Time to Mainstream the Environment into Migration Theory?

Abstract

As with all social processes, human migration is a dynamic process that requires regular theoretical reflection. This article offers such reflection as related to the role of the natural environment in contemporary migration research and theory. A growing body of evidence suggests that environmental contexts, as shifting social and ecological realities, are consequential to migration theory. In this article, we review some of this evidence, providing migration research examples that integrate environmental context and are applicable to core migration theories, including neoclassical economic and migration systems perspectives, the “push-pull” framework, and the new economics of labor migration. We suggest that neglecting consideration of the natural environment may yield misspecified migration models that attribute migration too heavily to social and economic factors, particularly in the context of contemporary climate change. On the other hand, we suggest, failure to consider migration theory in climate scenarios may lead to simplistic projections and understandings, as in the case of “climate refugees.” We conclude that migration researchers have an obligation to accurately reflect the complexity of migration's drivers, including the environment, within migration scholarship, especially in the context of global climate change.

Keywords

climate environment migration theory

Introduction

A variety of disciplinary perspectives come together to inform migration theory, including economics, geography, political science, and sociology (e.g., White 2016; Wickramasinghe and Wimalaratana 2016). Together, these perspectives have provided the lenses through which migration scholars have examined and advanced understandings of population movement for decades (e.g., O’Reilly 2015). Yet, as Zolberg noted (1989, 404), the most “stimulating” migration theory is that which pays “appropriate attention to the changing specificities of time and space,” and this “historicization of migration theory implies that theoretical concerns and emphases must be modified in the light of changing social realities.” In this article, we suggest that contemporary climate change is yielding new socioeconomic, political, and ecological realities of relevance to migration theory.

An increasing body of evidence identifies an environmental ‘signal’ in migration, as households engage migration as an adaptive strategy in the face of environmental stress (e.g., Antwi-Agyei and Nyantakyi-Frimpong 2021). Especially in the context of contemporary climate change, such findings suggest that migration scholars may be well served by regularly, and critically, considering aspects of the natural environment as context. Findings from such environmentally informed research are critical to further refining migration theory. Specifically, if environmental factors play a role in migration processes but are excluded from migration theory and, subsequently, empirical models, migration researchers risk omitted variable bias in which the effects of missing variables are attributed to included variables. Such misspecified models can yield biased estimates and, therefore, an incomplete (or worse, incorrect) understanding of the processes under investigation.¹

We build on Piguet’s (2013) useful articulation of the presence, absence, and re-emergence of environmental considerations in migration research since the late 1880s to articulate the implications of failure to include environmental factors in migration theory. Of course, human history is replete with examples of difficult environmental conditions instigating population movement as an adaptive strategy in the face of stress (McLeman 2014; McLeman and Hunter 2010). But, as Piguet (2013) notes, over the past two decades, a body of research has emerged on the environmental dimensions of migration in more contemporary times. Within this emerging literature, temperature and rainfall extremes have been shown to dampen urban outmigration across East Africa (Mueller et al. 2020c), and shifts in the timing and amount of rainfall influence return migration in Thailand (Entwisle, Verdery and Williams 2020). That said, while environmental factors emerge as important predictors of migration, they do not typically act upon migration separately from other socio-economic and political influences (Black et al. 2011). For instance, environmental factors reduce urban employment options in the case of East Africa (Mueller et al. 2020c), or their influence may be filtered through social networks, as in the case of Thailand (Entwisle, Verdery and Williams 2020).

An incomplete understanding of the migration-environment connection can result in important policy levers being missed. For example, since migration is often an adaptive strategy in the face of environmental stress such as rainfall shortage or intense heat (e.g., Carman and Zint 2020; McLeman and Smit 2006), understanding migration in the context of livelihood strategies can suggest actions to increase households’ adaptive capacity and, thereby, reshape migration patterns (Mueller et al. 2020b).

The argument developed here extends an essay by Hunter and Menken (2015) that explores the possibility that climate change may shift demography’s “normal science” (Kuhn 1962). In his classic work on the philosophy of science, Kuhn described normal science as a contemporary paradigm that legitimates current research questions and approaches. However, if sufficient anomalies arise within research findings – surprises not anticipated by the contemporary paradigm, a shift may occur within the paradigm, which then guides new scholarship (Kuhn 1962).²

Importantly, our aim in this article is not to provide a comprehensive overview of migration theory or migration-environment research (for reviews, see Arango 2000, 2017; Hunter, Luna and Norton 2015; Kaczan and Orgill-Meyer 2020). Instead, our goal is to critically explore the “environment” as related to classical migration theories by engaging research findings that have emerged in the past two decades. We begin with a broad discussion of “environment” as related to migration, including definitional issues, exploration of potential reasons underlying the historical exclusion of environmental context from migration and demographic research more broadly, and the risks associated with climate determinism. Next, we offer brief introductions of six theoretical perspectives engaged within contemporary migration research and follow each introduction with research examples that demonstrate environmental influences relevant to that particular theoretical lens.

We cover core functionalist theories, including neoclassical economics, migration systems, and “push-pull” approaches, as well as theories in the historical-structural paradigm, including political economic and world systems.³ As noted in a recent contribution by de Haas (2021, 1), migration theory has remained under-theorized and “at an impasse for several decades,” even in the context of dramatic increases in empirical studies on migration. In an effort to move the theorization of migration forward, we encourage migration scholars to regularly and critically consider if/how the environment may be usefully integrated into the perspectives engaged within their research.

The Place of Environment in Migration Theory: Considering Errors of Exclusion and Inclusion

Increasing interest in the environmental correlates of migration over the past two decades has been, in part, fueled by alarmist projections made in the 1990s about “climate refugees” (Hunter, Luna and Norton 2015). Such projections reflected strong “environmental determinism,” or a position in which environmental factors are elevated to causal primacy within explanations of social processes (Hulme 2011; Piguet 2013). Subsequent research added nuance to such simplistic projections, revealing several broad findings, including evidence of migration as a risk diversification strategy in the face of environmental pressures; the influence of household and individual factors in migration decision-making; and the importance of social networks and interactions between environmental factors and socio-economic-political processes (Hunter, Luna and Norton 2015).

Environmental determinism is not, however, confined to overly simplistic projections of climate refugees. As Hulme (2011) suggests, it can also result from an over-emphasis on predictive science, resulting in disproportionate power being awarded to model-based understandings of climate's influence on social life. In his essay, “Reducing the Future to Climate,” Hulme (2011) contends that the search for “simplistic chains of climatic cause-and-effect” fails to recognize the complex entanglement of environment and society and can represent methodological reductionism (Hulme 2011, 253).⁴ Such reductionism holds the potential for errors associated with the inclusion of environmental factors in migration theory and analyses if environmental factors are attributed as sole, deterministic drivers of social processes (Meyer and Guss 2017; Piguet 2013) – a problem which led to the alarmist predictions of climate refugees (e.g., Meyers 1993). Migration scholars should avoid such simplistic framing.

Yet failure to consider environmental factors in migration theory and research, especially given contemporary climate change, may result in “environmental indeterminism.” In this case, the role of environmental factors is minimized or entirely neglected. As noted above, such exclusion may yield omitted variable bias, resulting in environmental influences on migration being attributed to other variables included in empirical models. In this way, empirical migration models that lack environmental context as predictors can lead to incomplete (or worse, incorrect) understandings of migration dynamics, especially as environmental conditions continue to change.

Given the potential political consequences of either extreme (environmental determinism and indeterminism), the policy and humanitarian stakes are quite high.⁵ Environmental determinism and alarmist projections of climate refugees may feed into the nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment documented in many regions across the globe, especially in recent years (Heinrich 2020; Kaufmann 2019; Polynczuk-Alenius 2020). Yet climate indeterminism, or lack of consideration of environment, inhibits the generation of climate-responsive policies and programs to help reduce or mitigate risk or to support climate-impacted households (e.g. Kuriakose et al. 2013).⁶ Ultimately, then, we advise migration scholars to seek an “adequate and creative tension” (Hulme 2011, 246) between the fallacies of environmental determinism and indeterminism. Mainstreaming environmental considerations into migration theory, we argue, will ensure their consideration and, in this way, create a more holistic and realistic understanding of migration-environment associations.

Migration’s Environmental Influences

Prior to our discussion of migration theory, it is useful to define “environment,” as used here. In general, we are addressing aspects of the physical, natural environment, including qualities of air, water, and soil, as well as “natural” disasters.⁷ Overall, environmental stressors related to human migration are multi-faceted and can be seen along a continuum (Hugo 1996). For instance, migration is influenced by acute, short-term environmental stressors, such as typhoons (e.g., Gröger and Zylberberg 2016) and earthquakes (e.g., Thiri 2017), as well as by chronic, long-term environmental strain, such as drought (e.g., Debnath and Nayak 2020).⁸ Additionally, acute or short-term events can occur within the context of longer-term environmental change. As for climate change, climate researchers suggest that while it is challenging to associate a single event (e.g., hurricane, flood) with increasing greenhouse gases, the probability of such events is increasing in many parts of the world (Seneviratne et al. 2012). To illustrate, in its preliminary report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the frequency of extreme heat events will increase four-fold with warming of 1.5° C and 5.6 times at warming of 2.0° C. For comparison, the Earth has warmed 1.0° C as compared to the IPCC's reference period of 1850-1900 (IPCC 2021).

