4.7 Review

Improving the evidence base: A methodological review of the quantitative climate migration literature

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102367

Keywords

Climate migration; Climate change; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Methodology; Methods

Funding

  1. International Climate Initiative (IKI)
  2. German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)
  3. German Federal Foreign Office

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper systematically reviews quantitative empirical literature on climate-related migration, analyzing information from 127 original studies to assess key challenges such as migration measurement and climatic events.
The question whether and how climatic factors influence human migration has gained both academic and public interest in the past years. Based on two meta-analyses, this paper systematically reviews the quantitative empirical literature on climate-related migration from a methodological perspective. In total, information from 127 original micro-and macro-level studies is analyzed to assess how different concepts, research designs, and analytical methods shape our understanding of climate migration. We provide an overview of common methodological approaches and present evidence on their potential implications for the estimation of climatic impacts. We identify five key challenges, which relate to the i) measurement of migration and ii) climatic events, iii) the integration and aggregation of data, iv) the identification of causal relationships, and v) the exploration of contextual influences and mechanisms. Advances in research and modelling are discussed together with best practice cases to provide guidance to researchers studying the climate-migration nexus. We recommend for future empirical studies to employ approaches that are of relevance for and reflect local contexts, ensuring high levels of comparability and transparency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available