The literature landscape on peace–sustainability nexus: A scientometric analysis

Abstract

Academics, policymakers, and practitioners have long considered peace and sustainability to be fundamentally linked. However, despite the increased attention paid toward the intersection of peace and sustainability, there is still limited knowledge on the nature of their linkages. To advance the current understanding on the peace–sustainability nexus and inform an integrated research agenda, this paper employs a scientometric analysis of literature to identify publication trends, thematic clusters, and knowledge gaps. Analyzing the publications according to the types of peace, the pillars of positive peace, the dimensions of sustainability, and the SDGs further reveals weak engagement among academic disciplines and across the SDGs. The results of this analysis emphasize the need for future research to focus on underexamined subjects, geographic regions, and sectors to bolster the linkages between peace and sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. Allen, C., G. Metternicht, and T. Wiedmann. 2018. Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a review of evidence from countries. Sustainability Science 13: 1453–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, C., R. Nejdawi, J. El-Baba, K. Hamati, G. Metternicht, and T. Wiedmann. 2017. Indicator-based assessments of progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A case study from the Arab region. Sustainability Science 12: 975–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0437-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blinc, R., A. Zidanšek, and I. Šlaus. 2007. Sustainable development and global security. Energy 32: 883–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.09.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brooks, D., and J. Trottier. 2010. Confronting water in an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Journal of Hydrology 382: 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.12.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buckley, R. 2012. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research 39: 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caprani, L. 2016. Five ways the sustainable development goals are better than the millennium development goals and why every educationalist should care. Management in Education 30: 102–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616653464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Catherin, O. 2014. Building a dynamic Sankey diagram made of polygons in Tableau. Data Plus Science. https://www.dataplusscience.com/SankeyPolygon.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2020. 

  8. Chen, C., and M. Song. 2019. Visualizing a field of research: A methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. PLOS ONE 14: e0223994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Conca, K., and G.D. Dabelko. 2002. Environmental peacemaking. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Creary, P., and S. Byrne. 2014. Youth violence as accidental spoiling?: Civil society perceptions of the role of sectarian youth violence and the effect of the peace dividend in Northern Ireland. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 20: 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537113.2014.909160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Earth Charter Initiative. 2001. The Earth Charter. https://earthcharter.org/library/the-earth-charter-text/. Accessed 24 May 2020.

  12. Fisher, J., and K. Rucki. 2017. Re-conceptualizing the science of sustainability: A dynamical systems approach to understanding the nexus of conflict, development and the environment. Sustainable Development 25: 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Galtung, J. 1964. An editorial. Journal of Peace Research 1: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Galtung, J. 1967. Theories of peace: A synthetic approach to peace thinking. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Galtung, J. 2010. Peace studies and conflict resolution: The need for transdisciplinarity. Transcultural Psychiatry 47: 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461510362041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haddaway, N.R., C. Bernes, B.-G. Jonsson, and K. Hedlund. 2016. The benefits of systematic mapping to evidence-based environmental management. Ambio 45: 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0773-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hák, T., S. Janoušková, B. Moldan, and A.L. Dahl. 2018. Closing the sustainability gap: 30 years after “Our Common Future”, society lacks meaningful stories and relevant indicators to make the right decisions and build public support. Ecological Indicators 87: 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hayward, K., and E. Magennis. 2014. The business of building peace: Private sector cooperation across the Irish border. Irish Political Studies 29: 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2013.875896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hegre, H., H. Buhaug, K.V. Calvin, J. Nordkvelle, S.T. Waldhoff, and E. Gilmore. 2016. Forecasting civil conflict along the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environmental Research Letters 11: 054002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace). 2019a. Positive Peace Report 2019: Analysing the factors that sustain peace. Sydney: Institute for Economics & Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  21. IEP (Institute for Economics & Peace). 2019b. Global Peace Index 2019: Measuring peace in a complex world. Sydney: Institute for Economics & Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  22. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  23. Jackson, T., and J. Curry. 2004. Peace in the woods: Sustainability and the democratization of land use planning and resource management on Crown lands in British Columbia. International Planning Studies 9: 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000234961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Karari, P., S. Byrne, O. Skarlato, and K. Ahmed. 2012. Economic aid and conflict transformation in northern Ireland and the border area: Respondents’ perceptions of awareness, fairness, trust building, and sustainability. Peace and Conflict Studies 19: 4–35.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kyrou, C.N. 2007. Peace ecology: An emerging paradigm in peace studies. International Journal of Peace Studies 12: 73–92.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Laszlo, A. 2008. Evolutionary ethics: vision and values for a world of insurmountable opportunities. In 52nd annual conference of the international society for the systems sciences 2008, Madison, WI.

