Final Environmental Risk Assessment: Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and Nigeria

Milestone 1 – Country Selection, Outline, and Abstract

Abstract

For the first stage of the risk assessment project, I chose to examine Nigeria and Bangladesh. They are in different regions of the world, but both are facing major issues with rapid population growth, poverty, and environmental change. Nigeria, already Africa’s largest country by population, could double in size by 2050. This growth is happening while Lake Chad is shrinking and food insecurity is on the rise, which puts more pressure on its government and even its neighbors in the Lake Chad Basin. Bangladesh faces a different but equally tough situation. It is one of the most crowded countries on earth, and climate change is expected to make life even harder with sea-level rise, cyclones, and saltwater intrusion destroying farmland. Both cases show how population, poverty, resources, and environmental pressures overlap to create conflict risks, though the exact issues look different in each place.

Outline

I. Nigeria (West Africa)

A. Population

Expected to reach around 400 million people by 2050 (United Nations 2022).
Very young population — more than 40% are under 15.
Big pressures in cities like Lagos and in the north.

B. Poverty

About 40% of people live below the poverty line (World Bank 2023).
Poverty is worst in the rural north, which fuels migration.
Dependence on oil exports makes inequality worse.

C. Resources

Lake Chad has lost about 90% of its size since the 1960s (UNEP 2018).
Rising conflicts between farmers and herders.
Cross-border tensions over water use with Niger, Cameroon, and Chad.

D. Environment

Deforestation and desertification spreading in the north.
Flooding and erosion are getting worse with climate change.
Environmental decline linked to displacement and extremist activity.

II. Bangladesh (South Asia)

A. Population

Likely to pass 200 million by 2050.
One of the densest populations worldwide (~1,200 per sq. km).
Migration from rural areas into Dhaka is straining services.

B. Poverty

Poverty rates have gone down, but about 20% remain below the line (World Bank 2023).
Coastal communities hit hardest by natural disasters.
Migration patterns deepen inequality.

C. Resources

Agriculture is vulnerable to flooding and saltwater intrusion.
Long-running disputes with India over Ganges water allocation.
Future concerns about Brahmaputra River management.

D. Environment

Climate change is the biggest threat — sea-level rise could displace 13–20 million by 2050 (IPCC 2021).
Cyclones and monsoon floods are frequent.
Salinization is reducing the amount of usable farmland.

Milestone 2 – Introduction, Literature Review, and Comparative Analysis

Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment: Nigeria and Bangladesh

Introduction

This paper compares the environmental risk factors shaping instability in Nigeria and Bangladesh. Both nations face intertwined pressures from population growth, poverty, and environmental degradation, but the ways those risks play out differ. Nigeria’s challenges stem from oil dependence, desertification, and deep regional inequality, while Bangladesh faces flooding, salinization, and the threat of climate-driven displacement. Drawing on Diehl and Gleditsch’s Environmental Conflict: An Anthology (2001), this analysis highlights how demographic stress, limited resources, and institutional weakness interact to heighten the potential for ecological conflict.

Figure 1 — Political Map of Nigeria:

Figure 2 — Political Map of Bangladesh:

Population Pressure

Population growth sits at the core of both countries’ environmental strain. Nigeria’s population has surpassed 230 million and continues to grow at a rate of about 2.4 percent annually, with a median age under 19 (UN DESA, 2023). This youth bulge puts heavy pressure on housing, education, and jobs, especially in the north, where desertification and insecurity push families southward. Migration into major cities, such as Lagos and Abuja, fuels unplanned urban expansion and competition over scarce water and land resources (Cincotta 2017).

Bangladesh tells a different story but with a similar outcome. It is one of the most densely populated nations in the world, with an average of over 1,200 people per square kilometer (World Bank, 2023). Each monsoon season forces millions to move, swelling urban slums and straining sanitation systems. Environments (2023) notes that this constant movement transforms temporary displacement into a normal survival strategy, linking environmental stress directly to social instability.

