How does nature contribute to human mobility? A conceptual framework and qualitative analysis

Abstract

Different types of mobility are known as longstanding strategies used by humans to deal with environmental pressure. Immobility is relevant in this context as population groups may be at considerable risk but lacking the capacity or willingness to move. Despite significant advances in this research field, grasping especially the subjective dimension of people's migration decision remains challenging. Moreover, the conceptualization of cultural factors in this context has received rather marginal attention thus far. In light of this, we propose a framework that integrates the novel concept of nature's contributions to people (NCP) with migration theory, in particular the triad of migration need, ability, and aspiration. NCP goes beyond the popular notion of ecosystem services by conceiving nature-society relations in a more inclusive way with culture being a key element of these. Combined with migration need, ability, and aspiration, we argue that this approach offers a valuable nuanced perspective on nature-mobility interactions, including cultural aspects of natural resource use and varying degrees of agency related to mobility decision making. We apply the framework to two archetypal climate-related migration situations, southwestern coastal Bangladesh and the northern Ethiopian highlands, to delineate the diverse mechanisms through which environmental change shapes population movement in highly resource-dependent livelihoods. We show that based on the analyzed case studies most links can be drawn between material and regulating NCP and migration need, and that nonenvironmental factors play a crucial role in mediating nature's contributions to human mobility. More knowledge is needed though in particular on the influence of nonmaterial NCP on mobility decision making and on migration aspirations in general to better account for important cultural factors. We formulate a number of hypotheses and questions relevant for guiding future research that can inform policy interventions.

Safe from what? Understanding environmental non-migration in Chilean Patagonia through ontological security and risk perceptions

“…These findings have important implications for both environmental migration and non-migration studies: Firstly, this study has demonstrated that for understanding (non-)migration decisions in response to environmental risks, it is promising to broaden the analysis beyond mobility-related factors (such as economic or policy limitations to moving) by considering local realities and people's self-identity in relation to their natural environment. The lens of ontological security, in relation to perceptions of risks and 'migration pressures', can thereby complement and deepen the analysis of migration abilities and aspirations that has in recent years become established in environmental nonmigration research (Harries 2008;Hawkins and Maurer 2011;Harries et al 2018;Wiederkehr et al 2019;Wiegel et al 2019;Mallick and Schanze 2020). In the present case, this approach has helped to explain why the local population has rejected not only the initial outmigration policy, offering social housing and temporary rent subsidies, but also the subsequent relocation policy that ostensibly accounted for the local aspirations of maintaining social networks and place attachment.…”

“…To study environmental non-migration as a phenomenon broader than the lack of (economic) means, a first approach is often to distinguish between (non-)migration aspirations and abilities (Zickgraf 2018;Wiederkehr et al 2019;Wiegel et al 2019;Mallick and Schanze 2020). This distinction emphasizes that 'migration first involves a wish to migrate', or not to migrate, 'and second, the realization of this wish' (Carling 2002: 5).…”

“…One of the few studies aiming to conceptualize non-migration in relation to the aspirations-abilities framework defines the need to migrate as a function of vulnerability, i.e. a person's risk exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Wiederkehr et al 2019). This approach focuses on important external or structural determinants of migration needs but does not provide insights into local sense-making of environmental changes and arising migration pressures.…”

“…In doing so, this paper contributes to academic research that has only recently started to engage with the theme of nonmigration in the context of climate change (Black et al 2013;Adams 2016;Zickgraf 2018Zickgraf , 2019Wiederkehr et al 2019;Mallick and Schanze 2020). Theoretical approaches to 'environmental non-migration' have so far focused on migration decision-making, drawing for example on behavioural theory (Adams 2016;Adams and Kay 2019) and sociocultural dimensions of place attachment (Mortreux and Barnett 2009;Farbotko and McMichael 2019).…”

Contrasting development trajectories for coastal Bangladesh to the end of century

“…Migration is a complex phenomenon driven by processes from the global to individual scale (Black et al 2011;Castles 2013;Czaika and De Haas 2014;De Haas 2010) and thus is difficult to predict. Migration decisions are made on the basis of material factors such as income and visa requirements, nonmaterial factors such as place attachment (Adams 2016), aspirations (Carling and Collins 2018;Wiederkehr et al 2019) and tolerance of risk (Hauer et al 2020). As such, establishing, and being able to generalize absolute thresholds at which a person will migrate, is not presently possible (Adams and Kay 2019;McLeman 2017).…”