4.7 Article

Multi-method evidence for when and how climate-related disasters contribute to armed conflict risk

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102063

关键词

Civil war; Crisis; Environment; Hazard; Peace; Violence

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DE190101268]
  2. CLISAP
  3. CLICCS cluster of excellence at the University of Hamburg - German Research Foundation [EXC 177, EXC 2037]
  4. Leibniz Association
  5. European Research Council (ERC advanced grant project ERA)
  6. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01LN1711A]
  7. Australian Research Council [DE190101268] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate-related disasters are among the most societally disruptive impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Their potential impact on the risk of armed conflict is heavily debated in the context of the security implications of climate change. Yet, evidence for such climate-conflict-disaster links remains limited and contested. One reason for this is that existing studies do not triangulate insights from different methods and pay little attention to relevant context factors and especially causal pathways. By combining statistical approaches with systematic evidence from QCA and qualitative case studies in an innovative multi-method research design, we show that climate-related disasters increase the risk of armed conflict onset. This link is highly context-dependent and we find that countries with large populations, political exclusion of ethnic groups, and a low level of human development are particularly vulnerable. For such countries, almost one third of all conflict onsets over the 1980-2016 period have been preceded by a disaster within 7 days. The robustness of the effect is reduced for longer time spans. Case study evidence points to improved opportunity structures for armed groups rather than aggravated grievances as the main mechanism connecting disasters and conflict onset.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据