In short, Nigeria’s demographic challenge is tied to economic opportunity and governance, while Bangladesh’s is rooted in geography. Both fit Diehl and Gleditsch’s (2001, 39–41) idea of “compound scarcity,” where social and environmental pressures reinforce each other until stability begins to erode.

Poverty and Socio-Economic Stress

Despite vast oil wealth, Nigeria remains one of the poorest large economies. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (2022), about 40 percent of Nigerians live below the poverty line. Oil revenues rarely reach local communities, especially in the Niger Delta, where contamination and unemployment fuel frustration. Adeniran (2020) argues that inequality and pollution together create a cycle of resentment and protest that undermines trust in government.

Bangladesh, by contrast, has cut poverty in half since 2000 through garment exports and overseas remittances, bringing the poverty rate to around 18 percent (World Bank 2023). Yet, those gains are fragile. Repeated flooding and cyclones erase livelihoods overnight. BMC Public Health 2023 describes how families fall into “climate poverty traps,” rebuilding only to lose everything again after the next disaster.

Both countries show how poverty and environment interact: economic hardship drives unsustainable land use, deforestation, and overfishing, which then deepen poverty. This feedback loop mirrors Diehl’s broader argument that deprivation and degradation often feed one another more than they can be separated.

Resource Scarcity and Management

In Nigeria, oil dominates nearly every aspect of environmental management. The Niger Delta produces more than 90 percent of export revenue but suffers from chronic spills—roughly 13 million barrels since 1958 (Okoli 2022). Polluted waterways and ruined farmland leave residents without livelihoods. Farther north, the shrinking of Lake Chad—down 90 percent since the 1960s—has intensified clashes between farmers and herders competing for land and water (Diehl and Gleditsch 2001, 113).

Bangladesh faces its own scarcity, but water—not oil—is at the center. The country shares 54 rivers with India, and upstream withdrawals disrupt irrigation and drinking supplies. Rising salinity from sea-level rise pushes saltwater deep into once-fertile areas. Environments (2023) explains that disputes over river management ripple through rural economies, increasing inequality and migration.

Both examples reveal that scarcity becomes a political issue when institutions cannot manage it. Nigeria’s centralized oil system and Bangladesh’s transboundary river dependency both create vulnerability, but for opposite reasons—one from over-exploitation, the other from lack of control.

Environmental Degradation

Nigeria’s environmental losses are visible on land. Desertification in the north advances roughly 0.6 kilometers each year, threatening more than 15 million hectares of farmland (FAO 2022). Deforestation for agriculture and fuelwood erodes topsoil and worsens flooding during rainy seasons. Unregulated mining adds contamination to already stressed aquifers. The United Nations (2023) lists Nigeria among the world’s ten most degraded nations.

Bangladesh’s degradation is largely coastal. Sea levels rising about 7 millimeters annually could submerge 17 percent of its land and displace 10 million people by 2050 (IPCC 2023). Saltwater intrusion now stretches nearly 100 kilometers inland, harming rice yields and prompting many farmers to turn to shrimp ponds that further degrade mangroves. Urban air pollution, driven by brick kilns and traffic, compounds the health risks.

Diehl’s framework helps explain the common thread: ecological decline weakens livelihoods, and when survival feels uncertain, social cohesion frays. Nigeria’s degradation comes mostly from land misuse; Bangladesh’s comes from the sea. Either way, both demonstrate how environmental stress can quietly evolve into a security risk.

Table 1 – Key Environmental Risk Indicators (2023 data)

Category

Nigeria

Bangladesh

Comparative Risk

Population (millions)

230

172

Nigeria higher strain on infrastructure

Annual growth rate %

2.4

1.0

Nigeria faster growth

Poverty headcount %

40

18

Nigeria higher poverty

Access to safe water %

70

88

Better in Bangladesh

CO₂ per capita (t)

0.7

0.6

Comparable

Deforestation % annual

3.5

1.0

Nigeria greater loss

Flood exposure % of population

12

28

Bangladesh higher exposure

Sea-level rise impact

Low to moderate

High (coastal loss)

Bangladesh greater risk

Desertification impact

High (north Sahel region)

Low

Nigeria greater risk

(Sources: UN DESA 2023; World Bank 2023; FAO 2022; IPCC 2023.)

