Putting trapped populations into place: climate change and inter-district migration flows in Zambia

Abstract

Research shows that the association between adverse climate conditions and human migration is heterogeneous. One reason for this heterogeneity is the differential vulnerability of to climate change. This includes highly vulnerable, "trapped" populations that are too poor to migrate given deep and persistent poverty, the financial costs of migrating, and the erosion of already fragile economic livelihoods under climate change. Another reason for this heterogeneity is the differential vulnerability of. However, despite the growing list of studies showing that the climate-migration relationship clearly varies across places, there is surprisingly little research on the characteristics of places themselves that trap, or immobilize, populations. Accordingly, we provide the first account of the "holding power" of places in the association between adverse climate conditions and migration flows among 55 districts in Zambia in 2000 and 2010. Methodologically, we combine high resolution climate information with aggregated census micro data to estimate gravity models of inter-district migration flows. Results reveal that the association between adverse climate conditions and migration is positive only for wealthy migrant-sending districts. In contrast, poor districts are characterized by climate-related immobility. Yet, our findings show that access to migrant networks enables climate related mobility in the poorest districts, suggesting a viable pathway to overcome mobility constraints. Planners and policy makers need to recognize the holding power of places that can trap populations and develop programs to support adaptation and to facilitate migration to avoid humanitarian emergencies.

Climate Migration at the Height and End of the Great Mexican Emigration Era

“…These findings are overall consistent with research across lower‐ and middle‐income nations, suggesting that adverse climate conditions are more likely to stimulate internal and shorter‐distance moves (e.g Henry, Schoumaker, and Beauchemin ; Massey, Axinn, and Ghimire ) or even to “trap” populations in place (Gray , ; Gray and Mueller ; Nawrotzki and DeWaard ). In the case presented here, we stop short of arguing that our findings are a clear indication of a trapping mechanism, however, as our study did not examine whether US migration is substituted for lower‐risk forms of population mobility within Mexico during times of climatic variability.…”

“…As we discuss in the next section, longer‐distance or international movement may be (i) unlikely altogether; (ii) likely only in settings or households more resilient in the face of shocks; or (iii) likely only where the costs of migration are low because of a well‐established migratory tradition and the resulting networks. Because migration is costly in the immediate aftermath of losses related to environmental stress (Nawrotzki and DeWaard ), climate variability may “trap” populations in‐place (Gray , ; Gray and Mueller ; Nawrotzki and DeWaard ) or otherwise discourage them from migrating longer distances.…”

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

“…With many acknowledging the need to migrate and the potential benefits of migration, immobility became the (potentially) abnormal, undesirable response to such adverse conditions. Academics, NGOs and IOs have begun to at least acknowledge that climate change and environmental degradation will not always result in migration, and can in fact limit mobility options (Murphy 2014;Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava 2016;Nawrotzki and DeWaard 2018;Rigaud et al 2018). Unlike previous work that nearly exclusively referenced migration or displacement 2 under the 'mobility umbrella', this body of literature integrates immobility within the mobilities paradigm, as a mobility outcome in the wake of an extreme environmental event (Black et al 2013;Hasegawa 2013) or slow-onset changes (Black et al 2011;Adams 2016;Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava 2016;Farbotko 2018).…”

Repetitive floods intensify outmigration and climate gentrification in coastal cities

“…A theoretical model suggests that as floods intensify and risk information diffuses, flood-prone areas become gradually unattractive creating economic stimuli for outmigration [23]. Yet, empirical exploration of these socio-economic process are scarce, with little knowledge on possible thresholds and distributional impacts of this process across populations and places [24]. In particular, a quantitative study bringing these aspects together is missing.…”