气候安全风险评估工具审查

Barbora Šedová, Lisa Binder, Sidney Michelini, Marie Schellens, Lukas Rüttinger
{"title":"气候安全风险评估工具审查","authors":"Barbora Šedová, Lisa Binder, Sidney Michelini, Marie Schellens, Lukas Rüttinger","doi":"10.1177/27538796241226996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To address climatic risks to human security, various climate security risk assessment (CSRA) tools have been developed. We have systematically reviewed 28 such tools against state-of-the-art research to (i) define best practices in CSRAs, (ii) identify related gaps in these tools and derive recommendations on how to address them, and (iii) outline a policy-relevant research agenda. We suggest the following measures to improve CSRA tools: Global South actors need to be more strongly involved in priority setting, conceptualization, risk analysis, and intervention design. CSRA tools should offer geographically disaggregated analyses, transparently explain choices regarding tools’ temporal and geographical foci, and assess their implications for the evidence. In this regard, any type of sampling bias should be avoided. Mixed methods can offer clear advantages to study the context-specific climate security dynamics across different time scales. The main gaps in the tools’ conceptualizations evolve around comprehensive consideration of risk determinants (climatic hazards, exposure, and vulnerability) and complex climate–security linkages, communication of uncertainty, and implementation of validation routines. These factors need to be better accounted for. To advance CSRAs, future research should, for example, develop methodologies to systematically integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches, improve the performance of risk predictions, and develop conflict projections.","PeriodicalId":513221,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Security","volume":"6 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of climate security risk assessment tools\",\"authors\":\"Barbora Šedová, Lisa Binder, Sidney Michelini, Marie Schellens, Lukas Rüttinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/27538796241226996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To address climatic risks to human security, various climate security risk assessment (CSRA) tools have been developed. We have systematically reviewed 28 such tools against state-of-the-art research to (i) define best practices in CSRAs, (ii) identify related gaps in these tools and derive recommendations on how to address them, and (iii) outline a policy-relevant research agenda. We suggest the following measures to improve CSRA tools: Global South actors need to be more strongly involved in priority setting, conceptualization, risk analysis, and intervention design. CSRA tools should offer geographically disaggregated analyses, transparently explain choices regarding tools’ temporal and geographical foci, and assess their implications for the evidence. In this regard, any type of sampling bias should be avoided. Mixed methods can offer clear advantages to study the context-specific climate security dynamics across different time scales. The main gaps in the tools’ conceptualizations evolve around comprehensive consideration of risk determinants (climatic hazards, exposure, and vulnerability) and complex climate–security linkages, communication of uncertainty, and implementation of validation routines. These factors need to be better accounted for. To advance CSRAs, future research should, for example, develop methodologies to systematically integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches, improve the performance of risk predictions, and develop conflict projections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":513221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Security\",\"volume\":\"6 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/27538796241226996\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27538796241226996","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了应对人类安全所面临的气候风险,人们开发了各种气候安全风险评估(CSRA)工具。我们根据最新研究成果系统地审查了 28 种此类工具,以(i)确定 CSRA 的最佳实践,(ii)确定这些工具中的相关差距,并就如何解决这些差距提出建议,以及(iii)概述与政策相关的研究议程。我们建议采取以下措施改进 CSRA 工具:全球南部行动者需要更多地参与优先事项的确定、概念化、风险分析和干预措施的设计。CSRA 工具应提供按地域分列的分析,透明地解释有关工具的时间和地域重点的选择,并评估其对证据的影响。在这方面,应避免任何类型的抽样偏差。混合方法在研究不同时间范围内特定背景下的气候安全动态方面具有明显优势。这些工具在概念化方面的主要差距体现在对风险决定因素(气候灾害、暴露和脆弱性)和复杂的气候安全联系的全面考虑、不确定性的沟通以及验证例程的实施。需要更好地考虑这些因素。为了推进 CSRA,未来的研究应开发系统整合定量和定性方法的方法,提高风险预测的性能,并开发冲突预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A review of climate security risk assessment tools
To address climatic risks to human security, various climate security risk assessment (CSRA) tools have been developed. We have systematically reviewed 28 such tools against state-of-the-art research to (i) define best practices in CSRAs, (ii) identify related gaps in these tools and derive recommendations on how to address them, and (iii) outline a policy-relevant research agenda. We suggest the following measures to improve CSRA tools: Global South actors need to be more strongly involved in priority setting, conceptualization, risk analysis, and intervention design. CSRA tools should offer geographically disaggregated analyses, transparently explain choices regarding tools’ temporal and geographical foci, and assess their implications for the evidence. In this regard, any type of sampling bias should be avoided. Mixed methods can offer clear advantages to study the context-specific climate security dynamics across different time scales. The main gaps in the tools’ conceptualizations evolve around comprehensive consideration of risk determinants (climatic hazards, exposure, and vulnerability) and complex climate–security linkages, communication of uncertainty, and implementation of validation routines. These factors need to be better accounted for. To advance CSRAs, future research should, for example, develop methodologies to systematically integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches, improve the performance of risk predictions, and develop conflict projections.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信