Across the globe, displacement due to natural disasters outnumbers displacement due to conflict and violence by three to one: of the 31.1 million new internal displacements in 2016, fully 24.2 million were attributed to disasters (IDMC 2017). Contemporary movement across international boundaries can also have environmental dimensions (Riosmena, Nawrotzki and Hunter 2018). For instance, drought, heat, and natural resource scarcity have been empirically associated with international migration from settings as diverse as Bangladesh, Mexico, and Pakistan (Mueller, Gray and Kosec 2014; Nawrotzki et al. 2015). In many cases, migration acts as an adaptive strategy, allowing for income diversification in agricultural households by sending a household member to a distant labor market (Atuoye et al. 2019). As noted above, however, environmental pressures are often indirect (Mueller, Gray and Hopping 2020a) and intersect with economic, social, and political contexts to ultimately influence migration (Black et al. 2011). In cases of acute events, however, the environmental event may be a strong and direct migration determinant (Ponserre and Gennetti 2019).

The following review engages a variety of environmental stressors as related to international migration. We emphasize six theoretical perspectives that are likely familiar to migration scholars. Combined, they address core theoretical questions within migration, including the spatial patterns of migration flows, migration motivations, and related political-economic issues (Pryor 1981). Each section below provides a brief review of a particular theoretical perspective, followed by contemporary research that suggests the role of environmental factors within the highlighted perspective. Importantly, the research examples provided are not the product of a systematic or comprehensive review. Instead, they have been chosen as contemporary exemplars that represent different environmental stressors (e.g., heat stress, typhoons) and interactions with different socio-cultural, economic, and political forces. Together, we hope that they motivate migration scholars to seek that “adequate and creative tension” (Hulme 2011, 246) as they incorporate environmental factors into the theories that guide their research.

Neoclassical Economics Perspectives on Migration Flows

Foundational to neoclassical arguments are assumptions about utility maximization and rational choice such that individuals are understood to be independent economic actors and migration is framed as informed by a cost-benefit calculation (DaVanzo 1981; Todaro 1980). According to the neoclassical perspective, such cost-benefit calculations emphasize investments in human capital, as well as wage differentials between origins and potential destinations (e.g., DaVanzo and Morrison 1981; Massey et al. 1993). At its core, the neoclassical economics perspective assumes perfect competition and information, and within this context, migration becomes a process through which equilibrium can be reached (e.g., DaVanzo and Morrison 1981).

At the macro scale, neoclassical perspectives emphasize spatial differences in labor supply and demand and resultant labor migration (e.g., Wickramasinghe and Wimalaratana 2016). An example is Lewi; s (1954) “dual economy models” that describe migration flows as emanating from differences in labor supply and demand across rural and urban sectors. Growing out of trade theory, Lewis argued that the positive wage differential in modern urban spaces, relative to rural spaces, resulted in the absorption of surplus rural agricultural labor through migration. In general, he suggested that wage differentials across locations shape labor migration, which, then, moves toward labor-scarce regions offering greater opportunity and returns to capital (Lewis 1954). Yet application of such perspectives has moved far beyond only rural-urban dynamics and now interrogates the increasingly diverse migration flows resultant from a globalizing economy (e.g., Windzio 2018). Still, in this work, migration represents a central mechanism through which an equilibrium can be reached between labor supply and demand, with wage differentials, or expected income, representing the primary “push” and “pull” shaping migration’s spatial patterning (Pritchett and Hani 2020).

Through the years, there have been many critiques of neoclassical theories of migration (e.g., Porumbescu 2018). As an example, Canales (2019) contends that the neoclassical emphasis on wages and individual actors cannot explain migration’s complexities in today’s global, postmodern society. Instead, he argues, we must begin with theories that explain the social and economic processes from which migration emerges (Canales 2019). We further suggest that environmental processes are increasingly part of that context from which migration emerges and deserve more consistent consideration.

Examples of Environmental Factors Within Neoclassical Perspectives at the Macro Scale

One pathway through which environmental characteristics can shape migration within a neoclassical framework is through the impacts of environmental amenities on wages and market rents (e.g., Kerr 2017). An example here would be the appeal of moderate climates (e.g., Cragg and Kahn 1999) and the adjustment of wages and market rents to such quality-of-life factors. As concisely explained by Albouy (2008, 1), “workers will live in a place where real wages are low if their lower consumption of market goods is offset by a higher consumption of non-market amenities.”

Graves (1980) provided conceptual and empirical articulation of the potential for such non-economic values to become increasingly important in understanding migration. Three decades ago, he saw increasing migration flows to rural areas in the United States, improvements in information transfer, and overall increases in willingness to migrate as forces suggesting that income and unemployment differentials could no longer accurately capture overall utility differentials and modeled gross migration flows at the scale of metropolitan areas with standard income and unemployment data, as well as integrated climate variables. Graves (1980) found that including climate variables (30-year “normal” for temperature, humidity, and wind) substantially increased explanatory power as related to migration, compared to estimates including only municipal-scale income and unemployment. In a review of the historical development of interregional migration models, Biagi and Dotzel (2018, 28) note the consideration of place-based amenities in migration decisions as “one of the most significant breakthroughs of this period.” In fact, in 2015, Beine and Parsons (2015, 725) lamented that “environmental determinants have remained wholly absent from the macroeconomic literature on the determinants of migration.” In their subsequent work, they found that environmental strain put downward pressure on wages in stressed locales, increasing the wage gap between these origins and potential destinations. Beine and Parsons (2017) argued that the resulting wage-related migration could, therefore, be indirectly attributed to environmental factors.

To the extent that continued climate pressures may exacerbate wage differentials, failure to explicitly integrate climate risks into migration modeling may result in missed opportunities to better understand the influence of contemporary climate change on macro-socioeconomic processes. The omission of environmental considerations would be an example of environmental indeterminism. The reverse is also true, however, since it is possible to over-emphasize environmental effects. Fan, Fisher-Vanden and Klaiber (2018, 644) offer an example, arguing that “studies that do not account for labor market and housing market feedbacks likely overstate the economic impacts of climate-induced migration.” In this way, a careful balance should be sought to identify the socioeconomic and environmental drivers of migration, as well as interactions between them.

Migration Systems as an Analytical Lens

Like neoclassical economics, migration systems approaches involve equilibrium concepts as they focus on stable groups of countries (or other geographic units) that send and receive migrants (e.g., Fussell, Curtis and DeWaard 2014a). Early articulations of migration systems drew heavily upon functionalist social theory with emphasis on systems as important elements of societal structure (Bakewell, de Haas and Kubal 2012). As compared to neoclassical perspectives, migration systems approaches incorporate a broader array of migration influences through more direct integration of the cultural, social, and political aspects of flows and counterflows between two or more places (e.g., Mabogunje 1970). Such flows include not only people but also goods, services, information. and ideas, and systems perspectives focus analytically on the factors that stimulate, direct, and sustain these origin-destination flows (Massey et al. 1998). While systems perspectives are as “old as the scientific study of migration” (Fawcett 1989, 671), data improvements in the 1980s increased scholarly interest in this approach, and substantial theoretical and empirical progress has been made since then (DeWaard and Ha 2019; Hauer, Holloway and Takashi 2020b).

Social networks have arguably received the most attention in examination of migration systems, especially regarding the perpetuation of migration flows (e.g., Massey et al. 1998). Networks represent structured sets of social relationships that act as pathways through which information and resources move in both directions (Gurak and Caces 1992). This information and resource sharing reduces the costs associated with migration and facilitates movement by, for example, easing the search for jobs and housing and providing information on policies and useful programs (Massey 1988). Importantly, the flows representative of migrant systems develop momentum over time, allowing them to function independently of their originating forces (Haug 2008).

Like neoclassical migration theories, the systems approach is not without critiques (e.g., de Haas 2010), many of which emphasize the lack of investigation of the emergence of systems in efforts to study their perpetuation (Bakewell 2010). Critics also argue that little is known about why systems sometimes do not emerge following the moves of pioneer migrants (de Haas 2010). In addition, Bakewell (2010) argues that little attention has been paid to the shifts in the initial social and economic context following the development of a migration system, while the factors that shape system decline are also underexplored (de Haas 2010). We build upon these critiques by arguing that environmental factors represent an underexamined aspect of migration systems, potentially playing a role in system emergence, perpetuation, and decline.

Examples of Environmental Factors Within Migration Systems

As expansions to migration systems research, some scholars have explicitly examined the environmental dimensions of reciprocal migration flows between places (e.g., Curtis, Fussell and DeWaard 2015; Hauer 2017). Such dimensions include environmental amenities, natural disasters, and different aspects of climate change (Hauer 2017; Suckall et al. 2015). Research in this area suggests that environmental factors have a role in stimulating, directing, sustaining, and eventually changing origin-destination flows (e.g., Fussell, Curtis and DeWaard 2014a; McLeman 2006). For example, international amenity-related migration systems have emerged as retiree flows from cooler climates to Costa Rica (e.g., Matarrita-Cascante 2017) and Italy (e.g., King et al. 2021).

