A discursive review of the textual use of ‘trapped’ in environmental migration studies: The conceptual birth and troubled teenage years of trapped populations

Abstract

First mooted in 2011, the concept of Trapped Populations referring to people unable to move from environmentally high-risk areas broadened the study of human responses to environmental change. While a seemingly straightforward concept, the underlying discourses around the reasons for being ‘trapped’, and the language describing the concept have profound influences on the way in which policy and practice approaches the needs of populations at risk from environmental stresses and shocks. In this article, we apply a Critical Discourse Analysis to the academic literature on the subject to reveal some of the assumptions implicit within discussing ‘trapped’ populations. The analysis reveals a dominant school of thought that assisted migration, relocation, and resettlement in the face of climate change are potentially effective adaptation strategies along a gradient of migrant agency and governance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-017-1007-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Keeping People in Place: Political Factors of (Im)mobility and Climate Change

“…The study of immobility is relatively young within environmental migration scholarship compared to other areas of research (Zickgraf 2018a;Ayeb-Karlsson et al 2018). It has rarely been studied in its own right, perhaps reflecting a 'mobility bias' (Jónsson 2011;Schewel 2019).…”

“…While capital constraints undoubtedly contribute to trapping people in situ or post-initial movement, as was also found in our own work 3 , the spotlight given to economic factors has yet to be sufficiently shared with other factors of immobility. As this nascent concept evolves, its evidentiary complexity is growing (Ayeb-Karlsson et al 2018). Some recognize the importance of social networks and lack of affective ties outside the community of origin in hindering migration (and even displacement), while others are more inclined to discuss the choice to stay and voluntary immobilities rather than labelling 'trapped populations' (Adams 2016;Farbotko 2018;Suliman et al 2019).…”

“…In recent years, however, scholarly attitudes towards immobility are shifting: actors are moving away from deterministic, sedentary biases that favor immobility a priori. Stimulated by the findings of the UK Foresight Report in 2011, terms like 'trapped populations' emerged, which acknowledge that those who do not move may in fact be amongst the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Foresight 2011;Ayeb-Karlsson et al 2018). Not all people have the same capabilities-or desires for that matter-to leave their homelands for 'greener pastures'.…”

Voluntary immobility and existential security in a changing climate in the Pacific

“…It refers to impoverished people who are unable to move from environmentally high‐risk areas due to lack of resources required to move, with this socio‐economic vulnerability further amplified by the erosion of livelihoods via climate change impacts (Foresight, ; Black and Collyer, ; Nawrotzki and DeWaard, ). The term trapped populations, however, does not acknowledge people's preference or right to stay in a place that others may consider to be environmentally high‐risk (Black and Collyer, ; Ayeb‐Karlsson et al, ). As Ayeb‐Karlsson et al .…”

“…As Ayeb‐Karlsson et al . () caution, labelling a person or population as ‘trapped’ can, like the term ‘vulnerable’, potentially reduce recognition of agency and thus limit independence and self‐determination.…”