Comparative Analysis

Although the environmental threats differ, the underlying vulnerabilities are remarkably similar. Both Nigeria and Bangladesh struggle with rapid population growth, poverty, and weak governance. The difference lies in how those pressures surface.

In Nigeria, environmental issues often turn violent. Oil wealth fuels corruption, while northern desertification drives internal migration and clashes between herders and farmers. When the state cannot mediate disputes, ecological stress translates directly into security problems.

In Bangladesh, the danger is slower and more diffuse. Flooding and coastal erosion cause constant displacement, and the burden of adaptation falls on poor households. The government has invested in disaster management, but as McCormick (2018) notes, even effective democracies can struggle when short-term politics overshadow long-term environmental planning.

Comparatively, Nigeria shows greater conflict potential due to institutional failure, while Bangladesh faces higher environmental exposure due to geography. Diehl and Gleditsch (2001, 157–59) stress that regime type alone does not determine success—capacity does. Both nations demonstrate that environmental security depends on functioning, inclusive institutions rather than on democracy in name only.

Regional cooperation efforts illustrate this. Nigeria’s Lake Chad Basin Commission and Bangladesh’s Ganges-Brahmaputra treaties both attempt to manage shared resources but suffer from inconsistent funding and enforcement. Non-governmental organizations, such as the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) in Bangladesh and local conservation networks in Nigeria, fill part of that gap; yet their work also highlights what’s missing—sustained government accountability.

Synthesis

Across these two cases, environmental conflict risk emerges from the same intersection: population pressure, poverty, and fragile institutions. Neither Nigeria’s oil wealth nor Bangladesh’s economic growth has broken that cycle. Both show that resilience is not just about resources but about governance—the ability to plan, coordinate, and share benefits fairly.

Where governments manage stress transparently, as Bangladesh has done with its cyclone-shelter network and community warnings, environmental shocks become manageable. Where they fail, as in parts of Nigeria’s Delta region, even abundant natural wealth becomes a source of instability.

Conclusion

Nigeria and Bangladesh represent two sides of the same sustainability challenge. Their problems differ—land versus water—but both stem from uneven development and fragile institutions. As Diehl and Gleditsch (2001) argue, unchecked environmental degradation erodes not only ecosystems but also political legitimacy.

For Nigeria, lasting stability will require economic diversification and stronger environmental regulation in oil-producing areas. For Bangladesh, resilience will depend on continued investment in adaptation and fair water-sharing with its neighbors. In both nations, the question is not whether they can grow, but whether they can grow without exhausting the systems that sustain them.

These findings set the stage for the next phase of analysis—evaluating policy responses in Milestone 3—to determine which national and international strategies show the greatest promise for turning environmental risk into long-term security.

Milestone 3 – Evaluate Risk & Policy Responses to Risk

Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment: Bangladesh and Nigeria

Introduction

Environmental risk management in Bangladesh and Nigeria demonstrates how national governance, international cooperation, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) collaborate to address the interconnected crises of population pressure, poverty, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. Both countries experience high exposure to climate shocks—floods and cyclones in Bangladesh, and droughts and oil-related pollution in Nigeria—but their capacities to respond differ significantly. This section assesses how each state addresses ecological risk through formal policy, international collaboration, and community-level action, identifying where implementation is successful or unsuccessful.

Bangladesh — Policy and Institutional Responses

National Frameworks

Bangladesh has developed a dense network of climate-governance instruments. The Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP 2009) established six thematic pillars—from food security to disaster management—guided by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Its companion, Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 (2018), integrates water, land-use, and economic planning to counter sea-level rise and riverine erosion. Together, they represent one of the Global South’s most sophisticated adaptation roadmaps.

However, implementation remains uneven. Budget allocations favor structural engineering projects over social protection, and inter-agency overlap often slows execution (World Bank 2023). Enforcement of the Environment Conservation Act (1995) and subsequent EIA rules is further hindered by political patronage and limited monitoring capacity.