Environmental factors can not only generate new migration systems but also reshape existing ones, as research on Hurricane Katrina shows (Curtis, Fussell and DeWaard 2015; DeWaard, Curtis and Fussell 2016). Katrina was a disastrous storm that struck the US Gulf coast in August 2005. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans’s residents evacuated prior to the hurricane’s landfall (Fussell, Hunter and Gray 2014b). Tracking origins and destinations with Internal Revenue Service county-to-county migration flow data, Fussell, Hunter and Gray (2014b) examined “recovery migration” reflecting both returning residents and new in-migrants during the region’s recovery period (2007-2009). They found that the hurricane shifted the region’s existing migration system in that, as compared to previous in-migration to New Orleans, post-disaster recovery migration was more likely to be from nearby counties. On the other hand, outmigration ties between New Orleans and particular destinations dramatically decreased in the recovery phase (Fussell, Curtis and DeWaard 2014a).

Systems can also develop when migration is used as an adaptive strategy in the face of chronic environmental stressors. For instance, social networks support Mexico-US migration in the face of drought-like conditions, where international migration is most likely from communities with particularly strong existing systems of transnational networks (Riosmena, Nawrotzki and Hunter 2018). Additionally, migration systems have been documented following acute environmental events, as Hauer, Holloway and Takashi (2020b) identify two distinct migration systems following the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011 – a short distance one for evacuees and a longer-distance one for permanent migrants.

Since migration may be seen as a necessary response to some natural disasters, there may be a temptation toward climate determinism when evaluating environmentally related displacement. However, such an interpretation would belie more complex forces. As a contemporary example, sea-level rise may be seen as the ultimate “push” as a result of deeming coastlines uninhabitable. Yet recent work clearly positions migration in response to sea-level rise as embedded within political, demographic, economic and social factors (Hauer et al. 2020a). Further, these factors are themselves embedded within policy incentives that shape migration by encouraging (e.g., managing retreat) or lessening movement (e.g., constructing a sea wall) (Hauer et al. 2020a). Of course, in such situations, the exclusion of environmental context in examinations of coastal migration would yield a short-sighted understanding of population movement, and, in this way, migration systems represent another example where an “adequate and creative tension” (Hulme 2011, 246) should be sought.

“Push-Pull” Perspectives on Migration

The above review of migration through the perspectives of macro-scale neoclassical economics and migration systems delved into the factors that instigate and perpetuate aggregate migrant flows. Moving now to a micro-perspective, we consider the factors that shape people’s migration decision-making and, ultimately, migration decisions. Lee’s (1966) “push-pull” framework offers one theoretical perspective at the micro level. Here, push factors characterize origins and can include low employment opportunities, wage levels, and high cost of living, all of which are commonly noted by migrants as primary factors in their decision-making (Black et al. 2013). Other factors can be political and include the effectiveness of governance, presence of conflict, and/or the state of immigration policy (Alvarado and Massey 2010). Simultaneously, characteristics of destinations can pull would-be migrants, such as better employment prospects and political stability.

In response to critiques of push-pull as overly determinist (e.g., de Haas 2010; Skeldon 1990), Van Hear, Bakewell and Long (2018) present a useful framework dubbed “push-pull plus.” To better characterize interactions across drivers at all scales, they outline migration’s predisposing, proximate, precipitating, and mediating drivers. Migration’s predisposing drivers shape the context from which migration may occur (Van Hear, Bakewell and Long 2018). Economic disparities between places represent a predisposing factor (e.g., Abel et al. 2019; Cohen 2018). As compared to these broad contextual factors, proximate drivers are more direct, such as a localized economic downturn (Bank, Fröhlich and Schneiker 2017). Even more direct are precipitating drivers, such as a factory closure embedded within that local economic downturn (Van Hear, Bakewell and Long 2018). The influence of predisposing, proximate, and precipitating factors on migration is further shaped by mediating factors, which enable or constrain migration, such as transportation, communications, and resource infrastructures, as well as household capital (Garip 2008; Palloni et al. 2001). The absence of such mediating factors can constrain movement even in the face of severe precipitating drivers (Van Hear, Bakewell and Long 2018).

Examples of Environmental Factors in “Push-Pull” Migration Research

Rapid onset environmental disasters, such as hurricanes, floods and landslides, can act as strong push factors and increasingly do so across the globe (Dun 2011; Giannelli and Canessa 2021; Koubi et al. 2016). For instance, since 2008, nearly 230 million people have been displaced by sudden-onset hazards such as typhoons, floods, and wildfires (IDMC 2018). Much of this movement is shorter distance, typically within the same nation, and residents may generally have the intention of returning home (Findlay 2011). In this way, such displacement may not actually be considered “migration,” since there may be no intention to settle elsewhere for any length of time. Yet environmental stressors intersect with migration’s other drivers in ways consequential for the likelihood of permanent outmigration as well. The international relocation of Pacific Islanders in the face of sea-level rise offers one example (Yamamoto and Esteban 2017). In this case, sea-level rise may render some islands uninhabitable, and some governments have already begun preparations for mass relocation (Yamamoto and Esteban 2017).

Chronic environmental stress has also been associated with international migration in a variety of settings (Hunter, Luna and Norton 2015). However, this association is most often identified in rural, agricultural settings where climate variability can impact agricultural productivity, as well as the natural resources harvested by households to meet daily needs (Falco, Donzelli and Olper 2018). Indeed, excessive precipitation is associated with increased international migration from Senegal (Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava 2017), while warm spells increased international migration from Mexico (Nawrotzki et al. 2016). In such cases, migration may be seen as a household adaptive strategy to diversify income sources and minimize risk (details below). Additionally, slow-onset environmental stressors can drive migration by laying the groundwork for acute, rapid-onset events. Desertification can lead to wildfires, hot spells to heat waves, sea-level rise to floods (IDMC 2017). At the same time, these slow-onset stressors can erode local populations’ socioeconomic capacity to cope, positioning a region for grave impact and potentially triggering displacement (Huq et al. 2015).

In all, this section demonstrates that dynamics within the natural environment can interact with a wide variety of migration drivers to influence migration. For example, environmental stressors can underlie economic downturns, food insecurities, and conflict, particularly as they are shaped by migration’s predisposing and proximate drivers, which themselves lay the foundation within which environmental stressors are experienced. Migration can also be seen as an adaptive response to environmental strain (e.g., Adams and Kay 2019; McLeman 2018), although migrants may not themselves report climate as a primary migration driver. Thus, failure to consider environmental factors in both theory and research has the potential to produce findings that miss an important driver of migration.

New Economics of Labor Migration

At least in part a result of the critiques of the neoclassical migration theories described above, migration scholars, including those analyzing the environmental dimensions of migration, have employed an alternative theoretical model, the new economics of labor migration, which expands understandings of who migrates and why (e.g., Stark and Bloom 1985). The new economics of labor migration (NELM) acknowledges that wage differentials are not the sole factor motivating individual migration (Stark and Bloom 1985). In fact, in contrast to neoclassical theories, NELM focuses not on individuals but on households and families as the primary unit of decision-making (Stark and Bloom 1985). Much of the work using this framework has focused on international migration, illustrating why households in lower-income settings may want to send a migrant abroad (e.g., Gray 2009). Households, this work shows, may use temporary and circular migration to diversify income sources and minimize the risks associated with fluctuations and uncertainties in local markets (e.g., Mendola 2012). Given households’ limited access to credit and capital in many developing countries, remittances from a migrant abroad may also serve as supplemental income that can be put toward large household purchases or (re)investments in agricultural- or business-related improvements (Lindstrom and Lauster 2001; Massey 1999).

When a household decides to send a migrant to diversify income and minimize risks, it makes intuitive sense that they may prioritize the household member with the highest likelihood of success in both reaching the desired destination and securing employment. It is through this lens that we consider the question of who migrates. This question is inherently about migrant characteristics and the selective nature of the migration process. Indeed, migration scholars have demonstrated that migrants are often different from their non-migrant counterparts, finding some consistent selection patterns by age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and health, as well as considerable variation in these relationships across settings and types of migration (e.g., Griga and Hadjar 2014; Morey et al. 2020; Riosmena, Wong and Palloni 2013). To fully summarize these findings is beyond this article’s scope, so for this section, we focus on Mexico-US migration.

Stark and Taylor’s (1991) analysis of rural households in Michoacán, Mexico, offers insight into the patterns of such livelihood migration. For example, when compared to internal migrants and non-migrants in the area, international migrants to the United States were more likely to be male, to come from larger, wealthier households, and to have family or friends already in the United States (Stark and Taylor 1991). These findings are robust in other areas of Mexico as well. Indeed, Lindstrom and Lauster (2001) illustrate that both internal and international migrants came from more marginalized municipalities with fewer wage-earning opportunities, thereby fueling the need for income diversification and risk reduction among households in these areas.

