Climate and Development, 2015

Vol. 7, No. 4, 380–397, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.953904

REVIEW ARTICLE
Theorizing climate change, (im)mobility and socio-ecological systems resilience in low-elevation
coastal zones
Daniel W.A. Murphy*

Department of Development, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, UK

(Received 2 January 2014; final version received 2 July 2014)

This paper draws on recent theory and empirical research to explore how mobility is and might be employed by populations
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It examines case studies in Bangladesh and Kiribati to illustrate the implications
of differential processes of change, types of mobility, challenges and responses in low-elevation coastal zones. Throughout, a
household-level analysis yields a complex picture of how (im)mobility interacts with vulnerability to environmental change.
A resilience approach is subsequently adopted to argue that an understanding of socio-ecological systems offers a useful
Downloaded by [Daniel Murphy] at 18:59 09 September 2015

means of apprehending and exploring the complexity inherent in the climate change–mobility nexus.
Keywords: South Asia; small islands; livelihoods; adaptation; climate change

1. Introduction implications of distinct patterns of human mobility. This

That populations employ mobility in response to climatic
change is hardly new (see Huang et al., 2003), but the
fact that global climate change is itself a response to
human behaviour is – comparatively. It has been tempting
to view human mobility in the so-called anthropocene as
a deterministic certainty where climatic and environmental
stressors decimate livelihoods, threaten physical well-being
and literally ‘push’ people from their homes (see
El-Hinnawi, 1985; Myers, 2002). The reality of the
climate change–mobility nexus is somewhat more
complex. Indeed, there is growing recognition that
migration is one of the simplest and most effective ways
for communities facing livelihoods insecurity to adapt to
the impacts of climate change (Tacoli, 2009, 2011).
Whilst environmental change does affect patterns of
human mobility, specific demographic shifts are by no
means associated with discrete ecological processes or epi-
sodes: vulnerability is itself properly defined as a function
of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2007). Conse-
quently, the volume, duration, direction and distance of
population mobility in the context of climate change are
mediated by a variety of factors. The variety of demo-
graphic outcomes highlights the problematic nature of
employing specialized terminology: ‘environmental
migrant’, for example, offers policy-makers and scholars
a blunt tool with which to address the vastly different
paper uses the term ‘(im)mobility’ to highlight the expec-
tation that certain ‘trapped’ populations will be unable to
move away from locations vulnerable to environmental
degradation and that these populations should be of equal
importance to policy-makers and researchers as those
who do move (Foresight, 2011). For these reasons, more
nuanced delineations of how (im)mobility is affected by
climate change are essential for efforts aimed at identifying
appropriate support strategies for vulnerable communities
(Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011).
Over the last years, as our understanding of the climate
change–mobility nexus has developed and monocausal
analytical frameworks have been discredited, new chal-
lenges have arisen from the complexity of environment–
demography interactions (Faist & Schade, 2013). This
paper looks specifically at low-elevation coastal zones
(LECZ), defined as coastal areas at 0–10 m above sea
level (McGranahan, Balk, & Anderson, 2007), to review
and consolidate current insights into how complex and
shifting constellations of both locally sited and structural
vulnerabilities render specific populations disproportio-
nately susceptible to the impacts of climate change and
how (im)mobility arises at the household level in response
to these multiple drivers. It further suggests ways by which
the application of a resilience approach grounded in a
socio-ecological system (SES) theoretic may offer
researchers a better means of apprehending and exploring

*Email: dwam87@gmail.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis