The role of environmental degradation in population displacement.

Abstract

This article answers a series of questions about the role of environmental degradation in population displacement, refugee movement, and migration. The environment tends not to be included in the reasons for migration. Roger's indicators of migration potential include population growth, economic restructuring, increased economic disparities, and increased refugee flows. Myers (1993) estimated that international displacement and internal displacement may amount to about 25 million and may rise to 150 million by 2050. The role of the environment in displacement must be examined in the broader political and cultural context. Definitions of environmental refugees are ambiguous and inconsistent, and research has not answered why people continue to move to Mexico City and Chongqing, China, which both have very high levels of pollution. El-Hinnawi (1985) defined 3 groups of environmental refugees: those displaced due to natural disasters; those displaced due to permanent habitat changes; and those displaced who migrated from areas that cannot support their basic needs and who desire an improved quality of life. Lonergan (1994) identified environmental stresses as natural disasters, cumulative or slow-onset changes, accidental disruptions or industrial accidents, development projects, and conflict and warfare. These 5 causes must be treated separately and not lumped together as environmental degradation. Shoreline erosion, coastal flooding, and agricultural disruption associated with climate change may increase migration. Global measures must address world poverty and promote sustainable development.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 185 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.