When compared to other theoretical models, NELM has proven to be one of the best at predicting who migrates from Mexico (Massey and Espinosa 1997). However, Garip (2012) illustrates that migrants’ socio-demographic characteristics vary by period and cohort. In addition, gender scholars have critiqued the lack of consideration of gendered norms and unequal power relations, which negatively impact women’s ability to migrate (Oishi 2005). Along similar lines, Hughes (2021, 388) suggests that the NELM framework is essentially too simplistic in its reliance on “straightforward, optimized, microeconomic calculations” and neglects the complexity of cultural, political, and institutional forces. Thus, the answer to who migrates from within a household in Mexico is largely contingent on both the temporal and spatial context, begging the question of how the environment may influence these migrant decision-making processes in combination with other complex contextual forces related to culture and political economy.

Examples of Environmental Factors Within NELM

Given the strong evidence suggesting that Mexican livelihood strategies are often generated through household processes (e.g., Massey et al. 1993), the NELM framework has proven useful for integrating environmental factors into migration decision-making (for review, see Simon 2018). Remittances from a migrant can serve as an ex-ante risk mitigation strategy as households send a migrant to help mitigate potential future losses from crop failure or climate extremes (Quiñones et al. 2018). Alternatively, remittances may take the form of an ex-post means of coping, following challenging environmental exposures like drought or heat stress (Maharjan et al. 2021).

Whether ex ante or ex post, remittances are an important income source in Mexico, as rural households are particularly susceptible to environmental stressors, with agricultural production contributing as much as two-thirds to household income portfolios (de Janvry and Sadoulet 2001). Thus, failure to consider environmental factors in neoclassical and NELM frameworks would neglect the natural environment’s important influence on Mexican households’ income and livelihoods in the first place. In fact, nearly 80 percent of all economic losses across Mexico between 1980 and 2005 were estimated to be a result of extreme weather events (Saldaña-Zorilla and Sandberg 2009), and reductions in crop yields resulting from climate variability are shown to increase emigration from rural Mexican states (Feng and Oppenheimer 2012).

In their study of drought and migration from 12 Mexican states, Hunter et al. (2013) demonstrate that measures of climate (i.e., precipitation) interact with existing social networks to shape a given social network’s influence. Specifically, emigration rates increased two years following drought, but only for households in communities with strong migration networks (Hunter et al. 2013). Other work demonstrates how strong community networks can also help rural households adapt in place by channeling remittances to affected areas and by reducing the need for climate-related migration (Nawrotzki et al. 2015). Although directionality differs in these examples, key for our purposes is that these studies suggest that environmental factors influence the role of social networks within household migration decision-making.

A more recent study comparing migration-environment associations during a period of increasing (1995-1999) and decreasing (2005-2009) US migration flows finds that climate might actually “trap” people and households in place (Riosmena, Nawrotzki and Hunter 2018). For example, the most rural households were less likely to migrate to US locations during hot or dry environmental conditions. But highlighting the complex ways in which climate interacts with known correlates of migration, Riosmena, Nawrotzki and Hunter (2018) also found that during hot and dry conditions, emigration only increased for households in less vulnerable places as measured using community international migration prevalence and degree of socioeconomic marginalization. This finding suggests that climate and the natural environment influence the type of household that is able to send a migrant.

Taken together, this section illustrates several examples of research employing a NELM framework to understand the environmental correlates of migration. Socio-demographic factors such as age, race, income, and education are important in distinguishing migrants from non-migrants, but scholars studying migration in Mexico have demonstrated that the natural environment also influences both who migrates and from where they do so.

Political Economic Perspectives

Returning to macro-structural considerations, some scholars consider international migration to be reflective of existing global inequalities (Faist 2016). As noted above, migration is influenced by structural forces underlying cross-national income differentials such as state and governance failures and violence (de Haas et al. 2019). To this end, and as related to political, policy, and human rights issues, we discuss political economy and world-systems theories, including the political factors that may propel migration.

World systems theory is one macro-level economic model that can be used to understand international migration flows or, at the very least, the factors that encourage international migration. This approach grew out of previous dependency theories and was originally elucidated by Wallerstein (1974), Wallerstein and Tompkins (1982), who classified nation-states as core, meaning the dominant capitalist economies, semi-peripheral, or peripheral. Although world systems theory is not inherently a migration theory, scholars have made connections between it and international migration, as some flows originate in peripheral nations, directed to the Global North (Castles 2013; Massey et al. 1993).

World systems theory and other political economic approaches argue that global capitalist penetration into emerging economies in the Global South creates and maintains inequalities that spur migration (e.g., Alvarado and Massey 2010; Babb 2005). To illustrate, world systems theorists suggest that there is a selective migration process whereby the underdevelopment of peripheral nations encourages the highly skilled and educated to migrate to core nations, further undermining development in those peripheral countries (Morawska 2007). Additionally, the always-expanding search for new markets further enables conditions for internal migration in developing countries, as firms from core nations enter peripheral countries seeking lower wages and more limited regulations (Froebel, Heinrichs and Kreye 1977). This dynamic is observed in Mexico, where internal migrants take low-paying maquiladora jobs in the export industries near the US border (Villarreal and Hamilton 2012).

Others point to the emergence of structural adjustment policies as an example of core nations encouraging underdevelopment in the Global South and, therefore, the conditions that necessitate migration (Alvarado and Massey 2010; Massey 1999). Structural adjustment policies were ostensibly designed to help countries pay off considerable debts, but many argue that these adjustments simply forced countries to overhaul their economies at the direction of elite capitalist firms and states and that the policies favored free-market reforms, reductions in public services, trade liberalization, elimination of subsidies, and emphasis on crop exports (Alvarado and Massey 2010; Massey 1999). Given the new emphasis placed on export crops under liberalized trade regimes, investors bought farmland and encouraged monoculture practices, promoting deforestation, degrading the land, and increasing vulnerability and the potential for displacement in peripheral nations (McLeman, Schade and Faist 2016).

Other aspects of the political economy also shape migration, such as governance breakdown, which can result in conflict and subsequent population redistribution as refugees and migrants seek to escape political discrimination or violence (Zolberg, Suhrke and Aguayo 1989). In fact, as of 2009, every nation-state in Africa had sent or received political refugees (Raleigh 2011). While genocide, civil war, and other forms of violence produce migration and refugee situations, political uncertainty more generally can also serve as a migration “push” (Ruhe 2021). Additionally, states seek to control the volume and direction of international flows through policies that define and regulate entry, duration of stay, work permit requirements, and citizenship criteria (Morawska 2007). As such, citizenship is fundamentally a form of inclusion and exclusion that can be based on race, ethnicity, religion, education, and language and is reflective of inequalities at the global scale (Brubaker 2014; Shachar 2009).

Of course, world systems perspectives are not without critics. Hughes (2021), for example, argues that such perspectives inappropriately maintain distinctions between macro- and micro-analytical levels and, thereby, do not integrate global power dynamics in analyses beyond the nation-state. We argue that bringing in micro-scale understandings of migrant experiences would also yield more emphasis on external pressures, such as environmental degradation at the local scale, including that wrought by global economic processes.

Examples of Environmental Factors Within Political-Economic Perspectives

Environmental pressures intersect with global structural inequalities to, in many cases, amplify the migration “push” factors noted above (McLeman, Schade and Faist 2016). The impacts of climate change are already disproportionately burdening poor nations and poor people, who contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions (Padilla and Serrano 2006; Puaschunder 2020). In fact, the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report warns that populations at the highest risk of adverse consequences of climate change are those already disadvantaged, such as indigenous populations and vulnerable households dependent on agriculture or coastal livelihoods (IPCC 2018). For example, sea-level rise is already a human rights issue, as some estimates predict that a sea-level rise of one meter would displace over 20 million people in the coastal regions of Bangladesh, Egypt, and Nigeria alone (McMichael and Lindgren 2011).

The United States will face displacement, too (Hauer 2017), with impoverished coastal areas especially vulnerable to sea-level rise, land erosion, and permafrost thaw due to climate change (Maldonado et al. 2013). Tribal communities in Alaska and Louisiana are already having to relocate due to inadequate government support for adaptation strategies (Maldonado et al. 2013). Yet other populations may be trapped in place, due to lack of adequate social and financial capital to leave challenging conditions (DeWaard and Nawrotzki 2018). Planned resettlement, one potential solution, can come with considerable negative impacts, including loss of community and culture, mental and physical health effects of displacement, and economic decline (McMichael and Lindgren 2011). In addition, many facing forced displacement, such as those in low-lying Pacific Islands, wish to remain in their ancestral homelands due to strong place attachment (Mortreux and Barnett 2009).

While climate change presents new challenges to human migration patterns, the connection between the global political economy, environmental conditions, and migration is not new. Take, for example, the case of land degradation related to colonial histories which shaped settlement patterns, political borders, and agricultural systems. In Niger, mandated cash cropping in the early 1900s yielded substantial soil degradation, and the resulting food shortages necessitated regional migration and resulted in circular flows that still exist today (Afifi 2011). In Botswana, international policy such as the 1975 EU Lomé Convention – a trade agreement between European, African, Caribbean, and Pacific nations – altered agricultural policies and practices and, as a consequence, migration patterns (Sporton, Thomas and Morrison 1999).

Taken together, this section outlines political economic explanations of migration with an emphasis on global inequalities. As mentioned above, Faist (2016) asserts that migration itself represents global inequalities in well-being, freedom, security, income, wealth, power, and life chances. In addition, there is growing concern that climate change is intersecting with inequalities to act as a “threat multiplier” by exacerbating the conditions that lead to conflict (Abrahams 2021; Day and Caus 2020). Such conflict can potentially fuel population movements (Abel et al. 2019), providing a critical, timely example of the intersections between political economy and environmental context.

Table 1.

Illustrative Environmental Dimensions of Migration and Links to Theory.

Theory	Example	Link to Environment	Example
Neoclassical	Lee (1966); Harris and Todaro (1970)	wage & market rent impacts; amenities & disamenities	Graves (1980); Beine and Parsons (2015)
Migration Systems	Mabogunje (1970); Massey (1988); de Haas (2010)	snowbirds & sunbirds; recovery migration following Hurricane Katrina	Litwak and Longino (1987); Fussell, Curtis and DeWaard (2014a)
Push-Pull	Lee (1966); Van Hear, Bakewell and Long (2018)	natural disasters, drought, wildfire, conflict	Strobl (2011); Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava (2017)
New-Economics of Labor Migration (NELM)	Stark and Bloom (1985); Massey and Espinosa (1997)	ex ante risk mitigation strategy or ex post means of coping with environmental stress	Gray (2010); Riosmena, Nawrotzki and Hunter (2018)
World Systems Theory and Political Economy	Castles (2013); Wallerstein (1974); Wallerstein and Tompkins (1982); Zolberg, Suhrke and Aguayo (1989)	disproportionate climate impacts to global South; land degradation and colonial histories	Afifi (2011); Afolayan and Adelekan (1999); IPCC (2018)

Where Now? The Future of Environment in Migration Theory and Research

The above review has engaged several core migration theories and provided exemplar research integrating environmental concerns within those perspectives (Table 1 provides a summary). The review was motivated by the belief that human migration is a dynamic process requiring regular theoretical reflection “in light of changing social realities” (Zolberg 1989). We do not contend that environmental influence on migration is a new social reality; it certainly is not (e.g., Schwindt et al. 2016). Instead, we argue that climate change holds the potential to increasingly influence contemporary social realities in ways that are consequential for migration theory and research. While environmental factors may not be described by migrants as front-and-center in their decision-making (Koubi et al. 2016), substantial evidence suggests that such factors act as indirect influences, especially as related to compromised livelihoods (e.g., Hunter, Luna and Norton 2015). In some cases, extreme environmental events may even dominate as direct causes of involuntary population movements (e.g., Valdes-Pizzini 2020).

By structuring this review around theoretical perspectives, we have aimed to provide examples of the places where migration theories and contemporary migration-environment research findings align. Doing so provides the background for our contention that migration scholars should seek an “adequate and creative tension” (Hulme 2011, 246) between the fallacies of environmental determinism and indeterminism. The former entails over-attribution of environmental factors such as when environmental influences are given causal primacy within migration processes. On the other hand, environmental indeterminism results from the exclusion of environmental factors from migration research and theory, which risks inaccurate results and incomplete understandings. In this way, scholars must work carefully to represent the complex interactions between the many contextual factors that influence migration decision-making and flows, environmental factors included.

Piguet (2013, 151) suggests that one reason behind the environment’s disappearance in migration research over the past century is “the Western idea that progress implies a decreasing impact of nature on human fate.” As climate change continues to manifest in extreme events (Melillo, Richmond and Yohe 2014), might there be more recognition of the interrelated fates of nature and humans? As the world grapples with climate change and resulting displacement (Rigaud et al. 2018), migration scholars must be ready to provide insight on population dynamics, guided by theory that can engage environmental concerns when and where needed. Mainstreaming environmental context into migration theory will ensure regular consideration of environmental factors and, in this way, yield a more holistic and robust understanding of migration-environment associations.

There are several pathways through which the migration-environment research community might move forward. First, we find inspiration in intriguing new work by de Haas (2021) that illustrates the potential for integration and expansion of functionalist and historical-structural perspectives to generate updated, comprehensive theorizations on migration. Through articulation of a useful “aspirations and capabilities” framework, de Haas (2021) expands on prior work by Sen (1999) and Berlin (1969) to consider the role of structural forces such as global capitalism and inequalities as combined with individual perceptions, preferences, and options. This effort is indicative of the potential for new forms of migration theorization that integrate insights from a variety of perspectives. A similar endeavor would be useful for highlighting the environmental dimensions of migration, and we hope this article provides a foundation for such an effort.

Second, the migration research community could be more consistent in critically considering environmental dimensions within examination of demographic processes, including migration. Existing migration-environment scholarship demonstrates the many ways in which environmental factors can be empirically integrated. For example, scholars have developed a variety of quantitative measures of precipitation and temperature to explore the association between weather anomalies and migration, with much of this work considering migration as a livelihood adaptation strategy (Eklund et al. 2016). As an example, with a focus on rural Bangladesh, Call et al. (2017) used flood data from the Dartmouth Flood Observatory to create an indicator of a flood during the past month, year, or two years. To predict migration, flood indicators were combined with a variety of theoretically informed controls. The authors find that migration declined immediately after flooding but quickly returned to normal, suggesting that environmental variability acted as a short-term disrupter of livelihood strategies (Call et al. 2017). Using a similar approach, Thiede and Gray (2017) find that monsoon timing influences migration in Indonesia. Merging information from the Indonesian Family Life Survey with rainfall data from NASA’s Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA), they show that climate variability influences short-distance population movements more so than long-distance moves. Adding important nuance, Thiede and Gray (2017) also find that effects vary by gender, location, and whether the individual resided in a farming household.

Aspects of local land conditions and tenure can also be usefully incorporated into migration research. For instance, a mixed-method investigation in northwestern Nicaragua reveals complex interactions between land, labor migration, and climate change (Radel et al. 2017). Here, survey and interview data provided insight on land status, including whether it was rented, owned, or borrowed. The size of plots was also ascertained, as was the type of agricultural activity, and an historical understanding of shifts in land tenure regimes was crafted from information gleaned from older respondents. Altogether, these data allowed for a powerful story of vulnerability and migration’s essential role as an adaptive strategy to provide for household needs in the context of increasing land scarcity (Radel et al. 2017). Many other research examples can be found in recent reviews by Borderon et al. (2019); Hunter, Luna and Norton (2015), and Kaczan and Orgill-Meyer (2020). Methodological reflections also provide insight into the important contributions to be made by migration scholars (e.g., Fussell, Hunter and Gray 2014b), while useful overviews of data and data challenges have recently emerged (e.g., Vinke and Hoīmann 2020).

In all, there has been progress with regard to migration-environment research, and it is now time for theorization to catch up. It is our hope that this article provides a foundation from which migration scholarship can evolve to reflect the environmental challenges faced by millions. In addition to the development of more informed research findings, the integration of environmental factors into migration theory can guide identification of important policy levers. Given that migration is often an adaptive strategy in the face of environmental stress (McLeman and Smit 2006), better understanding livelihood choices, including migration, can inform actions to increase households’ adaptive capacity and improve human well-being. Understanding such associations is the role of the migration scholar, and it is time that our “normal science” (Kuhn 1962) expands to incorporate environmental concerns, particularly in the era of contemporary climate change.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This research has benefited from discussion at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, at the Population Research Center, Pennsylvania State University (April 2019), and the Migration Lab at Princeton University (May 2021).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research has benefited from research, administrative, and computing support provided by the University of Colorado Population Center (Project 2P2CHD066613-06), funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We also acknowledge support to Simon from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (Grant 1416960). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the CUPC, NIH, NSF or CU Boulder.

ORCID iD

Daniel H. Simon

Notes

References

Abel

G. J.

Brottrager

Cuaresma

J. C.

Muttarak

. 2019. “Climate, Conflict and Forced Migration.” Global Environmental Change 54: 239–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.12.003.

Abrahams

2021. “Land is now the Biggest gun: Climate Change and Conflict in Karamoja, Uganda.” Climate and Development 13(8): 748–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1862740.

Adams

Kay

. 2019. “Migration as a Human Affair: Integrating Individual Stress Thresholds into Quantitative Models of Climate Migration.” Environmental Science & Policy 93: 129–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.015.

Afifi

2011. “Economic or Environmental Migration? The Push Factors in Niger.” International Migration 49 (S1): e95–e124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00644.x.

Afolayan

A. A.

Adelekan

I. O.

. 1999. “The Role of Climatic Variations on Migration and Human Health in Africa.” Environmentalist 18 (4): 213–18. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006581002775.

Albouy

2008. “Are Big Cities Bad Places to Live? Estimating Quality of Life Across Metropolitan Areas.” NBER Working Paper Series 1(14472): 1–67. https://doi.org/10.3386/w14472.

Alvarado

S. E.

Massey

D. S.

. 2010. “Search of Peace: Structural Adjustment, Violence, and International Migration.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 630(1): 137–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716210368107.

Angelsen

Aguilar-Støen

Ainembabazi

J. H.

Castellanos

Taylor

. 2020. “Migration, Remittances, and Forest Cover Change in Rural Guatemala and Chiapas, Mexico.” Land 9(3): 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030088.

