When data leads to dialogue

When data leads to dialogue

How do the effects of climate change impact societies - especially in places where people are affected particularly strongly? And when do these impacts lead to protests? These are questions Viktoria Jansesberger, a postdoctoral researcher in the Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality" at the University of Konstanz, seeks to answer in her work. Her focus is on how environmental change, social inequality and political mobilization interact in this context.
In her conversation with uni'kon, she shares experiences from her stay in Chile, talks about moving encounters during field research, and reflects on how research findings really come alive when theory meets reality.

Viktoria, why did you choose Chile?

Viktoria Jansesberger: There were several reasons why I had a preference for doing my work in Latin America. For two decades already, there has been a strong research line in the area of "Climate Change and Conflict" in the "Security Group" - people who had already started thinking about the impacts of environmental change in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They have studied whether these changes result in conflicts, social tensions and migration.
However, the focus had always been on the African continent, which, of course, is highly relevant. But many Asian and Latin American countries, too, are severely affected by climate change. Chile is particularly intriguing as it is not only affected by extreme weather, but it is also central to the energy transition - as the world's largest copper exporter and an important player in lithium mining. All this entails many different problems related to environmental change and climate policy.

How did you go about your research?

I compiled data on protest events in Chile over the last 15 years, and our research assistant then systematically searched this data for protests on environmental issues, water, mining and climate change. She then examined each protest in detail to find out who had organized it and which NGOs were involved. We also checked all the universities in Chile to find out who was working on the topics: environment, water or raw materials. This way, we built up a large list of contacts. Initially, we were really nervous when we wrote to them, but we got many more responses than we had expected.

So you spoke to experts and not to randomly selected locals?

Exactly. This phase was not about a broad survey of the population, but about the perspectives of people working in NGOs, research institutions, state ministries or journalism - people with expertise, drawing from their local background.

Were there any conversations or encounters that particularly impressed you?

Yes, one example is an indigenous journalist I met who has been running her own radio station for 20 or 30 years. Her main concern is to report on environmental problems, particularly in connection with indigenous populations, thus giving a platform to people who are otherwise rarely featured in the traditional media.
That was one of the encounters where I really had the feeling that it wasn't just a job for her. She was doing it because these issues impact her, too. She is from the region and has personally experienced the environmental changes. She told many anecdotes, for example, about how rivers have disappeared, what has changed and how powerless people often feel.

Is the indigenous population heavily affected?

Yes, absolutely. This is distressing on the one hand, but scientifically exciting on the other, because the increased strain is also reflected in the data. If you look at who lives where and where certain environmental changes are taking place, these are often regions where marginalized groups live. And when such marginalized groups are affected, the impact is naturally more serious. We also see that there are specific patterns: for example, mining is carried out in places where indigenous communities live, because less resistance is expected there or locals have less political power.
This double or triple burden affects groups that are already structurally disadvantaged - socially, politically and economically - and who are then additionally confronted with these environmental changes.

You usually work quantitatively using data, tables and models. What was it like for you to get into personal conversations with people?

Totally enriching, and I would like to work like that all the time. Of course, you don't have the opportunity to go into the field for every project, but what I always try to do is to collect illustrative examples of everything I find in the data - and thus make dynamics tangible.

Can you give us an example?

Sure, let's take a look at mining. Our working hypothesis was that protests occur where living conditions are severely affected by environmental changes. However, in Chile we found that many protests take place when new concessions are being negotiated. It's not just about destruction, but also about the distribution of resources.
Before, I did not realize the conflicting interests involved. Many communities indeed see mining as an opportunity since infrastructure, roads, mobile phone masts, schools and healthcare facilities are often only built by mining companies. They take on government tasks, so to speak. At the same time, follow-up problems arise when the companies leave.

So there needs to be an aspect of perceived injustice - not just an objective deterioration in living conditions?

Exactly. Poor conditions alone do not necessarily lead to protest. It is only when people feel that things are unfair that they mobilize - for example, because others are benefiting or the state is failing. And there have to be critical time periods, in other words, moments in which something changes or has the potential to change.

You mentioned at the beginning that Chile is not only heavily affected by extreme weather events but also plays a key role in the energy transition. Doesn't this create tension between climate action and environmental protection?

Yes, that is actually one of the big lessons I learnt in the field, and also an interest that I would like to pursue further. Before, I would never have thought that it is often extremely hard to reconcile climate action and environmental protection in practice.

Take renewable energies, for example: that sounds great at first, and basically it is. But when you look at the details, you realize how complex it is. The mining of rare earths for solar panels and batteries leads to water shortages in some regions, while copper mining causes extreme pollution. In southern regions of Chile, salmon farming has caused massive ecological problems.

Hydropower, too, with the construction of large dams, was another such point for me. I had always thought that was a good thing. But environmental activists in the area explained to me that entire ecosystems are being flooded and irretrievably destroyed as a result. You then realize that many things we see as "positive" from a global climate perspective have serious consequences at the local level, especially for groups that are already disadvantaged.

So this is a classic dilemma?

Yes, totally. And that gives me a headache. I keep thinking about my own behaviour: what I consume, how I move, what I support. And there are also the areas of tension between social and ecological issues, between short-term benefits and long-term sustainability. If train routes are built through forests or wetlands, this may make sense in terms of climate policy, but it is problematic in terms of nature conservation. Even environmental NGOs do not always agree on what should be prioritized.

Does this make your research a bit of a "call to action"?

It's complicated. Of course my research is politically relevant, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. But I don't see myself as an activist. I see my role more as a provider of reliable, comprehensible information that is as close to reality as possible, thus enabling decision-makers to take informed decisions. That does not mean that I do not take a stance. However, my task is not to formulate specific political recommendations, but to create a sound data basis on which political debates can be conducted.

What did you learn for your future scientific work?

I am even more convinced that field research is important - and fun. I met incredibly nice, cooperative and thoughtful people. This has a snowball effect: these people, in turn, connect you to others whom you can talk to. You build up a network.

Once you've been in the field, you know the people, you know the stories - and this keeps things rolling. I now have many contacts, and I know exactly whom I could recommend if someone had a question on this topic or that. I find that incredibly valuable - both for my work as a researcher and for me as a person.