Understanding Resilience in Climate Change and Conflict Affected Regions of Nepal

Vivekananda, Janani; Schilling, Janpeter; Smith, Dan

doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.964863

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reviewers noted a growing discursive shifts towards resilience as a key nodal point in the climate conflict debate. Although this paper is not concerned about which of resilience and vulnerability is dominant in climate conflict debates, we observe that a shift towards resilience cannot completely ignore discussions about vulnerability (Vivekananda et al, 2014). Resilience and vulnerability are inextricably linked -since to reduce vulnerability to climate conflict is to strengthen resilience (Busby et al, 2014a).…”

Section: Portrayals Of Vulnerability Across Climate Conflict Discoursmentioning

confidence: 87%

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

Okpara¹,

Stringer²,

Dougill³

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The science of climate security and conflict is replete with controversies. Yet the increasing vulnerability of politically fragile countries to the security consequences of climate change is widely acknowledged. Although climate conflict reflects a continuum of conditional forces that coalesce around the notion of vulnerability, how different portrayals of vulnerability influence the discursive formation of climate conflict relations remains an exceptional but under-researched issue. This paper combines a systematic discourse analysis with a vulnerability interpretation diagnostic tool to explore: (i) how discourses of climate conflict are constructed and represented, (ii) how vulnerability is communicated across discourse lines, and (iii) the strength of contextual vulnerability against a deterministic narrative of scarcity-induced conflict, such as that pertaining to land. Systematically characterising climate conflict discourses based on the central issues constructed, assumptions about mechanistic relationships, implicit normative judgements and vulnerability portrayals, provides a useful way of understanding where discourses differ. While discourses show a wide range of opinions "for" and "against" climate conflict relations, engagement with vulnerability has been less pronounced – except for the dominant context centrism discourse concerned about human security (particularly in Africa). In exploring this discourse, we observe an increasing sense of contextual vulnerability that is oriented towards a concern for complexity rather than predictability. The article concludes by illustrating that a turn towards contextual vulnerability thinking will help advance a constructivist theory-informed climate conflict scholarship that recognises historicity, specificity and variability as crucial elements of contextual totalities of any area affected by climate conflict.

show abstract

Section: Portrayals Of Vulnerability Across Climate Conflict Discoursmentioning

confidence: 87%

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

Okpara¹,

Stringer²,

Dougill³

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Risk is understood as exposure to broader ethnocultural tensions and/ or scarcity of natural resources, which put pressure on a community to abandon prior collaborative strategies and transition into regimes of violent contestation. Specific examples that were cited in the literature include neighborhoods in Baghdad under pressure to adopt sectarian attitudes and behaviors (Carpenter, 2012), villages in the context of a water resource conflict in Bhutan (Gurung, Bousquet, & Trebuil, 2006), communities in a contested fisheries area in Cambodia (Ratner, Mam, & Halpern, 2014), small-scale agricultural stakeholders in Guatemala (Hellin et al, 2018), and populations at risk of violent conflict due to climate change in Nepal (Vivekananda, Schilling, & Smith, 2014b). Climate change is thought to be associated with conflict through the mediation of climate-induced resource scarcity (e.g., reduced rainfall affecting crop yield) that results in food insecurity, which in turn forms the context for violent contestation by societal stakeholders over a dwindling natural resource base (Vivekananda, Schilling, & Smith, 2014a).…”

Section: Investigations Into Resilience For Conflict Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In such risk landscapes, factors that have been found to enhance resilience include processes and resources across multiple social and ecological systems. At the level of natural systems, resilience can be enhanced by supporting farmers to switch to seeds and crops that are more resistant to draught, pests, and diseases (Hellin et al, 2018;Vivekananda et al, 2014b). This reduces the food insecurity that can be brought on by climactic events and other externalities and therefore the pressure toward community competition that can trigger conflict.…”

Section: Investigations Into Resilience For Conflict Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Assessment of Multisystemic Resilience in Conflict-Affected Populations

Lordos¹,

Hyslop²

2021

Multisystemic Resilience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Violent social conflicts are driven by and contribute to a cascade of stressors and shocks that can entirely overwhelm individuals, households, communities, and institutions, leading to loss of life and protracted suffering. In this context, humanitarian, peacebuilding, and development organizations have begun utilizing a resilience lens to inform efforts for conflict prevention and postconflict recovery, while the scholarly community is conducting its own investigations to understand what can drive resilience in conflict-affected populations. In this chapter, the authors pull together these diverse strands of the practitioner and scholarly conflict resilience literature, to delineate a set of principles that can guide future work. Assessment of resilience in conflict-affected populations should integrate systemwide thinking with agent-focused research, utilize mixed-method approaches, leverage analytic methods that are suitable for detection of cross-systemic linkages, and engage with stakeholders across multiple systems and levels to maximize resilience-enhancing insight, planning and action.

show abstract

“…Although this paper is not concerned about which of resilience and vulnerability is dominant in climate conflict debates, we observe that a shift towards resilience cannot completely ignore discussions about vulnerability (Vivekananda et al, 2014). Resilience and vulnerability are inextricably linked -since to reduce vulnerability to climate conflict is to strengthen resilience (Busby et al, 2014a).…”

Section: Portrayals Of Vulnerability Across Climate Conflict Discoursmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering differences in research interests, we note that vulnerability seems to have relevance when the focus is about understanding climate conflict transmission mechanisms or facilitating factors (see Fjelde and von Uexkull, 2012;. Resilience, in contrast, is stressed when the interest is about unpacking and executing climate conflict (adaptive) solutions during and/or after a violent event (Vivekananda et al, 2014). Similarly, studies emphasising "migration" within the context centrism frame tend to invoke a discursive shift towards resilience (e.g.…”

Section: Portrayals Of Vulnerability Across Climate Conflict Discoursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The science of climate security and conflict is replete with controversies. Yet the increasing vulnerability of politically fragile countries to the security consequences of climate change is widely acknowledged. Although climate conflict reflects a continuum of conditional forces that coalesce around the notion of vulnerability, how different portrayals of vulnerability influence the discursive formation of climate conflict relations remains an exceptional but under-researched issue. This paper combines a systematic discourse analysis with a vulnerability interpretation diagnostic tool to explore (i) how discourses of climate conflict are constructed and represented, (ii) how vulnerability is communicated across discourse lines, and (iii) the strength of contextual vulnerability against a deterministic narrative of scarcity-induced conflict, such as that pertaining to land. Systematically characterising climate conflict discourses based on the central issues constructed, assumptions about mechanistic relationships, implicit normative judgements and vulnerability portrayals, provides a useful way of understanding where discourses differ. While discourses show a wide range of opinions "for" and "against" climate conflict relations, engagement with vulnerability has been less pronounced -except for the dominant context centrism discourse concerned about human security (particularly in Africa). In exploring this discourse, we observe an increasing sense of contextual vulnerability that is oriented towards a concern for complexity rather than predictability. The article concludes by illustrating that a turn towards contextual vulnerability thinking will help advance a constructivist theory-informed climate conflict scholarship that recognises historicity, specificity, and variability as crucial elements of contextual totalities of any area affected by climate conflict.

show abstract

Understanding Resilience in Climate Change and Conflict Affected Regions of Nepal

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

The Assessment of Multisystemic Resilience in Conflict-Affected Populations

Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About