Antwi-Agyei

Nyantakyi-Frimpong

. 2021. “Evidence of Climate Change Coping and Adaptation Practices by Smallholder Farmers in Ghana.” Sustainability 13 (3): 1308.

10.

Arango

2000. “Explaining Migration: A Critical View.” International Social Science Journal 52: 283–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00259.

11.

Arango

2017. “Theories of International Migration.” In International Migration in the new Millennium, edited by D. Joly, 25–45. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.

12.

Atuoye

K. N.

Antabe

Sano

Luginaah

Bayne

. 2019. “Household Income Diversification and Food Insecurity in the Upper West Region of Ghana.” Social Indicators Research 144(2): 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02062-7.

13.

Babb

2005. “The Social Consequences of Structural Adjustment: Recent Evidence and Current Debates.” Annu. Rev. Sociol 31: 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122258.

14.

Bakewell

2010. “Some Reflections on Structure and Agency in Migration Theory.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(10): 1689–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2010.489382.

15.

Bakewell

De Haas

Kubal

. 2012. “Migration Systems, Pioneer Migrants and the Role of Agency.” Journal of Critical Realism 11(4): 413–37. https://doi.org/10.1558/jcr.v11i4.413.

16.

Bank

Fröhlich

Schneiker

. 2017. “The Political Dynamics of Human Mobility: Migration out of, as and into Violence.” Global Policy 8(S1): 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12384.

17.

Beine

Parsons

. 2015. “Climatic Factors as Determinants of International Migration.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 117(2): 723–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12098.

18.

Berlin

. 1969. Four Essays on Liberty. London/New York: Oxford University Press.

19.

Biagi

Dotzel

K. R.

. 2018. “Theoretical Advances on Interregional Migration Models.” In New Frontiers in Interregional Migration Research, edited by Biagi

Faggian

Rajbhandari

Venhorst

V.A.

, 21–47. Cham: Springer.

20.

Black

Adger

W. N.

Arnell

N. W.

Dercon

Geddes

Thomas

. 2011. “The Effect of Environmental Change on Human Migration.” Global Environmental Change 21: S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.001.

21.

Black

Arnell

N. W.

Adger

W. N.

Thomas

Geddes

. 2013. “Migration, Immobility and Displacement Outcomes Following Extreme Events.” Environmental Science & Policy 27: S32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.001.

22.

Borderon

Sakdapolrak

Muttarak

Kebede

Pagogna

Sporer

. 2019. “Migration Influenced by Environmental Change in Africa.” Demographic Research 41: 491–544. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2019.41.18.

23.

Brubaker

2014. “The Return of Assimilation? Changing Perspectives on Immigration and its Sequels in France, Germany, and the United States.” In Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, edited by Joppke

Morawska

, 39–58. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

Call

M. A.

Gray

Yunus

Emch

. 2017. “Disruption, not Displacement: Environmental Variability and Temporary Migration in Bangladesh.” Global Environmental Change 46: 157–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.008.

25.

Canales

A. I.

2019. “International Migration in Neoclassical Economics: A Critical Perspective.” In Migration, Reproduction and Society, 34–53. Liden/Boston:Brill.

26.

Carman

J. P.

Zint

M. T.

. 2020. “Defining and Classifying Personal and Household Climate Change Adaptation Behaviors.” Global Environmental Change 61: 102062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102062.

27.

Castles

2013. “The Forces Driving Global Migration.” Journal of Intercultural Studies 34(2): 122–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2013.781916.

28.

Cohen

J. H.

2007. The Effect of Political Unrest on Migration Decisions: New Evidence and Preliminary Findings from Oaxaca, Mexico. Working Paper 154, The Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS) University of California, San Diego.

29.

Cragg

M. I.

Kahn

M. E.

. 1999. “Climate Consumption and Climate Pricing from 1940 to 1990.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 29(4): 519–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-0462(98)00046-5.

30.

Curtis

K. J.

Fussell

DeWaard

. 2015. “Recovery Migration After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Spatial Concentration and Intensification in the Migration System.” Demography 52(4): 1269–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0400-7.

31.

DaVanzo

1981. “Repeat Migration, Information Costs, and Location-Specific Capital.” Population and Environment 4(1): 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01362575.

32.

DaVanzo

J. S.

Morrison

P. A.

. 1981. “Return and Other Sequences of Migration in the United States.” Demography 18: 85–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061051.

33.

Day

Caus

. 2020. “Conflict Prevention in the Era of Climate Change: Adapting the UN to Climate-Security Risks. New York, NY: United Nations University.

34.

Debnath

Nayak

D. K.

. 2020. “Assessing Drought-Induced Temporary Migration as an Adaptation Strategy: Evidence from Rural India.” Migration and Development, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12908.

35.

de Haas

2010. “The Internal Dynamics of Migration Processes: A Theoretical Inquiry.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(10): 1587–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00804.x.

36.

de Haas

. 2021. “A Theory of Migration: The Aspirations-Capabilities Framework.” Comparative Migration Studies 9 (1): 1–35.

37.

de Haas

Czaika

Flahaux

M. L.

Mahendra

Natter

Vezzoli

Villares-Varela

. 2019. “International Migration: Trends, Determinants, and Policy Effects.” Population and Development Review 45(4): 885–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12291.

38.

De Janvry

Sadoulet

. 2001. “Income Strategies among Rural Households in Mexico: The Role of off-Farm Activities.” World Development 29(3): 467–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00113-3.

39.

DeWaard

Curtis

K. J.

Fussell

. 2016. “Population Recovery in New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina: Exploring the Potential Role of Stage Migration in Migration Systems.” Population and Environment 37(4): 449–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-015-0250-7.

40.

DeWaard

J. T.

. 2019. “Resituating Relaunched Migration Systems as Emergent Entities Manifested in Geographic Structures.” Migration Studies 7(1): 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnx066.

41.

DeWaard

Nawrotzki

R. J.

. 2018. “Modeling Migration and Population Displacement in Response to Environmental and Climate Change.” In Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration, edited by McLeman

Gemenne

, 92–105. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.

42.

Dun

2011. “Migration and Displacement Triggered by Floods in the Mekong Delta.” International Migration 49: e200–23.

43.

Eklund

Romankiewicz

Brandt

Doevenspeck

Samimi

. 2016. “Data and Methods in the Environment-Migration Nexus: A Scale Perspective.” DIE ERDE–Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin 147(2): 139–52. https://doi.org/10.12854/erde-147-10.

44.

Entwisle

Verdery

Williams

. 2020. “Climate Change and Migration: New Insights from a Dynamic Model of Out-Migration and Return Migration.” American Journal of Sociology 125(6): 1469–512. https://doi.org/10.1086/709463.

45.

Faist

2016. “Cross-border Migration and Social Inequalities.” Annual Review of Sociology 42: 323–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074302.

46.

Falco

Donzelli

Olper

. 2018. “Climate Change, Agriculture and Migration: A Survey.” Sustainability 10(5): 1405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051405.

47.

Fan

Fisher-Vanden

Klaiber

H. A.

. 2018. “Climate Change, Migration, and Regional Economic Impacts in the United States.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 5(3): 643–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/697168.

48.

Fawcett

J. T.

1989. “Networks, Linkages, and Migration Systems.” International Migration Review 23(3): 671–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791838902300314.

49.

Feng

Oppenheimer

. 2012. “Applying Statistical Models to the Climate–Migration Relationship.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(43): E2915–E2915. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212226109.

50.

Findlay

A. M.

2011. “Migrant Destinations in an era of Environmental Change.” Global Environmental Change 21(S1): S50–S58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.004.

51.

Freudenburg

W. R.

Gramling

Laska

Erikson

K. T.

. 2008. “Organizing Hazards, Engineering Disasters? Improving the Recognition of Political-Economic Factors in the Creation of Disasters.” Social Forces 87(2): 1015–38. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0126.

52.

Froebel

Heinrichs

Kreye

. 1977. The New International Division of Labour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Fussell

Curtis

K. J.

DeWaard

. 2014a. “Recovery Migration to the City of New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina: A Migration Systems Approach.” Population and Environment 35(3): 305–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-014-0204-5.

54.

Fussell

Hunter

L. M.

Gray

C. L.

. 2014b. “Measuring the Environmental Dimensions of Human Migration: The Demographer's Toolkit.” Global Environmental Change 28: 182–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.001.

55.

Garip

2008. “Social Capital and Migration: How do Similar Resources Lead to Divergent Outcomes?” Demography 45(3): 591–617. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0016.

56.

Garip

2012. “Discovering Diverse Mechanisms of Migration: The Mexico–US Stream 1970–2000.” Population and Development Review 38(3): 393–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2012.00510.x.

57.

Giannelli

G. C.

Canessa

. 2021. “After the flood: Migration and remittances as coping strategies of rural Bangladeshi households.” Italian Society of Economics.

58.

Graves

P. E.

1980. “Migration and Climate.” Journal of Regional Science 20(2): 227–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1980.tb00641.x.

59.

Gray

C. L.

2009. “Environment, Land, and Rural out-Migration in the Southern Ecuadorian Andes.” World Development 37(2): 457–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.05.004.

60.

