Content area
Full text
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = Popul Environ (2016) 37:429448 DOI 10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Helen Adams1
Published online: 16 September 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Explanations of relationships between migration and environmental change now focus on multiple interactions, risks in destination and immobility. This research applies behavioural migration theory to examine the extent to which immobile populations experiencing environmental degradation exercise agency with respect to location and, in doing so, elucidates what it means to be trapped. This research uses individual survey data from a migrant-sending area in highland Peru where the population experiences negative health and livelihood impacts from climate-related phenomena. Analysis of these data reveals three reasons for non-migration: high levels of satisfaction, resource barriers and low mobility potential. Immobility in dissatised people is more likely to be caused by attachment to place than resource constraints. Thus, the results suggest that trapped populations exist along a continuum. This highlights the need for policy responses differentiated by the mobility characteristics and preferences of the individual. Caution, therefore, must be exercised when labelling populations as trapped and promoting relocation.
Keywords Immobility Trapped Place attachment Behavioural theory
Environmental change Migration Peru
Introduction
Regional and international migration represents the sum of migration decisions taking place at the individual level in response to changes in life circumstances and the local environment. Migration allows individuals and populations to adjust to changes in livelihoods, risks and well-being caused by environmental change (Adams and Adger 2013a; Barnett and Webber 2010; Piguet et al. 2011) and is an
& Helen [email protected]
1 University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 6SX, UK
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3&domain=pdf
Web End = Why populations persist: mobility, place attachment and climate change
123
430 Popul Environ (2016) 37:429448
acknowledged risk-spreading strategy as part of household livelihood portfolios; remittances help households adapt to stressors and increase well-being in sending areas (Deshingkar 2012). However, individuals and households decide to persist in their locations, even where there are apparent economic reasons for relocating, environmental hazards or long-term environmental change.
Empirical research on the environmental and resource dimensions of migration ows and decision-making...