Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and conflict is flawed because the research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy^1,2,3,4. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’⁵). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent^6,7,8. Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–conflict research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that research on climate change and violent conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that research on climate change and conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence.

批评者认为，气候变化与冲突之间存在关联的证据是有缺陷的，因为该研究依赖于因变量抽样策略^1,2,3,4。类似地，已经假设访问的便利性使所研究的案例样本偏颇（“路灯效应” ⁵）。这也引起了这样的说法，即气候冲突文献将某些地方污蔑为“自然”暴力^6,7,8。但是，还没有证据表明这种采样方式。在这里，我们通过系统地回顾文献来检验气候冲突研究是否基于这种有偏见的样本。我们证明，对气候变化和暴力冲突的研究受到路灯效应的困扰。此外，特别是针对少数几个案例的研究强烈地从发生冲突的案例中获悉，没有对自变量（气候影响或风险）进行抽样，因此倾向于在​​这两个变量之间找到某种关联。这些偏见意味着对气候变化和冲突的研究主要集中在几个可访问的地区，夸大了这两种现象之间的联系，无法解释气候变化带来的和平结果。