Gray

C. L

. 2010. “Gender, Natural Capital, and Migration in the Southern Ecuadorian Andes.” Environment and Planning A 42 (3): 678–96. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42170.

61.

Griga

Hadjar

. 2014. “Migrant Background and Higher Education Participation in Europe: The Effect of the Educational Systems.” European Sociological Review 30(3): 275–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct031.

62.

Gröger

Zylberberg

. 2016. “Internal Labor Migration as a Shock Coping Strategy: Evidence from a Typhoon.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8(2): 123–53. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20140362.

63.

Gurak

D. T.

Caces

. 1992. “Migration Networks and the Shaping of Migration Systems.” In International Migration Systems: A Global Approach , edited by Kritz

M.M.

Lim

L.L.

Zlotnik

, 150–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

64.

Harris

J. R.

Todaro

M. P.

. 1970. “Migration, Unemployment, and Development: A Two-Sector Analysis.” The American Economic Review: 126–42.

65.

Hauer

M. E.

2017. “Migration Induced by sea-Level Rise Could Reshape the US Population Landscape.” Nature Climate Change 7(5): 321–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3271.

66.

Hauer

M. E.

Fussell

Mueller

Burkett

Call

Abel

McLeman

Wrathall

. 2020a. “Sea-level Rise and Human Migration.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1(1): 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0002-9.

67.

Hauer

M. E.

Holloway

S. R.

Takashi

. 2020b. “Evacuees and Migrants Exhibit Different Migration Systems After the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.” Demography 57(4): 1437–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00883-7.

68.

Haug

2008. “Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34(4): 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830801961605.

69.

Heinrich

H. A

. 2020. “Causal Relationship or Not? Nationalism, Patriotism, and Anti-Immigration Attitudes in Germany.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 6(1): 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01293-6.

70.

Hughes

2021. “Conditional Cash Transfers and Migration: Reconciling Feminist Theoretical Approaches With the New Economics of Labor Migration.” Demography 58(1): 383–91. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-8928494.

71.

Hugo

1996. “Environmental Concerns and International Migration.” International Migration Review 30(1): 105–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791839603000110.

72.

Hulme

2011. “Reducing the Future to Climate: A Story of Climate Determinism and Reductionism.” Osiris 26(1): 245–66. https://doi.org/10.1086/661274.

73.

Hunter

L. M.

Luna

J. K.

Norton

R. M.

. 2015. “Environmental Dimensions of Migration.” Annual Review of Sociology 41: 377–97. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112223.

74.

Hunter

L. M.

Menken

. 2015. “Will Climate Change Shift Demography's’ Normal Science'?” Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 13: 23–8. https://doi.org/10.1553/populationyearbook2015s023.

75.

Hunter

L. M.

Murray

Riosmena

. 2013. “Rainfall Patterns and U.S. Migration from Rural Mexico.” International Migration Review 47 (4): 874–909.

76.

Huq

Hugé

Boon

Gain

A. K.

. 2015. “Climate Change Impacts in Agricultural Communities in Rural Areas of Coastal Bangladesh: A Tale of Many Stories.” Sustainability 7(7): 8437–60. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078437.

77.

IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). 2017. ON THE GRID: Global Internal Displacement in 2016. Geneva Switzerland: IDMC.

78.

IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). 2018. No Matter of Choice: Displacement in a Changing Climate. Geneva Switzerland: IDMC.

79.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C.An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Edited by V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, et al. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

80.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, et al. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

81.

Kaczan

D. J.

Orgill-Meyer

. 2020. “The Impact of Climate Change on Migration: A Synthesis of Recent Empirical Insights.” Climatic Change 158(3): 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02560-0.

82.

Kaufmann

2019. “Ethno-Traditional Nationalism and the Challenge of Immigration.” Nations and Nationalism 25(2): 435–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12516.

83.

Kerr

W. R.

2017. “US high-skilled Immigration, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Empirical Approaches and Evidence.” In The International Mobility of Talent and Innovation: New Evidence and Policy Implications, edited by C.

Fink

Miguelez

, 193–221. Cambridge UK: Cambride University Press.

84.

King

Cela

Fokkema

Morettini

. 2021. “International Retirement and Later-Life Migrants in the Marche Region, Italy: Materialities of Landscape,‘Home’, Lifestyle and Consumption.” Ageing & Society 41(6): 1267–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20001233.

85.

Koubi

Spilker

Schaffer

Böhmelt

. 2016. “The Role of Environmental Perceptions in Migration Decision-Making: Evidence from Both Migrants and non-Migrants in Five Developing Countries.” Population and Environment 38(2): 134–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-016-0258-7.

86.

Kuhn

1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

87.

Kuriakose

A. T.

Heltberg

Wiseman

Costella

Cipryk

Cornelius

. 2013. “Climate-Responsive Social Protection.” Development Policy Review 31 (S2): o19–o34. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12037.

88.

Lee

1966. “A Theory of Migration?” Demography 3 (1): 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060063.

89.

Lewis

W. A.

1954. “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour.” The Manchester School 22 (2): 139–91.

90.

Lindstrom

D. P.

Lauster

. 2001. “Local Economic Opportunity and the Competing Risks of Internal and US Migration in Zacatecas, Mexico 1.” International Migration Review 35(4): 1232–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2001.tb00059.x.

91.

Litwak

Longino

C. F.

, Jr. 1987. “Migration Patterns among the Elderly: A Developmental Perspective.” The Gerontologist 27 (3): 266–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/27.3.266.

92.

Liu

Linde

A. T.

Sacks

I. S.

. 2009. “Slow Earthquakes Triggered by Typhoons.” Nature 459: 833–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08042.

93.

Mabogunje

A. L.

1970. “A Systems Approach to a Theory of Rural-Urban Migration.” Geographic Analysis 2: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1970.tb00140.x.

94.

Maharjan

Tuladhar

Hussain

Mishra

Bhadwal

Ishaq

Saeed

B. A.

, et al. 2021. “Can Labour Migration Help Households Adapt to Climate Change? Evidence from Four River Basins in South Asia.” Climate and Development 13 (10): 879–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1867044.

95.

Maldonado

J. K.

Shearer

Bronen

Peterson

Lazrus

. 2013. “The Impact of Climate Change on Tribal Communities in the U.S.: Displacement, Relocation, and Human Rights.” In Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United States, 93–106. Cham: Springer.

96.

Massey

D. S.

1988. “Economic Development and International Migration in Comparative Perspective.” The Population and Development Review 14 (8): 383–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1972195.

97.

Massey

D. S.

1999. “International Migration at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: The Role of the State.” Population and Development Review 25(2): 303–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.1999.00303.x.

98.

Massey

D. S.

Arango

Hugo

Kouaouchi

Pellegrino

Taylor

J. E.

. 1998. Worlds in Motion. Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

99.

Massey

D. S.

Arango

Hugo

Kouaouci

Pellegrino

Taylor

J. E.

. 1993. “Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal.” Population and Development Review 19(3): 431–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938462.

100.

Massey

D. S.

Espinosa

K. E.

. 1997. “What's Driving Mexico-US Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 102(4): 939–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/231037.

101.

Matarrita-Cascante

2017. “Moving the Amenity Migration Literature Forward: Understanding Community-Level Factors Associated with Positive Outcomes After Amenity-Driven Change.” Journal of Rural Studies 53: 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.004.

102.

McLeman

2006. “Migration out of 1930s Rural Eastern Oklahoma: Insights for Climate Change Research.” Great Plains Quarterly 26(1): 27–40.

103.

McLeman

. 2014. Climate Change and Human Migration: Past Experiences, Future Challenges. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

104.

McLeman

2018. “Thresholds in Climate Migration.” Population and Environment 39(4): 319–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-017-0290-2.

105.

McLeman

R. A.

Hunter

L. M.

. 2010. “Migration in the Context of Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: Insights from Analogues.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(3): 450–61.

106.

McLeman

Schade

Faist

. 2016. Environmental Migration and Social Inequality. Dordrecht: Springer.

107.

McLeman

Smit

. 2006. “Migration as an Adaptation to Climate Change.” Climatic Change 76(1): 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-9000-7.

108.

McMichael

A. J.

Lindgren

. 2011. “Climate Change: Present and Future Risks to Health, and Necessary Responses.” Journal of Internal Medicine 270(5): 401–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02415.x.

109.

Melillo

J. M.

Richmond

T. T.

Yohe

. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

110.

Mendola

. 2012. “Rural Outmigration and Development at Origin: A Review of the Evidence.” Journal of International Development 24 (1): 102–22.

111.

Meyer

W. B.

Guss

D. M.

. 2017. “Neo-environmental Determinism.” In Neo-Environmental Determinism, 39–96. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

112.

Meyers

. 1993. “Environmental Refugees in a Globally Warmed World.” BioScience 43(11): 752–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312319.

113.

Morawska

2007. “International migration: Its various mechanisms and different theories that try to explain it.” Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations; 1/07.

114.

Morey

B. N.

Bacong

A. M.

Hing

A. K.

de Castro

A. B.

Gee

G. C.

. 2020. “Heterogeneity in Migrant Health Selection: The Role of Immigrant Visas.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 61(3): 359–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146520942896.

115.

