Advertisement

Scenarios and Decision Support for Security and Conflict Risks in the Context of Climate Change

  • Vanessa SchweizerEmail author
Climate Change and Conflict (E Gilmore and E Tennant, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Climate Change and Conflicts

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Concerns about conflict induced by climate change have captured the attention of policymakers, but the scientific foundations for these claims are contested. This review briefly examines different ways that the future of conflict risk in the context of climate change has been characterized, with a particular focus on scenarios.

Recent Findings

Scientific consensus remains low over the role of climate change as a driver of conflict risk. This is rooted in disagreements over the interplay of socio-economic and climatic factors contributing to conflict risk. There is less controversy that climate change vulnerability, coupled with inappropriate adaptation solutions (i.e., maladaptation) in places where conflict dynamics already exist (e.g., high levels of inequality, marginalization, and political rivalries), tends to increase existing tensions. Additionally, scenario analysis has had an unremarkable presence in recent literature, with more attention being paid to knowledge-accumulation challenges for conflict research.

Summary

Conceptual innovations from the wider climate change research community for the meaning of climate change risk, as well as for scenario research design for risk assessment in the context of climate change, may be vehicles for knowledge accumulation within the fields of security and conflict research.

Keywords

Scenarios Epistemology Systems analysis Complexity 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the author have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    • Lewis KH, Lenton TM. Knowledge problems in climate change and security research. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. 2015;6:383–99 An advanced review of the difficulties with reconciling climate projections, context-specific qualitative social sciences research, and statistical conflict research. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Gemenne F, Barnett J, Adger WN, Dabelko GD. Climate and security: evidence, emerging risks, and a new agenda. Clim Chang. 2014;123:1–9 The introductory paper to a special issue. It provides a succinct overview of key questions in the climate and security field. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Theisen OM. Climate change and violence: insights from political science. Curr Clim Change Rep. 2017;3:210–21 A comprehensive review of the most recent quantitative studies (2014–2017) of climatic factors and their influences on violent conflict. It also provides a concise but rich discussion of critiques in the field, ranging from differences in ontological perspectives to the problem of issue securitization. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koubi V. Climate change, the economy, and conflict. Curr Clim Change Rep. 2017;3:200–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burrows K, Kinney P. Exploring the climate change, migration and conflict nexus. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:443.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holt TV, Johnson JC, Moates S, Carley KM. The role of datasets on scientific influence within conflict research. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154148.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Hsiang SM, Burke M. Climate, conflict, and social stability: what does the evidence say? Clim Chang. 2014;123:39–55 A companion paper to [34]. The companion paper is highlighted due to its extended discussion of findings across historical periods and geographic regions. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Ide T, Scheffran J. On climate, conflict and cumulation: suggestions for integrative cumulation of knowledge in the research on climate change and violent conflict. Glob Change Peace Secur. 2014;26:263–79 This article discusses research directions for the field that could support knowledge accumulation. These include greater attention to ontological commitments and developing a complementary research agenda on the possible link between adverse environmental change and cooperative behavior, or peace. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zografos C, Goulden MC, Kallis G. Sources of human insecurity in the face of hydro-climatic change. Glob Environ Chang. 2014;29:327–36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, et al. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc. 2006;11:8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salehyan I. Climate change and conflict: making sense of disparate findings. Polit Geogr. 2014;43:1–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solow AR. Global warming: a call for peace on climate and conflict. Nature. 2013;497:179–80.  https://doi.org/10.1038/497179a.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mack A. Civil war: academic research and the policy community. J Peace Res. 2002;39:515–25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gleditsch NP, Nordås R. Conflicting messages? The IPCC on conflict and human security. Polit Geogr. 2014;43:82–90.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Coning C. Understanding peacebuilding as essentially local. Stab Int J Secur Dev. 2013;2(1):6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Millar G. Decentring the intervention experts: ethnographic peace research and policy engagement. Coop Confl. 2018;53(18):259–76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718768631.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adams C, Ide T, Barnett J, Detges A. Sampling bias in climate–conflict research. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8:200–3.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IPCC: Summary for policymakers. In Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL. Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    IPCC: Summary for policymakers. In Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM. Cambridge University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carter TR, Jones R, Lu X, Bhadwal S, Conde C, Mearns LO, O’Neill BC, Rounsevell MDA, Zurek MB: New assessment methods and the characterisation of future conditions. In Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE. Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lewis K. Climate science in climate security scenarios. Clim Chang. 2014;123:11–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rittel HWJ, Webber MW. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4:155–69.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheele R, Kearney NM, Kurniawan JH, Schweizer VJ: What scenarios are you missing? Poststructuralism for deconstructing and reconstructing organizational futures. In How organizations manage the future: theoretical perspectives and emprical insights. Edited by Krämer H, Wenzel M. Palgrave Macmillan; 2018.