International Engagement

Bangladesh is a founding signatory to the Paris Agreement and a leading voice within the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF). International partnerships, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF), finance coastal embankments, solar micro-grids, and adaptive agriculture. The World Bank’s Climate Resilience Program (2021–25) channels nearly $1 billion toward infrastructure upgrading, while UNDP’s “Nature-Based Solutions for Resilience” project empowers local governments to blend mangrove restoration with livelihood training. These multilateral programs enhance adaptive capacity but also reinforce aid dependency, as over 60 percent of project funding remains donor-driven.

Role of NGOs

Domestic NGOs fill critical governance gaps. BRAC—initially the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee—operates nationwide climate-smart microfinance and women-led disaster-response initiatives. WaterAid, CARE Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies are piloting rainwater harvesting, resilient housing, and education outreach. Their community-based approach builds social trust and local accountability, traits often absent from central bureaucracy. However, coordination between NGOs and ministries is inconsistent, leading to duplication of effort.

Policy Effectiveness

Bangladesh’s adaptation architecture demonstrates strong policy intent but weak institutional coherence. Where donor alignment occurs—such as in flood forecasting and cyclone shelters—outcomes are measurable and tangible. In governance terms, Bangladesh performs better at risk reduction than at resource sustainability: reforestation lags, groundwater extraction accelerates, and urban pollution undermines health gains. Nonetheless, its long-term strategy (Delta Plan 2100) signals political recognition that climate resilience is inseparable from national security.

Nigeria — Policy and Institutional Responses

National Frameworks

Nigeria’s environmental policy landscape mirrors its federal complexity. The National Climate Change Policy (NCCP 2021) sets mitigation and adaptation targets aligned with SDG 13, while the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) (est. 2007) monitors compliance across oil, mining, and agricultural sectors. Complementing these efforts is the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA), which is designed to contain and respond to petroleum contamination in the Niger Delta.

In practice, enforcement remains inconsistent. Chronic underfunding, political interference, and overlapping mandates dilute results (Akpabio, 2020). The Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC)—created in 2000 to mitigate ecological damage—has faced allegations of corruption and misallocation of relief funds.

International Engagement

Nigeria is a party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Great Green Wall Initiative, a continental program aimed at combating desertification across the Sahel. The World Bank’s Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (NEWMAP 2013-2022) successfully reduced soil loss in seven states through reforestation and gully rehabilitation. The EU-funded Climate Change Policy Response Programme (CCPRP 2022) supports capacity building within energy ministries to expand renewables beyond hydro and gas. Still, international programs often bypass local institutions, limiting community ownership.

Role of NGOs and Civil Society

Civil organizations, such as Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) and the Niger Delta Women’s Movement for Peace and Development, advocate for environmental justice, pollution cleanup, and equitable distribution of oil revenue. Faith-based initiatives—such as Caritas Nigeria’s “Eco-Justice Project”—provide alternative channels for environmental education. Despite limited funding, these NGOs improve transparency and grassroots monitoring. Their advocacy, however, occasionally provokes state resistance when it challenges the interests of the petroleum industry.

Policy Effectiveness

Nigeria’s environmental governance suffers from a disconnect between legal frameworks and political will. While NCCP (2021) aligns with global decarbonization trends, economic dependence on crude exports discourages strict implementation. The NDDC’s poor accountability contrasts with the modest successes under NEWMAP, demonstrating that international oversight can improve outcomes. Security challenges, including militancy and oil theft, further constrain ecological restoration. The net effect is policy stagnation amid climate escalation.

