The Index of Human Insecurity

Transcription

1 The Index of Human Insecurity A Project of the Global Environmental Change and Human Security Program (GECHS) Steve Lonergan, Kent Gustavson, and Brian Carter Department of Geography University of Victoria Victoria, BC Canada Introduction Our traditional perspectives on security have focused on war and various other forms of armed conflict as the main threats. The causes of these conflicts, however, are usually complex and somewhat case specific. Many analysts have accepted uncritically that the competition for territory and resources has been at the root of most violent conflicts in history. Recent research indicates that non-conventional threats are playing a more prominent role, specifically that environmental stress caused by global environmental change, coupled with increasingly vulnerable societies, may be a cause of insecurity and conflict. It is crucial that we adopt a perspective that can accommodate both the changing nature of security and the new types of threats that affect security. One must consider the range of regional, national, transnational, and international threats that are evident today. Any new perspective on security must be an integrated one; that is, there are an array of factors, including non-conventional threats in addition to the environment, that either acting separately or together at different spatial scales, can threaten security. The most appropriate framework for research and policy may well be one that focuses on human security. The appeal of the term human security is that it recognises the inter-linkages of environment and society, and acknowledges that our perceptions of our environment and the way we use our environment are historically, socially, and politically constructed. Three key features of the links between environment and security are also recognised: i) there exists a cumulative causality between environment and security (e.g., environmental degradation may result in population movement that in turn poses a threat to the environment); ii) the responses of the insecurities

2 posed by environmental degradation may contribute to other insecurities (e.g., population movement could also threaten other aspects of human security not directly linked to the environment); and, iii) human security embodies the notion that problems must always be addressed from a broader perspective that encompasses both poverty and issues of equity, as it is these issues which may most often lead to insecurity and conflict. The Index of Human Insecurity (IHI) was developed as a mechanism to assist in identifying vulnerable or insecure regions to inform policy and assist decision-makers in development assistance efforts. The IHI was developed for the following reasons: i) there is a need for computer-based information to assist with medium and long-term development planning efforts through developing a better understanding of the forces that produce human insecurity and some sense of where the most insecure regions may be now and in the future; ii) it is important to consider the potential impact of global change on human insecurity, including the effects of population growth and distribution, global warming, and ozone depletion; and, iii) there is a pressing need to produce visual presentations and explanations of the forces that are influencing human insecurity as these may prove critical in attempts to demonstrate to decision-makers the need to redirect public funds toward regions in greatest need. Construction of the Index of Human Insecurity Human security focuses on individual or collective human perceptions and evaluations of actual and expected conditions as a source of insecurity. This implies that insecurity may result from three factors: i) the actual risk of exposure to stresses; ii) the perception of risks; and, iii) whether the capacity exists to cope with stresses. As it is difficult on a large scale to measure human perceptions and then use such a measure in the development of appropriate indicators to guide policy and decision-making, we will rely on vulnerability (the aggregate measure of human welfare that integrates social, economic, and political exposure to and capacity to cope with a range of potentially harmful perturbations) as a proxy for insecurity, and in this way attempt to map and identify regions where insecurities may be prevalent. The IHI is essentially a multivariate classification system which discriminates between countries on the basis of how vulnerable or insecure they are, and groups together those that possess

3 similar levels of insecurity. It was initially desirable to develop and present a standard methodology for classifying countries. In addition, four key conditions influenced and guided the development of the IHI: A small list of indicators is most appropriate and effective for the purposes noted above (e.g., Gallopín 1997; Gustavson et al. 1998), so we must move away from long lists of indicators which may be overlapping and highly correlated with one another; A standard set of indicators should be used for the initial index, allowing for additional indicators to be incorporated to deal with specific issues (e.g., food security); Efforts must be made to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data in the development of an index; and, The index should be developed within a Geographical Information System (GIS) to promote both visual display and flexibility in future analyses. Indicator Selection The framework for the selection of indicators for the IHI was developed largely from previous work on indicators of sustainable development, although parallels and congruencies with theoretical developments in other indicator research fields, such as human well-being and social indicators, are also evident. Indicator selection followed a set of evaluation criteria: Relevance to the selection framework in that the indicator measures either key structural relationships (i.e., linkages and defining characteristics) or key functional relationships (i.e., process flows) of the system within either environmental, economic, societal, or institutional components (Table 1); Existence of a theoretical or empirical link between the indicator and insecurity; General availability of the data (Is it collected? Is it available at a reasonable cost?);