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    IPCC: Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    • van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Ebi KL, Riahi K, Carter TR, et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Clim Chang. 2014;122:373–86 The seminal paper describing research designs for how climate scenarios (RCPs) and socio-economic scenarios (SSPs) should be combined in order to assess climate impacts or to perform policy analysis. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kowarsch M: A pragmatist orientation for the social sciences in climate policy. Springer International Publishing; 2016.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. Straus and Giroux: Farrar; 2013.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Habermas J, Habermas J: Toward a rational society: student protest, science, and politics. Beacon Press; 1971.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pielke Jr. RA: The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2003;100:8086–91.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Minx JC, Callaghan M, Lamb WF, Garard J, Edenhofer O. Learning about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond. Environ Sci Pol. 2017;77:252–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Berrang-Ford L, Pearce T, Ford JD. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg Environ Chang. 2015;15:755–69.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lawrence J, Haasnoot M. What it took to catalyse uptake of dynamic adaptive pathways planning to address climate change uncertainty. Environ Sci Pol. 2017;68:47–57.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Hsiang SM, Burke M, Miguel E. Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science. 2013;341:1235367 The first meta-analysis of 50 independent quantitative studies (statistical analyses or time series). It concludes that climate’s influences on security are significant and generalizable across the globe and across time periods. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Buhaug H, Nordkvelle J, Bernauer T, Böhmelt T, Brzoska M, Busby JW, et al. One effect to rule them all? A comment on climate and conflict. Clim Chang. 2014;127:391–7 A rejoinder to [7,34]. Buhaug et al. identify multiple weaknesses with the meta-analysis of [34], account for them, then redo the meta-analysis. They find no evidence that findings across studies have converged on climate variability and civil conflict. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morgan MG, Henrion M: Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morgan MG: Theory and practice in policy analysis. Cambridge University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Groves DG, Kalra N, Fischbach JR, Bankes SC, Bryant BP, Collins MT, Keller K, Hackbarth A, et al.: Making good decisions without predictions: robust decision making for planning under deep uncertainty. RAND Corporation; 2013.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dixon L, Lempert RJ, La Tourrette T, Reville RT: The federal role in terrorism insurance. RAND Corporation; 2007.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brown T: Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. Harper Collins; 2009.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Beck S. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Chang. 2011;11:297–306.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ulrich KT: Design: creation of artifacts in society. University of Pennsylvania; 2011.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cross N, Christiaans H, Dorst K: Analysing design activity. Wiley; 1997.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee KN. Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol. 1999;3(2):3.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Voinov A, Bousquet F. Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw. 2010;25:1268–81.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Voinov A, Seppelt R, Reis S, Nabel JEMS, Shokravi S. Values in socio-environmental modelling: persuasion for action or excuse for inaction. Environ Model Softw. 2014;53:207–12.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Amer M, Daim TU, Jetter A. A review of scenario planning. Futures. 2013;46:23–40.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    O’Mahony T. Integrated scenarios for energy: a methodology for the short term. Futures. 2014;55:41–57.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Iden J, Methlie LB, Christensen GE. The nature of strategic foresight research: a systematic literature review. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2017;116:87–97.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Glynn PD, Voinov AA, Shapiro CD, White PA. From data to decisions: processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments. Earths Future. 2017;5:356–78.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morgan MG, Keith DW. Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Clim Chang. 2008;90:189–215.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Selin C. Trust and the illusive force of scenarios. Futures. 2006;38:1–14.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Selby J, Hoffmann C. Rethinking climate change, conflict and security. Geopolitics. 2014;19:747–56.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weimer-Jehle W. Cross-impact balances: a system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2006;73:334–61.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tietje O. Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. Eur J Oper Res. 2005;162:418–32.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schweizer VJ, Kriegler E. Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7:044011.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lloyd EA, Schweizer VJ. Objectivity and a comparison of methodological scenario approaches for climate change research. Synthese. 2014;191:2049–88.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schubert R, Schellnhuber H, Buchmann N, Apiney A, Grießhammer R, Kulessa M, Messner D, Rahmstorf S, Smid J: Climate change as a security risk. London: Earthscan; 2008.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Campbell KM, Gulledge J, McNeill JR, Podesta J, Ogden P, Fuerth L, Woolsey RJ, Lennon AT, Smith J, Weitz R: The age of consequences: the foreign policy and national security implications of global climate change. Center for Strategic and International Studies; 2007.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alcamo J: Chapter Six, The SAS approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios. In Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Edited by Joseph Alcamo. Elsevier; 2008:123–150.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ. Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. 2010;1:606–19.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Carlsen H, Eriksson EA, Dreborg KH, Johansson B, Bodin Ö. Systematic exploration of scenario spaces. Foresight. 2016;18:59–75.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lempert R. Scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities and robust responses. Clim Chang. 