Comparative Analysis: Policy Gaps and Effectiveness

Criteria

Bangladesh

Nigeria

Primary Risks

Flooding, salinity intrusion, overpopulation

Oil pollution, deforestation, desertification

Core National Plan

BCCSAP (2009); Delta Plan 2100 (2018)

NCCP (2021); NESREA Act (2007)

Governance Strength

Moderate; centralized coordination, donor aligned

Weak; fragmented enforcement, corruption

International Integration

High—active in CVF, UNDP, World Bank

Moderate—UNFCCC, Great Green Wall, EU aid

NGO Role

Strong community partnerships (BRAC, CARE)

Advocacy and monitoring (ERA/FoEN, Caritas)

Major Constraint

Institutional overlap, resource dependency

Political instability, oil dependence

Effectiveness Level

Moderate–High

Low–Moderate

Both countries rely heavily on external aid and civil-society engagement to offset weak enforcement. Bangladesh excels at long-term adaptation planning, while Nigeria focuses on reactive mitigation. Donor coordination enhances Bangladesh’s resilience metrics, whereas Nigeria’s governance crisis undermines program continuity. However, each case reveals the same structural flaw: environmental sustainability is treated as an adjunct to development rather than its foundation.

Conclusion

Evaluating policy responses in Bangladesh and Nigeria underscores a common principle: ecological resilience depends less on written policy than on institutional integrity. Bangladesh demonstrates incremental success through coordinated planning and collaboration between NGOs and the government; Nigeria exhibits progressive legislation but minimal enforcement. In both contexts, the gap between ambition and implementation remains wide.

Future progress hinges on integrating community participation into national frameworks, strengthening environmental courts, and diversifying economies away from ecologically destructive industries. As Diehl and Gleditsch (2001) argue, sustainable governance is the only long-term mechanism for conflict prevention. Without it, environmental stressors will continue to convert natural scarcity into political instability.

Milestone 4 – Final Environmental Risk Assessment

Comparative Analysis of Bangladesh and Nigeria

Introduction

Environmental security challenges across the Global South reflect a complex interplay of population pressure, poverty, governance, and climate change, highlighting the interconnected nature of these issues. Bangladesh and Nigeria serve as two distinct yet interconnected case studies that illustrate how institutional strength determines whether environmental stress produces resilience or instability. Both countries face mounting risks: Bangladesh from coastal flooding and salinity, and Nigeria from desertification and oil-related degradation. This final assessment integrates findings from Milestones 1 through 3 and forecasts each nation’s environmental trajectory through 2050. It evaluates risk levels, identifies drivers of eco-conflict, and recommends strategies for sustainable governance.

Forecast and Risk Assessment: 2035–2050

As environmental pressures intensify across both nations, the critical factor shaping outcomes will be governance capacity—the ability of institutions to implement, monitor, and adapt policies under stress.

Bangladesh: Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity

By 2050, sea levels along Bangladesh’s coast are projected to rise by 7 millimeters per year, potentially leading to the permanent submersion of up to 17 percent of its territory (IPCC, 2023). While the Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 and Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) offer comprehensive adaptation frameworks, challenges remain in funding, coordination, and enforcement. Flood-resilient agriculture and mangrove reforestation have shown promise, but their distribution is uneven. Rural-to-urban migration is expected to accelerate, potentially leading to the emergence of new forms of urban poverty and social tension. The country’s most significant asset lies in its social capital: a robust NGO network and a population increasingly engaged in local governance.

Nigeria: Resource Dependency and Political Fragility

Nigeria’s environmental risks stem from intertwined demographic and economic pressures. Population growth is projected to surpass 400 million by mid-century, while desertification and oil pollution continue to erode livelihoods and ecosystems. The Great Green Wall and Erosion and Watershed Management programs have produced limited localized success but struggle against weak enforcement and corruption. Without significant diversification from oil dependency, Nigeria risks deepening inequality and expanding zones of insecurity, particularly in the Niger Delta and northern regions. However, scaling renewable energy projects and empowering local councils could shift the country toward more sustainable development.

Comparative Risk Table: Environmental Conflict Forecast (2035–2050)

Category

Bangladesh Risk Level

Nigeria Risk Level

Evidence / Indicators

Recommended Actions (by 2050)

Environmental Degradation

High

High

Bangladesh: 17% land loss; salinity intrusion (IPCC 2023). Nigeria: 90% Lake Chad shrinkage; deforestation (FAO 2022).