4 Spatial and compositional commensurability of the variable with other selected indicators to allow for future modelling of the system; and, Adequacy of the spatial coverage based on the number of countries represented and adequacy of the time series available. The indicators selected to comprise the standard index are shown in Table 1. Four indicators were initially selected within each of the components (the environment, the economy, society, and institutions), thus yielding a standard set of sixteen indicators. Changes in the levels of the individual indicators reflect potential changes in the levels of human insecurity. Note that the advancement of either theoretical or empirical links between indicators and human insecurity is in its infancy; thus, a primary reliance on established links (e.g., Arbman et al. 1998) is not sufficient to guide the selection of indicators, but must be used in conjunction with an indicator selection framework (Table 1). This will better ensure that a sufficient indicator set reflecting key system components - the environment, the economy, society, and institutions - is selected. Although it is of great interest to maintain a theoretical and practical link between an index which is developed as a proxy measure for human insecurity and more measurable and obvious outcomes such as violent conflict, it must be emphasised that the utility of the IHI goes beyond simply a predictive or anticipatory tool for such issues. The ultimate utility of the IHI is in describing the levels of human insecurity in a broad sense. The Standard Calculation of the Index of Human Insecurity Data for each of the sixteen indicators were subjected to the following statistical analyses: 1. Establishing a complete time series for all indicators and all countries. Data was collected, where available, for the years 1970 through As most countries did not have complete time series for most indicators, it was desirable to estimate missing time series data through some relatively simple statistical techniques (linear regression or data interpolation) where the existing data was sufficient;

5 2. Standardising the data. Indicators were adjusted such that they use the same unitless scale and possess the same range of possible values such that all indicators are given the same weight in the composite index; and, 3. Classification of the data and calculation of the index. Data for each indicator were classified for each year into ten categories by cluster analysis. Countries were assigned a number between one and ten for each indicator in which they had a known or estimated value. The corresponding IHI value was then calculated for each country in each year as the average category value for all indicators. A small number of countries had no data for any indicator, and thus could not be assigned an index value. The complete IHI dataset was then imported into a GIS (ArcView ) so that it could be mapped. Figure 1 shows the results for 1995, while Figure 2 shows a larger scale depiction of the same results for Central and South America. Additional Analytical Procedures 1. There are important assumptions regarding the relationship between the chosen indicator set and the actual (but ultimately unmeasurable) levels of human insecurity which are implicit in the methods used to construct the IHI. First, it is assumed that the set of sixteen indicators, equally weighted, accurately reflect human insecurity. Although large collections of variables are undesirable in indicator work due to information redundancies and additional difficulties in the interpretation of the results, the question arises as to whether or not the chosen indicator set is sufficient. Should additional indicators be added or the list further reduced? Should some indicators be substituted for others? The goal of arriving at the final set of standard indicators for the IHI is to achieve a parsimonious set. As the number of indicators is reduced, there is a danger in losing important information about the system. However, it may be possible to remove redundant indicators (indicators that are highly correlated with other indicators) or, similarly, to look for indicator aggregations of associations. Alternate statistical procedures (i.e., partial correlation and principle component analysis) allow the analyst to examine to what extent indicators are

6 correlated or to what extent different groups of variable, which display simultaneous variation, account for the total variability in the data. The results of such analyses have supported the indicator selection framework (Table 1) as the primary explanatory grouping are composed of indicators from each of the four components (the environment, the economy, society, and institutions). Primary explanatory indicator groupings tend to comprise of those which describe development, militarization and energy production, and economic transition. At this stage in the development if the IHI, all sixteen indicators (Table 1) will be maintained. It must be emphasised that the purpose of developing an index or subsequently modelling that index is to derive a useful summary or simplification of a complex reality. There is always the inherent danger of any index or model missing important information, yet this danger does not negate the usefulness of necessity of the exercise. Only by basing the development of the IHI in a sound theoretical framework and by testing the index and subsequent modelling against real world situations can the validity of the analyses be demonstrated. 2. The standard IHI classification system described here only compares relative levels of insecurity between countries for any given year. Using this procedure, it is not possible to ascertain whether changes in the IHI over time for a given country are a result of changes within that country or the results of relative changes arising from changing conditions in other countries. To examine internal changes within any given nation requires the use of a base classification system. Alternate statistical procedures (i.e., discriminant function analysis) will re-distribute countries among static base classification groupings each time the group memberships are calculated. Countries will only change position in the classification system if conditions within that country change significantly. The base classification groupings are established using data from the initial year in the time series, and any changes in group membership determined for each subsequent year. Insecurity is a function both of internal country conditions and of relative conditions between countries. It is believed that use of the standard clustering methodology as described above is

7 most appropriate for our purposes, yet the option to use a base classification system will be retained to allow for potential further exploration of the underlying causes of changes in country-specific IHI values. The Addition of Indicators to the Standard Set Rather than rely solely on the use of an indicator selection framework, theoretical developments in the field of human security, and statistical analyses to aid in determining the appropriate indicators to use, the project is also exploring the behaviour of the index as the specific indicators which comprise the IHI are changed. How sensitive is the index to changes in the types of indicators used? How is the IHI affected by changes in the number of indicators used? Two additional indicators were added to the standard set of sixteen indicators (Table 1) to begin to explore these questions: i) annual mortality due to natural hazards; and, ii) income distribution (defined as the lowest income quintile s share of 20% of the total income). Figure 3 shows the results. Work in the near future will statistically explore the effects of adding these indicators to the standard set. Comparison of the IHI with Development Conceptualisations of international development are expected to be related in some way to human security. An immediate comparison of the IHI with indicators for development can be made. Perhaps the most notable index of development is the Human Development Index (HDI) as adopted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP 1997). Figure 4 depicts the relationship between the IHI and the HDI for A simple correlation analysis indicates that there is a strong linear relationship between the HDI and the IHI (r = , n = 174, p < 0.001). Visually, Figure 4 suggests that there may be a sigmoidal (s-shaped) relationship between the two indices. One possible conclusion which may be drawn from this is that policy initiatives involving increased human development may be more useful to the objective of reducing insecurity among less developed nations than among more developed ones. The strong correlation between the IHI and the HDI is not surprising, given that additional analyses (see item 1, Additional Analytical Procedures ) have shown that much of the

8 variability in the standard set of indicators used in the IHI was due to variation in what one may consider to be indicators describing development. However, the correlation is not perfect, with much variation in the relationship still unexplained. In the future, discrepancies between the IHI and alternate indicators will be explored further to try to understand the behaviour of the IHI and the characteristics of the systems it describes. Additional Future Applications Additional future work on the IHI will focus on: i) the incorporation of information on thresholds for indicators where the theoretical and empirical base with which to make prescriptions is sufficient; ii) modelling of the index and exploring its use for predictive purposes; iii) the direct participation of environmental and human security analysts from the policy community; iv) the examination of cross-border issues, where problems in one state or region might affect neighbouring states; and, v) the enhancement of the communication function through an improved user interface and the incorporation of textual information, as well as the development of an internet site. Literature Cited Arbman et al., Gallopín, G.C., Indicators and their use: information for decision-making. In: B. Moldan and S. Billharz (eds.), Sustainability Indicators: Report of the Project on Indicators of Sustainable Development. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp Gustavson, K.R., S.C. Lonergan, and H.J. Ruitenbeek, Selection and modeling of sustainable development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Ecological Economics (in press). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report New York, New York: United Nations Development Programme.

9 Table 1. Selected indicators of human insecurity comprising the standard set Environment Economy Society Institutions net energy imports (% of commercial energy use) soil degradation real GDP per capita (US$) GNP per capita growth (annual %) urban population growth (annual %) male population (% of total aged 0-14) public expenditures on defence versus education, primary and secondary (% of GDP) gross domestic fixed investment (% of GDP) safe water (% of population with access) arable land (hectares per person) adult illiteracy rate (% of population 15+) value of imports and exports of goods and services (% of GDP) maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) child mortality degree of democratisation human freedoms index

10 Figure Captions Figure 1. Index of Human Insecurity (IHI) values for Larger index values (darker shading) indicate greater insecurity. Figure 2. Index of Human Insecurity (IHI) values for 1995, showing detail of Central and South America. Larger index values (darker shading) indicate greater insecurity. Figure 3. Index of Human Insecurity (IHI) values for 199?, with the addition of two new indicators to the standard set - natural hazards mortality, and income distribution. Larger index values (darker shading) indicate greater insecurity. Figure 4. Relationship between the Index of Human Insecurity (IHI) and the Human Development Index (HDI) by country for 1994.

11 Fig. 4. 1,2 Human Development Index 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0, Index of Human Insecurity