Climate security assessment of countries

  • Yannis A. Phillis
  • Nektarios Chairetis
  • Evangelos Grigoroudis
  • Fotis D. Kanellos
  • Vassilis S. Kouikoglou
Article

Abstract

Climate change has repercussions on national security. Yet, no widely accepted definition of climate security exists to date. In this paper, we present a mathematical model that defines and assesses climate security as a function of 37 indicators of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The model combines the indicators using statistical methods and fuzzy logic which encapsulates the subjective part of the assessment, to derive an overall climate security score from 0 to 1, and then rank 187 countries. A sensitivity analysis points to those indicators with the highest potential to improve climate security and indicates regional priorities for action. It turns out that globally the highest priorities are the economy which is necessary for climate adaptation, population growth which should be contained, political rights, renewable energy use, and sea level rise. Although several results such as the high ranks of Scandinavian countries are intuitive, the model uncovers unexpected facts such as the higher rank of Uruguay than Denmark and Japan or the higher rank of Costa Rica than Italy. However, a closer look at the intermediate results reveals that Uruguay and Costa Rica are far superior to Denmark, Japan, and Italy in the areas of water and energy.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Emergency Events Database research team (EM-DAT) of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters of Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium, for providing data on natural disasters (www.emdat.be).

Authors’ contribution

Y.A.P. designed the research and developed the methodology; N.C., E.G. and F.D.K developed the components of the model and found the data sets; V.S.K. wrote the algorithms and ran the model; all authors analyzed the results and wrote the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2196_MOESM1_ESM.docx (242 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 241 kb)

References

  1. Adger WN, Pulhin JM, Barnett J, Dabelko GD, Hovelsrud GK, Levy M, Spring ÚO, Vogel CH (2014) Human security. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ et al (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp 755–791Google Scholar
  2. Barnett J, Adger WN (2007) Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Polit Geogr 26(6):639–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beccari Β (2016) A comparative analysis of disaster risk, vulnerability and resilience composite indicator. PLOS Curr Disasters.  https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.453df025e34b682e9737f95070f9b970
  4. Brown LR (1977) Redefining national security (Vol. 14). Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED147229.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2017
  5. Busby JW (2007) Climate change and national security: an agenda for action. Council on Foreign Relations Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Busby JW, Cook KH, Vizy EK, Smith TG, Bekalo M (2014) Identifying hot spots of security vulnerability associated with climate change in Africa. Clim Chang 124(4):717–731.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1142-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen C, Noble I, Hellmann J, Coffee J, Murillo M, Chawla N (2015) University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index: Country index technical report. http://index.nd-gain.org:8080/documents/nd-gain_technical_document_2015.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017
  8. Füssel H-M (2010) Development and climate change: review and quantitative analysis of indices of climate change exposure, adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and impacts. World development report background papers. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/885101468164982209. Accessed 21 July 2017
  9. IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2014a) Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (2014b) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelley CP, Mohtadi S, Cane MA, Seager R, Kushnir Y (2015) Climate change in the fertile crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(11):3241–3246.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421533112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kloor K (2009) The war against warming. Nat Rep Clim Chang 3:145–146.  https://doi.org/10.1038/climate.2009.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kouikoglou VS, Phillis YA (2009) On the monotonicity of hierarchical sum-product fuzzy systems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 160:3530–3538.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2009.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lipper L, Thornton P, Campbell BM, Baedeker T, Braimoh A, Bwalya M, Caron P, Cattaneo A, Garrity D, Henry K, Hottle R (2014) Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Clim Chang 4:1068–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nolt J (2015) Casualties as a moral measure of climate change. Clim Chang 130:347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1131-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paris R (2001) Human security: paradigm shift or hot air? Int Secur 26(2):87–102.  https://doi.org/10.1162/016228801753191141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Phillis YA, Grigoroudis E, Kouikoglou VS (2011) Sustainability ranking and improvement of countries. Ecol Econ 70:542–553.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Preston BL, Yuen EJ, Westaway RM (2011) Putting vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustain Sci 6:177–202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0129-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Theisen OM, Gleditsch NP, Buhaug H (2013) Is climate change a driver of armed conflict? Clim Chang 117(3):613–625.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0649-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thow A, de Blois M (2008) Climate change and human vulnerability: mapping emerging trends and risk hotspots for humanitarian actors. Report to the UN Office for coordination of humanitarian affairs, Maplecroft/OCHA/CARE, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2016) Decisions adopted by the conference of the parties: decision 1/CP.21. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2017
  23. von Uexkull N, Croicu M, Fjelde H, Buhaug H (2016) Civil conflict sensitivity to growing-season drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(44):12391–12396.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607542113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zadeh L (1996) Fuzzy logic=computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4:103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1109/91.493904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yannis A. Phillis
    • 1
  • Nektarios Chairetis
    • 1
  • Evangelos Grigoroudis
    • 1
  • Fotis D. Kanellos
    • 1
  • Vassilis S. Kouikoglou
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of CreteChaniaGreece

Personalised recommendations