Bangladesh – Expand mangrove restoration; improve desalination. Nigeria – Restore Niger Delta wetlands; regulate mining and oil extraction.

State Conflict

Moderate

High

Bangladesh: localized water protests; NGO cooperation. Nigeria: herder-farmer clashes; Niger Delta unrest (Akpabio 2020).

Strengthen environmental courts; tie adaptation funding to transparency; integrate climate security into national defense.

Civil Rights / Human Security

Moderate–High

High

Bangladesh: climate migration and gender disparities (BRAC 2023). Nigeria: repression of activists; pollution-linked displacement.

Expand legal protection for environmental defenders; scale women-led livelihood programs.

Economic Stability

Moderate

Low–Moderate

Bangladesh: export-driven adaptation economy; donor dependence. Nigeria: oil revenue volatility; rising inflation.

Promote green entrepreneurship; diversify exports; develop renewable energy industries.

Governance Capacity

Moderate–High

Low

Bangladesh: centralized planning with donor alignment. Nigeria: corruption and fragmented policy agencies.

Institutional reform; decentralize environmental oversight; enhance digital monitoring of aid projects.

Synthesis: Emerging Trends

Both Bangladesh and Nigeria demonstrate that environmental risk is less about exposure and more about governance. Climate migration will significantly impact social and political dynamics across both regions, affecting food security, employment, and urbanization. Bangladesh’s adaptive planning framework may contain instability if local voices are integrated, while Nigeria’s dependence on resource rents and patronage systems risks escalating unrest. The critical trend is a widening governance gap: where policy coherence exists, adaptation succeeds; where corruption dominates, environmental risk becomes political risk.

Conclusion and Reflection

The environmental trajectories of Bangladesh and Nigeria highlight a central truth of ecological security: sustainability depends not only on natural endowments, but also on the quality of governance that manages them. Both countries confront rising pressures from climate change, population growth, and resource scarcity. However, their divergent policy outcomes show how institutional strength, public participation, and social trust determine whether these pressures evolve into adaptation or collapse.

Bangladesh demonstrates the potential of planned resilience. Its national frameworks—the Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) and the Delta Plan 2100—reflect a proactive integration of science, policy, and local adaptation. These programs have reduced disaster mortality rates and increased access to renewable energy. However, their dependence on international donors exposes long-term vulnerability. To sustain progress, Bangladesh must transition from donor-driven resilience to self-financed, decentralized governance that empowers communities to manage their own adaptive infrastructure.

Nigeria, by contrast, illustrates how environmental policy can falter when political will and accountability are lacking. Despite multiple legislative frameworks, enforcement remains sporadic, and the extraction-based economy perpetuates inequality. The Niger Delta continues to experience pollution, displacement, and recurring violence. Nevertheless, Nigeria’s participation in the Great Green Wall and watershed rehabilitation projects suggests that progress is still possible if reform targets corruption and strengthens local institutions. Environmental courts and transparent community-benefit mechanisms could turn ecological policy into a foundation for peace rather than unrest.

At the global level, both nations exemplify the broader challenge of the Global South: how to achieve development without exacerbating environmental degradation. Climate finance initiatives—such as the Green Climate Fund—can help bridge capacity gaps, but they must be paired with internal accountability mechanisms. As Diehl and Gleditsch (2001) emphasize, ecological conflict arises when governance collapses under environmental stress; conversely, sustainability thrives when policy legitimacy and citizen trust align.

Citizens and civil society will ultimately determine the trajectory of both countries. NGOs, youth movements, and local women’s cooperatives have become de facto agents of environmental governance. In Bangladesh, BRAC’s community networks connect adaptation directly to livelihood security. In Nigeria, organizations like Environmental Rights Action (ERA) provide a platform for marginalized voices to be heard. Their advocacy exemplifies how environmental stability cannot be imposed from above—it must be co-created from below, through participation, education, and inclusive policy.

