Opportunity, willingness and geographic information systems (GIS): reconceptualizing borders in international relations

doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00058-0

Political Geography

Volume 21, Issue 2, February 2002, Pages 243-261

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00058-0 Get rights and content

Abstract

This article reports on a continuing project which has developed a major reconceptualization and revision of how borders may be seen and measured through the use of GIS. Using the data layers of the ARC/INFO GIS system, a new dataset has been developed which allows analysts to talk about the specific qualities of borders in terms of opportunity and willingness, that is, the ease of interaction and salience, respectively. The theory and method behind this reconceptualization is described. The results are represented both in visual terms—maps—and through the use of a quantitative dataset which lets us go beyond simply observing the number of borders a state possesses, whether or not a border existed between two states, or the length of that border. The dataset is presented and discussed, as well as preliminary analyses of the borders of conflict dyads from three separate conflict datasets. The basic ‘interaction opportunity’ model that underlies the opportunity and willingness framework is supported.

Section snippets

Geopolitics, borders and IR: a brief introduction

A review of the literature on war, militarized disputes, enduring rivalries and alliances, indicates that over the past 20 years there has been a renewed attention to the role and impact of geography in the study of international relations. Much of this is related to the ‘new geopolitics’ which treats geography as an essential part of the context of possibilities and constraints that face foreign policy decision makers (see Goertz, 1994, Goertz & Diehl, 1992, Starr, 1991a; and even Ward, 1992).

Conceptualizing (and re-conceptualizing) borders

Thus, the location of states, their proximity to one another, and especially whether or not they share ‘borders’, emerges time and again as key variables in studies of international conflict phenomena: from major power general war, to the diffusion of international conflict, to the analysis of peace between pairs of democracies. From Boulding’s (Boulding, 1962) ideas of ‘behavior space’, ‘loss-of-strength gradient’ and ‘critical boundary’ to the simple but profound concern of geographers that

Methodology: ARC/INFO and the conceptualization–operationalization of borders

Geographic information systems, developed through the early to mid-1960s, are now the focus of a large amount of literature produced by geographers and regional scientists. It is not my intent to review that literature here, nor cite the most recent contributions to it. As could be expected, there are many approaches and perspectives on GIS. It is important, however, to understand that a GIS is a tool, founded on a variety of computer technologies, that permits the integration of data about the

The scientific utility of a GIS-generated border data base

One basic point raised in Most and Starr (1989) was that researchers needed to be much clearer as to the broader concepts which were really under investigation, so that their models and the resulting research designs could be more logically and fully specified. Perhaps ‘borders’ can be used in some research for reasons that are innate to ‘borderness’—that they separate entities from one another. However, as discussed above, most uses of borders involve their representation of proximity—that is,

Conclusion

These initial analyses do not support Vasquez’s notion that dropping to lower levels of ‘interaction opportunity’ increases the ability to explain war. The alternative hypothesis, that the nature of the border doesn’t matter but that what does matter is the length of the border, does receive broad support from an analysis of three major conflict data sets. Yet, the finding that the length of the border matters does suggest that the general concern by Most and Starr with ‘opportunities for

Acknowledgements

This research project has been supported by a University of South Carolina Research & Productive Scholarship Award (No. 13570-E120), which in turn was instrumental in securing a National Science Foundation grant (SBR-9731056) to continue the project. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the research assistants who have so substantially contributed to this project through the excellence of their GIS programming: Will Bain, Deb Thomas, Richard Deal, and Guojing Shou. In addition,

References (39)

G. Falah et al.
The spatial manifestation of threat: Israelis and Palestinians seek a ‘good’ border
Political Geography
(1995)
K.E. Boulding
Conflict and defense
(1962)
B. Bueno de Mesquita
The war trap
(1981)
N. Choucri et al.
Nations in conflict
(1975)
C. Cioffi-Revilla et al.
Opportunity, willingness, and political uncertainty: theoretical foundations of politics
Journal of Theoretical Politics
(1995)
D.J. Cowen
GIS versus CAD versus DBMS: what are the differences
ARC/INFO: GIS today and tomorrow
(1992)
G. Friedman et al.
Agency, structure and international politics: from ontology to empirical inquiry
(1997)
D. Garnham
Dyadic international war: 1816–1965: the role of power parity and geographic proximity
Western Political Quarterly
(1976)
A. Giddens
The constitution of society
(1984)

M.J. Glassner

Political geography

(1992)

N.P. Gleditsch et al.

Distance and international war, 1816–1965

C.S. Gochman

Interstate metrics: conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring the geographic proximity of states since the congress of Vienna

G. Goertz

Contexts of international politics

(1994)

G. Goertz et al.

Territorial changes and international conflict

(1992)

G. Goertz et al.

Enduring rivalries: theoretical constructs and empirical patterns

International Studies Quarterly

(1993)

G. Goertz et al.

Taking ‘enduring’ out of enduring rivalry: the rivalry approach to war and peace

International Interactions

(1995)

K.J. Holsti

Peace and war: armed conflicts and international order 1648–1989

(1991)

P.K. Huth

Standing your ground: territorial disputes and international conflict

(1996)

Cited by (30)