2013;117:627–46.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lamontagne JR, Reed PM, Link R, Calvin KV, Clarke LE, Edmonds JA. Large ensemble analytic framework for consequence driven discovery of climate change scenarios. Earths Future. 2018;6:488–504.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000701.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    • Kriegler E, Edmonds J, Hallegatte S, Ebi KL, Kram T, Riahi K, et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Clim Chang. 2014;122:401–14 The seminal paper describing Shared Policy Assumptions (SPAs) and how to incorporate them into research designs for policy analysis with the RCP-SSP framework [25]. Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nakicenovic N, Swart R, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Jung TY, et al.: Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Moss R, Edmonds J, Thomson A, Nakicenovic N, et al. A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Glob Environ Chang. 2012;22:21–35.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schneider SH. Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic changes at 2100? Clim Chang. 2002;52:441–51.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hibbard KA, Meehl GA, Cox PM, Friedlingstein P. A strategy for climate change stabilization experiments. Eos. 2007;88:217–21.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zscheischler J, Westra S, van den Hurk BJJM, Seneviratne SI, Ward PJ, Pitman A, et al. Future climate risk from compound events. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8:469–77.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Paté-Cornell E. On “black swans” and “perfect storms”: risk analysis and management when statistics are not enough. Risk Anal. 2012;32:1823–33.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang. 2011;109:5–31.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Riahi K, Ebi KL, Hallegatte S, Carter TR, et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim Chang. 2014;122:387–400.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Birkmann J, Cutter SL, Rothman DS, Welle T, Garschagen M, van Ruijven B, et al. Scenarios for vulnerability: opportunities and constraints in the context of climate change and disaster risk. Clim Chang. 2013;133:53–68.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    IIASA: RCP database. 2009. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/tnt/RcpDb. Accessed 28 October 2018.
  76. 76.
    • O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, et al. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob Environ Chang. 2017;42:169–80 The seminal paper describing qualitative scenario elements for the SSPs as well as the complete SSP narratives. Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    IIASA Energy Program: SSP Public Database Release Version 1.1. 2016. An online database where SSP quantifications (projections) for global and country-specific population, GDP, and urbanization can be downloaded. https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb. Accessed 28 October 2018.
  78. 78.
    • Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’Neill BC, Fujimori S, et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob Environ Chang. 2017;42:153–68 The introductory paper to a special issue, it provides a succinct overview of results for the SSP replications of the RCPs. The objective was to determine the RCP range for each SSP. Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jones B, O’Neill BC. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:084003.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Merkens J-L, Reimann L, Hinkel J, Vafeidis AT. Gridded population projections for the coastal zone under the shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob Planet Chang. 2016;145:57–66.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Reimann L, Merkens J-L, Vafeidis AT. Regionalized shared socioeconomic pathways: narratives and spatial population projections for the Mediterranean coastal zone. Reg Environ Chang. 2018;18:235–45.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    • Hegre H, Buhaug H, Calvin KV, Nordkvelle J, Waldhoff ST, Gilmore E. Forecasting civil conflict along the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:054002 The first conflict research paper utilizing the SSP framework. Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schweizer V. A few scenarios still do not fit all. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8:361–2.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Buhaug H. Climate-conflict research: some reflections on the way forward. WIREs Clim Change. 2015;6:269–75.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    • Scheffran J, Brzoska M, Kominek J, Link PM, Schilling J. Disentangling the climate-conflict nexus: empirical and theoretical assessment of vulnerabilities and pathways. Rev Eur Stud. 2012;4:1–13 An example of a comprehensive review article that includes a summary table comparing the findings of 27 statistical studies. This table is illustrative for the types of conditional statements that could be translated to a system-theoretical model (e.g. a cross-impact matrix). Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Helmer O. Reassessment of cross-impact analysis. Futures. 1981;13:389–400.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Schleussner C-F, Donges JF, Donner RV, Schellnhuber HJ. Armed-conflict risks enhanced by climate-related disasters in ethnically fractionalized countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:9216–21.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Weimer-Jehle W: ScenarioWizard. ZIRIUS (Stuttgart Research Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies); 2016.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Schweizer VJ, Kurniawan JH. Systematically linking qualitative elements of scenarios across levels, scales, and sectors. Environ Model Softw. 2016;79:322–33.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Vögele S, Hansen P, Poganietz W-R, Prehofer S, Weimer-Jehle W. Building scenarios for energy consumption of private households in Germany using a multi-level cross-impact balance approach. Energy. 2017;120:937–46.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Weimer-Jehle W, Buchgeister J, Hauser W, Kosow H, Naegler T, Poganietz W-R, et al. Context scenarios and their usage for the construction of socio-technical energy scenarios. Energy. 2016;111:956–70.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    • Seter H. Connecting climate variability and conflict: Implications for empirical testing. Polit Geogr. 2016;53:1–9 A comprehensive review of theoretical expectations based on qualitative case studies that could inform research design for statistical studies. This article is illustrative for the types of qualitative conditional statements that could be translated to a cross-impact matrix. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Knowledge IntegrationUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations