Craig Kauffman – Undergraduate Research Symposium Abstracts

Presenter(s): Sulley Schuster − Political Science, Environmental Studies

Faculty Mentor(s): Ronald Mitchell, Craig Kauffman

Poster 123

Research Area: Social Science

Sprinz and Vaahtoranta (1994) developed a theory that state positions within international environmental agreements are driven by two factors: environmental vulnerability and abatement costs. Furthermore, they posit that the interaction of these factors positions states as either pushers, intermediates, bystanders, or draggers in international environmental negotiations. The following study tests whether or not this theory can accurately predict the negotiating positions of states with the Paris Agreement by quantifying the ecological vulnerability and abatement costs of each participating state and comparing it to their observed negotiating position. The results of this analysis show that an interest-based theory can accurately predict negotiating positions around two-thirds of the time, and that ecological vulnerability and international environmental norms also play an important role in shaping negotiating positions within the Paris Agreement. These findings are important in understanding exactly how states develop their negotiating positions within complex international environmental agreements, and can provide policymakers with valuable tools to design future agreements in ways that motivate states to take stronger negotiating positions than they would have otherwise. Subsequent research questions include: Which specific cases fail to fit this theory and why? To what extent are other factors playing a role in leading states to be more, or less, supportive of climate policy than environmental vulnerability and abatement costs would predict?

Presenter(s): Caitlin Scarpelli − General Science

Faculty Mentor(s): Philip Romero, Craig Kauffman

Poster 72

Research Area: Natural and Social Science

When the word paradise comes to mind, words like prosperity, nature, and peace do as well. There is one phrase that most likely does not: armed conflict. However, over the past 70 years, armed conflict has significantly overlapped with biodiversity hotspots, areas with both high species variety and high degradation. When armed conflict causes land-use changes, resource exploitation and pollution, direct damages to ecosystem health, ecosystem services and human health occur. Conservation seeks to protect natural ecosystems, but can also protect the people who are often ravaged by conflict. This thesis examines how countries in biodiversity hotspots implemented strategies for forest biodiversity conservation in post-war periods and proposes a conservation strategy which any country could theoretically implement after armed conflict. I utilized the Most Different Systems Design, which seeks to identify similar factors between two extremely different case studies, to compare conservation efforts by the Vietnamese and Sierra Leonean governments. My time frame was 16 years after their respective conflicts ended: between 1975 and 1991 after the Vietnam War, and between 2002 and 2018 after the Sierra Leone Civil War. Both countries sought to increase their conservation capacity post-conflict, whether through increasing governmental funding, passing conservation policies, or creating protected areas. While conservation can occur through various methods, establishment of protected areas was essential for successful forest conservation. However, forest conservation was unsuccessful when local people were not consulted. Therefore, an emphasis on communication, coordination, and collaboration between departments and local people is vital for successful forest conservation.

Sidebar