Transboundary conservation and militarized interstate disputes
2014, Political Geography
Citation Excerpt :
Geographic proximity creates opportunities for both cooperation and reaching each other with military force and may influence to what degree neighbors consider each other as potential partner or threat (Reed & Chiba, 2010; Robst, Polachek, & Chang, 2007). Longer borders (Starr, 2002), ceteris paribus, provide more room to set up TBPAs, but they may also create breeding ground for more tension between the countries. Longer distance between capitals (Brochmann et al., 2012) may decrease the ability to reach each other by military force and affect the incentives to do so.
Advocates of transboundary conservation argue that borderlands can be a source of cooperation between neighboring states that previously engaged in conflict. It has been stated that, by opening negotiation channels based on environmental issues, jointly managed cross-border protected areas can promote and reinforce harmonious relations between contiguous states. We explore this assertion by empirically testing how transboundary protected areas (TBPAs) are related to militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) between contiguous states. Through the use of global data on protected areas and MIDs, we find that TBPAs tend to be established between countries that have previously been engaged in MIDs. We also find some evidence that TBPAs can be related to a more peaceful co-existence between neighboring countries in Africa, Middle East, and Asia.
Conflicts over shared rivers: Resource scarcity or fuzzy boundaries?
2006, Political Geography
Citation Excerpt :
Furlong, Gleditsch, and Hegre (2006) investigated the possibility that these findings might be spurious. Countries with long common boundaries are more likely to have a shared river and also to have more conflict, as argued theoretically by Wesley (1962, p. 388) and empirically by H. Starr (2002). Using a new dataset on international boundaries (Furlong & Gleditsch, 2003), however, we found that the relationship between shared rivers and conflict was not spurious with respect to boundary length.
Countries that share rivers have a higher risk of military disputes, even when controlling for a range of standard variables from studies of interstate conflict. A study incorporating the length of the land boundary showed that the shared river variable is not just a proxy for a higher degree of interaction opportunity. A weakness of earlier work is that the existing shared rivers data do not distinguish properly between dyads where the rivers run mainly across the boundary and dyads where the shared river runs along the boundary. Dyads with rivers running across the boundary would be expected to give rise to resource scarcity-related conflict, while in dyads where the river forms the boundary conflict may arise because river boundaries are fluid and fuzzy. Using a new dataset on shared water basins and two measures of water scarcity, we test for the relevance of these two scenarios. Shared basins do predict an increased propensity for conflict in a multivariate analysis. However, we find little support for the fuzzy boundary scenario. Support for a scarcity theory of water conflict is somewhat ambiguous. Neither the number of river crossings nor the share of the basin upstream is significant. Dry countries have more conflict, but less so when the basin is large. Drought has no influence. The size of the basin, however, is significantly associated with conflict. Modernization theory receives some support in that development interacted with basin size predicts less conflict, and we find some evidence here for an environmental Kuznets curve. The importance of basin size suggests a possible ‘resource curse’ effect for water resources.
Accounting for scale: Measuring geography in quantitative studies of civil war
2005, Political Geography
Citation Excerpt :
In studies of international relations and peace research, spatial analyses are still quite rare, and GIS is largely an undiscovered tool. Exceptions include Anselin and O'Loughlin's (1992) exploration of the contextual effects on conflict and cooperation in Africa, and Starr (2002), who uses GIS to generate indicators of interaction opportunities and salience of border zones for the case of Israel. Further, Ward and Gleditsch (2002) develop an autologistic model that estimates the likelihood of war as a function of recent war involvement of proximate states.
The empirical evidence from studies linking geographic factors like terrain and natural resources to civil war is generally weak and not robust to varying samples or coding procedures. We argue that these investigations suffer from a major weakness: although most civil wars are geographically limited to small parts of the host countries, the analyses rely almost exclusively on country-level data. We demonstrate how Geographical Information Systems (GIS) can be used to generate precise measures of space-varying factors at the scale of the conflict. A comparison of several relevant variables measured both at the scale of the country and the conflict demonstrates that country statistics are poor approximations of the conflict zones. An analysis of duration of civil war further shows that certain findings are indeed dependent upon the scale of measurement. We conclude by discussing how GIS and spatial analysis may be applied in future research to increase our understanding of location, duration, and risk of armed civil conflict.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in International Relations
2016, International Organization
Modelling Conflict Dynamics: Evidence from Africa: What Do the Data Show via Spatiotemporal Global ACLED Dataset?
2023, Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy
Remote sensing for international peace and security: Its role and implications
2021, Remote Sensing

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Opportunity, willingness and geographic information systems (GIS): reconceptualizing borders in international relations

Abstract

Section snippets

Geopolitics, borders and IR: a brief introduction

Conceptualizing (and re-conceptualizing) borders

Methodology: ARC/INFO and the conceptualization–operationalization of borders

The scientific utility of a GIS-generated border data base

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Political Geography

Conflict and defense

The war trap

Nations in conflict

Opportunity, willingness, and political uncertainty: theoretical foundations of politics

Journal of Theoretical Politics

GIS versus CAD versus DBMS: what are the differences

ARC/INFO: GIS today and tomorrow

Agency, structure and international politics: from ontology to empirical inquiry

Dyadic international war: 1816–1965: the role of power parity and geographic proximity

Western Political Quarterly

The constitution of society

Political geography

Distance and international war, 1816–1965

Interstate metrics: conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring the geographic proximity of states since the congress of Vienna

Contexts of international politics

Territorial changes and international conflict

Enduring rivalries: theoretical constructs and empirical patterns

International Studies Quarterly

Taking ‘enduring’ out of enduring rivalry: the rivalry approach to war and peace

International Interactions

Peace and war: armed conflicts and international order 1648–1989

Standing your ground: territorial disputes and international conflict