Mortreux

Barnett

. 2009. “Climate Change, Migration and Adaptation in Funafuti, Tuvalu.” Global Environmental Change 19(1): 105–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.006.

116.

Mueller

Gray

Handa

Seidenfeld

. 2020b. “Do Social Protection Programs Foster Short-Term and Long-Term Migration Adaptation Strategies?” Environment and Development Economics 25(2): 135–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X19000214.

117.

Mueller

Gray

Hopping

. 2020a. “Climate-Induced Migration and Unemployment in Middle-Income Africa.” Global Environmental Change 65: 102183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102183.

118.

Mueller

Gray

Kosec

. 2014. “Heat Stress Increases Long-Term Human Migration in Rural Pakistan.” Nature Climate Change 4(3): 182–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2103.

119.

Mueller

Sheriff

Dou

Gray

. 2020c. “Temporary Migration and Climate Variation in Eastern Africa.” World Development 126: 104704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104704.

120.

Nawrotzki

R. J.

Bakhtsiyarava

. 2017. “International Climate Migration: Evidence for the Climate Inhibitor Mechanism and the Agricultural Pathway.” Population, Space and Place 23 (4): e2033.

121.

Nawrotzki

R. J.

Hunter

L. M.

Runfola

D. M.

Riosmena

. 2015. “Climate Change as a Migration Driver from Rural and Urban Mexico.” Environmental Research Letters 10(11): 114023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114023.

122.

Nawrotzki

R. J.

Runfola

Hunter

L. M.

Riosmena

. 2016. “Domestic and International Climate Migration from Rural Mexico.” Human Ecology 44 (6): 687–99.

123.

Oishi

2005. Women in Motion: Globalization, State Policies, and Labor Migration in Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

124.

O’Reilly

2015. “Migration Theories: A Critical Overview.” In Routledge Handbook of Immigration and Refugee Studies, edited by Triandafyllidou

, 49–57. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.

125.

Padilla

Serrano

. 2006. “Inequality in CO2 Emissions Across Countries and its Relationship with Income Inequality: A Distributive Approach.” Energy Policy 34(14): 1762–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.12.014.

126.

Palloni

Massey

D. S.

Ceballos

Espinosa

Spittel

. 2001. “Social Capital and International Migration: A Test Using Information on Family Networks.” American Journal of Sociology 106(5): 1262–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/320817.

127.

Piguet

2013. “From “Primitive Migration” to “Climate Refugees”: The Curious Fate of the Natural Environment in Migration Studies.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(1): 148–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.696233.

128.

Polynczuk-Alenius

2020. “At the Intersection of Racism and Nationalism: Theorising and Contextualising the ‘Anti-Immigration’discourse in Poland.” Nations and Nationalism 27 (3): 766–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12611.

129.

Ponserre

Gennetti

. 2019. “Disaster Displacement: a global review, 2008-2018.” International Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC).

130.

Porumbescu

2018. “Critical Perspective on the Neoclassical Economics and Labor Migration Theory.” Revista Universitară de Sociologie 14(2): 8–17.

131.

Pritchett

Hani

. 2020. “The Economics of International Wage Differentials and Migration.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance.

132.

Pryor

R. J.

1981. “6: Integrating International and Internal Migration Theories.” International Migration Review 15(1_suppl): 110–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791838101501s08.

133.

Puaschunder

2020. “Mapping Climate Justice.” In Governance & Climate Justice, 23–38. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

134.

Quiñones

E. J.

Nobles

Riosmena

Nawrotzki

. 2018. “Ex Ante Migration in Response to Environmental Change.” Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the 2018 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., August 5-7.

135.

Radel

Schmook

Carte

Mardero

. 2017. “Toward a Political Ecology of Migration: Land, Labor, and Climate Change in Northwestern Nicaragua.” World Development 108: 263–73.

136.

Raleigh

2011. “The Search for Safety: The Effects of Conflict, Poverty and Ecological Influences on Migration in the Developing World.” Global Environmental Change 21: S82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.008.

137.

Rigaud

K. K.

de Sherbinin

Jones

Bergmann

Clement , K. Ober, J. Schewe, et al. 2018. Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. Washington, DC: World Bank.

138.

Riosmena

Nawrotzki

Hunter

. 2018. “Climate Migration at the Height and End of the Great Mexican Emigration Era.” Population and Development Review 44(3): 455–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12158.

139.

Riosmena

Wong

Palloni

. 2013. “Migration Selection, Protection, and Acculturation in Health: A Binational Perspective on Older Adults.” Demography 50(3): 1039–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0178-9.

140.

Ruhe

2021. How Migration Intentions Change During Periods of Political Instability and Violence: Panel Survey Evidence from Kenya.” Migration Studies, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnab026

141.

Saldaña-Zorilla

S. O.

Sandberg

. 2009. “Impact of Climate-Related Disasters on Human Migration in Mexico: A Spatial Model.” Climatic Change 96: 97–118.

142.

Schwindt

D. M.

Bocinsky

R. K.

Ortman

S. G.

Glowacki

D. M.

Varien

M. D.

Kohler

T. A.

. 2016. “The Social Consequences of Climate Change in the Central Mesa Verde Region.” American Antiquity 81 (1): 74–96. https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.81.1.74.

143.

Selby

Dahi

O. S.

Fröhlich

Hulme

. 2017. “Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited.” Political Geography 60: 232–44.

144.

Sen

. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

145.

Seneviratne

S. I.

Nicholls

Easterling

Goodess

C. M.

Kanae

Kossin

Luo

, et al. 2012. “Changes in Climate Extremes and their Impacts on the Natural Physical Environment.” In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) edited by C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, et al. 109–230. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

146.

Shachar

2009. The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

147.

Simon

D. H.

2018. “Environmental Migration in Mexico.” In Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration, edited by McLeman

Gemenne

, 257–69. New York: Routledge.

148.

Skeldon

1990. Population Mobility in Developing Countries: A Reinterpretation. London: Belhaven.

149.

Sporton

Thomas

D. S.

Morrison

. 1999. “Outcomes of Social and Environmental Change in the Kalahari of Botswana: The Role of Migration.” Journal of Southern African Studies 25(3): 441–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/030570799108605.

150.

Stark

Bloom

D. E.

. 1985. “The new Economics of Labor Migration.” The American Economic Review 75(2): 173–8.

151.

Stark

Taylor

J. E.

. 1991. “Migration Incentives, Migration Types: The Role of Relative Deprivation.” The Economic Journal 101(408): 1163–78.

152.

Strobl

2011. “The Economic Growth Impact of Hurricanes: Evidence from US Coastal Counties.” Review of Economics and Statistics 93(2): 575–89. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00082.

153.

Suckall

Fraser

Forster

Mkwambisi

. 2015. “Using a Migration Systems Approach to Understand the Link Between Climate Change and Urbanisation in Malawi.” Applied Geography 63: 244–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.07.004.

154.

Thiede

B. C.

Gray

C. L.

. 2017. “Heterogeneous Climate Effects on Human Migration in Indonesia.” Population and Environment 39(2): 147–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-016-0265-8.

155.

Thiri

M. A.

2017. “Social Vulnerability and Environmental Migration: The Case of Miyagi Prefecture After the Great East Japan Earthquake.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25: 212–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.08.002.

156.

Todaro

M. P

. 1980. “Internal Migration in Developing Countries.” In Population and Economic Change in Developing Countries, edited by R.A. Easterlin, 361–402. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

157.

Valdes-Pizzini

. 2020. “Making Sense out of Coastal Peoples and Fishers’ Responses to Extreme Natural Events in the Caribbean. 48(5): 349–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1802197.

158.

Van Hear

Bakewell

Long

. 2018. “Push-pull plus: Reconsidering the Drivers of Migration.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(6): 927–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384135.

159.

Villarreal

Hamilton

E. R.

. 2012. “Rush to the Border? Market Liberalization and Urban-and Rural-Origin Internal Migration in Mexico.” Social Science Research 41(5): 1275–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.02.007.

160.

Vinke

Hoīmann

. 2020. “Data for a Difficult Subject: Climate Change and Human Migration.” MIGRATION 10(1): 16–22.

161.

Wallerstein

1974. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16(4): 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500007520.

162.

Wallerstein

Hopkins.

1982. World-System Analysis: Theory and Methodology . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

163.

White

M. J.

2016. International Handbook of Migration and Population Distribution (Vol. 6). New York: Springer.

164.

Wickramasinghe

A. A. I. N.

Wimalaratana

. 2016. “International Migration and Migration Theories.” Social Affairs 1(5): 13–32.

165.

Windzio

2018. “The Network of Global Migration 1990–2013: Using ERGMs to Test Theories of Migration Between Countries.” Social Networks 53: 20–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.08.006.

166.

Yamamoto

Esteban.

2017. “Migration as an Adaptation Strategy for Atoll Island States.” International Migration 55 (2): 144–58.

167.

Zolberg

A. R.

1989. “The Next Waves: Migration Theory for a Changing World.” International Migration Review 23 (3): 403–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791838902300302.

168.

Zolberg

Suhrke

Aguayo

. 1989. Escape From Violence: Conflict and Refugee Crisis in the Developing World. New York: Oxford University Press.