that we ignore the full range of anthropological contributions to understanding of climate change reflects a misreading of our recent Perspective in this journal (Barnes et al 2013), as we only attempted to discuss a few exemplary strands of the many contributions from anthropology to a richer understanding of climate change (for a more detailed discussion, see our forthcoming edited volume, Barnes and Dove, eds. 2015).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
