“…The dominant academic, political, and policy debates about the connection between environmental change and human migration have long focused on migration drivers and outcomes, rather than on the diverse practices and meanings attached to such movements. As demonstrated in previous review studies (see Bettini, ; Bettini & Gioli, ; Bettini, Nash, & Gioli, ), the focus of the debate has been characterized by a discursive divide between the so‐called “alarmist”/pessimistic positions predicting masses of “climate refugees” uprooted by environmental changes in the future, posing risks to the security and stability of the international community (e.g., Myers, ; for a critique see Hartmann, ), versus more “optimistic” voices that consider local and regional migrations an important strategy to adapt to environmental changes (Foresight, ; R. McLeman & Smit, ). These debates are based on different presumptions as to who moves, from where people move, the numbers of migrations, the direction of movement, and the distances migrants cover.…”