  27. Levy, S.E., and D.E. Hawkins. 2009. Peace through tourism: Commerce based principles and practices. Journal of Business Ethics 89: 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0408-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McCall, C. 2011. Culture and the Irish border: Spaces for conflict transformation. Cooperation and Conflict 46: 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836711406406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCall, C., and L. O’Dowd. 2008. Hanging flower baskets, blowing in the wind? Third-sector groups, cross-border partnerships, and the EU peace programs in Ireland. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 14: 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537110701872576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mingers, J., and L. Leydesdorff. 2015. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research 246: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moher, D., L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, D. Ghersi, A. Liberati, M. Petticrew, P. Shekelle, and L.A. Stewart. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Review 4: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Okpanachi, E. 2011. Confronting the governance challenges of developing Nigeria’s extractive industry: Policy and performance in the oil and gas sector. Review of Policy Research 28: 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00477.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Öztana, M., and M. Axelrod. 2011. Sustainable transboundary groundwater management under shifting political scenarios: The Ceylanpinar Aquifer and Turkey-Syria relations. Water International 36: 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2011.601546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Petticrew, M., and H. Roberts. 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, and S.A. Ibrahim (eds.). 2018. Climate change and cities: Second assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Richmond, O.P. 2008. Reclaiming peace in international relations. Millennium Journal of International Studies 36: 439–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298080360030401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rudd, M.A. 2000. Live long and prosper: Collective action, social capital and social vision. Ecological Economics 34: 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00152-X.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schmidt, M. 2008. The Sankey Diagram in energy and material flow management part I: History. Journal of International Ecology 12: 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00004.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Selby, D. 2006. The firm and shaky ground of education for sustainable development. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 30: 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260600717471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shaffer, J.A. 2014. A redesign of my monthly energy bill from Duke Energy. Data Plus Science. https://www.dataplusscience.com/RedesignEnergyBill.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2020. 

  41. Shaker, R.R. 2018. A mega-index for the Americas and its underlying sustainable development correlations. Ecological Indicators 89: 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sharifi, A., D. Simangan, and S. Kaneko. 2020. Three decades of research on climate change and peace: A bibliometrics analysis. Sustainability Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00853-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Skarlato, O., S. Byrne, K. Ahmed, J.M. Hyde, and P. Karari. 2013. Grassroots peacebuilding in Northern Ireland and the border counties: Elements of an effective model. Peace and Conflict Studies 20: 4–26.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Steen, B.A. 2006. Describing values in relation to choices in LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11: 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.10.227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. UN (United Nations). 1992a. An agenda for peace: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. UN Doc. A/47/277, January 31.

  46. UN (United Nations). 1992b. Rio declaration on environment and development. UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I), 31 ILM 874, August 12.

  47. UN (United Nations). 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. UN Doc. A/RES/70/1, October 21.

  48. UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2001. Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies, 2nd ed. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=111&menu=1515. Accessed 24 Apr 2020.

  49. UNWCED (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future—Brundtland report. UN Doc. A/42/427. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr 2020.

  50. van Eck, N.J., and L. Waltman. 2009. How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60: 1635–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. van Eck, N.J., and L. Waltman. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. van Eck, N.J., and L. Waltman. 2020. VOSviewer manual for VOSviewer: Version 1.6.14. Leiden: Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vilela, M. 2006. The Earth Charter and the quest for a more sustainable and peaceful world. Development 49: 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wackernagel, M., L. Hanscom, and D. Lin. 2017. Making the Sustainable Development Goals consistent with sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research 5: 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wanis-St. John, A., and D. Kew. 2008. Civil society and peace negotiations: Confronting exclusion. International Negotiation 13: 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1163/138234008X297896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Werner, K. 2015. African development through peace and security to sustainability. In Development in Africa: Refocusing the lens after the millennium development goals, ed. G. Kararach, H. Besada, and T. Shaw, 345–364. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Yang, G., C.-C. Lam, and N.-Y. Wong. 2010. Developing an instrument for identifying secondary teachers’ beliefs about education for sustainable development in China. Journal of Environmental Education 41: 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960903479795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dahlia Simangan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1581 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharifi, A., Simangan, D. & Kaneko, S. The literature landscape on peace–sustainability nexus: A scientometric analysis. Ambio 50, 661–678 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01388-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Peace
  • Scientometric analysis
  • SDGs
  • Sustainability
  • Systematic review