Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Disasters disproportionately affect conflict-affected regions, where approximately two billion people reside, posing significant challenges for disaster risk reduction (DRR). This reality has increasingly spurred calls for violent conflict to be included in the global DRR agenda. However, consideration of peace has been lacking, despite that challenges for peace can distinctly impact capacities to set, pursue, and achieve DRR objectives. This study investigated how the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) engages with peace through a document analysis, revealing three key findings. First, the SFDRR does not mention “peace,” mirroring its lack of reference to conflict. Second, while peace-related terms appear throughout the SFDRR in themes related to partnership and all-of-society approaches, this engagement is superficial. Third, the SFDRR’s approach is fundamentally problematic for advancing peace due to its avoidance of the complex social and political dynamics inherent to disaster risk and its reduction. The SFDRR united United Nations Member States in its ambition to “leave no one behind,” but has taken approaches that smooth over diversity rather than strengthen pluralistic connections. A radical, integrated DRR-peacebuilding agenda must take conflict as the new starting point and carve new pathways toward peace including through disaster diplomacy and environmental peacebuilding. By embracing the ambiguity between war and peace and addressing the root causes of risk, societies can cultivate peaceful interactions and collectively advance safety. This study concludes with recommendations for a global DRR policy that not only implicitly relies on peace but actively contributes to peacebuilding in the world’s diverse and divided societies.
Disasters disproportionately affect conflict-affected regions, where approximately two billion people reside, posing significant challenges for disaster risk reduction (DRR). This reality has increasingly spurred calls for violent conflict to be included in the global DRR agenda. However, consideration of peace has been lacking, despite that challenges for peace can distinctly impact capacities to set, pursue, and achieve DRR objectives. This study investigated how the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) engages with peace through a document analysis, revealing three key findings. First, the SFDRR does not mention “peace,” mirroring its lack of reference to conflict. Second, while peace-related terms appear throughout the SFDRR in themes related to partnership and all-of-society approaches, this engagement is superficial. Third, the SFDRR’s approach is fundamentally problematic for advancing peace due to its avoidance of the complex social and political dynamics inherent to disaster risk and its reduction. The SFDRR united United Nations Member States in its ambition to “leave no one behind,” but has taken approaches that smooth over diversity rather than strengthen pluralistic connections. A radical, integrated DRR-peacebuilding agenda must take conflict as the new starting point and carve new pathways toward peace including through disaster diplomacy and environmental peacebuilding. By embracing the ambiguity between war and peace and addressing the root causes of risk, societies can cultivate peaceful interactions and collectively advance safety. This study concludes with recommendations for a global DRR policy that not only implicitly relies on peace but actively contributes to peacebuilding in the world’s diverse and divided societies.
The potential impacts of climate change on violent conflict are high on the agenda of scholars and policy makers. This article reviews existing literature to clarify the relationship between climate change and conflict risk, focusing on the roles of temperature and precipitation. While some debate remains, substantial evidence shows that climate change increases conflict risk under specific conditions. We examine four key pathways through which climate affects conflict: (i) economic shocks, (ii), agricultural decline, (iii) natural resources competition, and (iv) migration. Key gaps include limited long-term data, insufficient integrated studies, and the inadequate understanding of causal mechanisms, necessitating transdisciplinary research that addresses social vulnerability and underlying pathways
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.