A mobilities perspective on migration in the context of environmental change

Abstract

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

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

“…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).…”

“…Increasingly, however, migration is more positively recognized by researchers and policy-makers as a strategy to reduce risks, either by moving from 'dangerous' places or by diversifying family income through the (temporary) migration of household members. As such, it has become regarded as an important alternative to adapting in place (Adger et al 2018;Black et al 2011;Foresight 2011;Klepp 2017;McLeman and Smit 2006;Sakdapolrak et al 2016;Wiegel et al 2019).…”

Emerging research methods in environmental displacement and forced migration research

“…By understanding the central drivers in an individual's social life and whether the movement is desirable, essential, or if a person is capable of doing so, we can better understand the pressure to move (see Wiegel et al., 2019 for a discussion on the relationships evolving between mobility studies and environmental change). Further, more exploration of the conditions people face once they have been displaced is needed.…”

Methods as Moving Ground: Reflections on the ‘Doings’ of Mobile Methodologies

“…We touched upon different cultural expectations about who can move and we discussed how mobilities may actually entail long periods of immobility. This also underscored how mobility and immobility are closely interlinked (Wiegel et al, 2019), leading some of us to adapt our methodologies to do more research in place. The mobile approach may turn out to be more local than expected; more stable than expected; slower or more fragmented than expected, etcetera, requiring a constant need to adapt to these dynamics.…”

“…Other scholars encounter immobility and permanence in a presumed culture of mobility (Gaibazzi, 2015). In theory, mobility studies see mobility and immobility as dialectically constitutive (Wiegel, Boas, & Warner, 2019), though in practice a 'moving with' approach risks ignoring these immobilities and, more specifically, the gendered notions of mobility/immobility relations (Reeves, 2011). In other words, who we follow (and who we do not follow) has implications for doing mobility research and the researcher's understanding of mobility processes.…”