In forecasting future ecological risk, both countries illustrate the same paradox: vulnerability and resilience coexist. Geography may dictate exposure, but governance dictates survival. The challenge ahead is to transform environmental stress into cooperation—within borders and beyond them. As climate change accelerates, the measure of success will not be the absence of conflict but the presence of institutions strong enough to manage it peacefully.

Bibliography

Akpabio, Emmanuel M., and Sunday Akpan. 2020. “Oil, Environment, and Conflict in the Niger Delta.” Environmental Science & Policy 109: 120–129.

BRAC. 2023. “Annual Report: Building Resilient Communities.” Dhaka. https://www.brac.net.

Cincotta, Richard. “Demographic Security Comes of Age.” Environmental Change and Security Program Report, vol. 13, no. 1 (2017): 23–33. Washington, DC: Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/demographic-security-comes-age

Cincotta, Richard. 2017. “Population Age Structure and Its Relation to Civil Conflict: A Graphic Metric.” Environmental Change & Security Program Report. Washington, DC: Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/population-age-structure-and-its-relation-to-civil-conflict-graphic-metric

Diehl, Paul. 2001. Environmental Conflict: An Anthology. Boulder, Colo: Routledge. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=200605&site=eds-live.

Dode, R. O. 2012. “The Political Economy of the Resource Curse and the Challenge of the Niger Delta Crisis.” European Journal of Sustainable Development 1 (2): 141–55. https://ecsdev.org/ojs/index.php/ejsd/article/view/16

Environments. 2023. “Transboundary Water Governance Scholarship: A Critical Review.” Environments 10 (2): 27. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/10/2/27

FAO. 2022. State of the World’s Forests 2022. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/f81551bf-0a78-498b-a0a6-17f21467389d/content

Government of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100. Dhaka: Planning Commission, 2018. https://bdp2100kp.gov.bd/

Hassan, R., Hossain, M., Mahbub, M. et al. Unhealthy food consumption and its determinants among children aged 6–23 months in Bangladesh: insights from the Demographic and Health Survey 2022. BMC Public Health 25, 2498 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23668-2

IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

IPCC. 2023. Sixth Assessment Report: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

Mai-Bornu, Zainab Ladan. 2020. Political Violence and Oil in Africa: The Case of Nigeria. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45525-5

McCormick, John. 2018. Environmental Politics and Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/978-1-137-60032-2

NBS (National Bureau of Statistics). 2022. Multidimensional Poverty Index Report. Abuja: Government of Nigeria. https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary/read/1241103

NESREA (National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency). 2021. National Climate Change Policy. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Environment. https://nesrea.gov.ng/

UN DESA. 2023. World Population Prospects 2023. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://population.un.org/wpp/

UNDP. 2022. “Nature-Based Solutions for Resilience in Bangladesh.” New York: United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org.

UNEP. 2018. “The Tale of a Disappearing Lake.” UNEP News and Stories, February 28, 2018. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/tale-disappearing-lake.

UNEP. 2023. Global Land Outlook Update. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unccd.int/resources/global-land-outlook

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Nigeria Situation: Regional Update. Geneva: UNHCR, 2023. https://data.unhcr.org/en/country/nga

United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf

Vishwanath, Ambika. 2018. “Paddling Upstream: Transboundary Water Politics in South Asia.” Carnegie India. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2018/10/paddling-upstream-transboundary-water-politics-in-south-asia?lang=en

World Bank. 2023. Bangladesh Climate Resilience Program Progress Report 2021–2023. Washington, DC. https://documents.worldbank.org.

World Bank. 2023. Bangladesh Development Update. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/cf07cf58f2c345063c972a47209b8c11-0310012023/original/Bangladesh-Development-Update-October-2023.pdf

World Bank. 2023. Poverty and Equity Brief: Bangladesh. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/poverty-and-equity-data-portal

World Bank. 2024. World Development Indicators: Nigeria and Bangladesh. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators

World Bank. Nigeria Development Update: Seizing the Opportunity. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria/publication/nigeria-development-update-ndu

Home

About Me

Resume

Milestone 4-Final Environmental Risk Assessment