Climate migration myths Misleading claims about mass migration induced by climate change continue to surface in both academia and policy. This requires a new research agenda on 'climate mobilities' that moves beyond simplistic assumptions and more accurately advances knowledge of the nexus between human mobility and climate change.
Academic, political, and policy debates about the connection between environmental change and human migration have long focused on migration drivers and outcomes, resulting in a limited discussion between the discourses of “desolate climate refugees” and “environmental migrants as agents of adaptation.” These perspectives remain dominant, particularly in policy and media circles, despite academic critique and the recent emergence of more diverse approaches. In this intervention, we contribute to the recent turn in environmental migration research by seeking to better ground and pluralize our understanding of how environmental change and human mobility relate. We do so by offering a mobilities perspective that centers on the practices, motives, and experiences of mobility and immobility in the context of environmental change: When and why do people decide to move—or not to move—in response to environmental changes? How do they cope with migration pressures? Where do they move, under what conditions, and who can or must stay behind? This approach attends to the diverse aspirations and differential capabilities that underlie particular practices of movement or nonmovement, reflecting both individual characteristics as well as interconnections with uneven power relations across local, regional, and global scales. A mobilities approach offers a starting point for an expanded research agenda on environmental im/mobilities. This enables academic analysis and policy discussion of the human (im)mobility‐environmental change nexus to become better attuned to the actual practice and heterogeneous needs of those affected.
This article is categorized under:
Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development
Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation
Why do communities prefer to stay in place despite potentially dangerous changes in their environment, even when governmental support for outmigration or resettlement is provided? That is the key question this paper seeks to answer. Voluntary immobility is a burgeoning research topic in environmental change-related migration studies, although the role of local sense-making of perceived risks and migration pressures has received only little attention. In order to examine decisions for non-migration, we argue that we need to consider people’s ontological security, or subjective sense of existential safety, which shapes risk perceptions. We apply this to the case of Villa Santa Lucía in Chilean Patagonia, where the local population has rejected relocation policies after the village was severely damaged by a mudslide in December 2017. We show how this rejection is not based on the lack of abilities to move, but on a fundamentally different risk assessment grounded in locally specific social representations of nature and human-nature relations. This alternative understanding of environmental risks allows the local population to uphold their sense of ontological security while remaining in Villa Santa Lucía, and renders relocation to avoid exposure to natural hazards futile or even inconsistent with local identities. We conclude that local sense-making of environmental risks is an important component of a more fine-grained understanding of environmental non-migration decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.