Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===== 4.4.2.6.2 Projected retreat ===== There is ''high agreement'' that climate change has the potential to drastically alter the size and direction of migration flows (Connell, 2012; Gray and Wise, 2016; Janif et al., 2016; Nawrotzki and DeWaard, 2016; Szabo et al., 2016; Call et al., 2017; Nawrotzki et al., 2017), but there is ''low confidence'' in quantitative projections of migration in response to SLR and extremes of sea level. The number of modelling studies of migration in response to environmental drivers has increased rapidly over the past decade (Kumari et al. 2018), but only a small portion of these model studies address migration in response to SLR and sea level extremes. Amongst these, a variety of different modelling approaches have been applied, but no model currently accounts for all push and pull factors influencing migration decisions (see Section 4.4.2.6.1). A model projecting future US county-level populations exposed to permanent inundation was combined with an empirical model of potential migration destinations to produce the first sea level/migration analysis of migrant destinations (Hauer, 2017). Assuming that households with incomes above 100,000 USD yr <sup>-1</sup> would have resources to stay and adapt, it was found that 1.8 m SLR by 2100 would displace over two million people in south Florida. Projected population gains due to SLR reach several hundred thousand for some inland urban areas. A gravity model modified to account for both distance to destinations and their attractiveness (deriving from such factors as economic opportunity and environmental amenities) projects a net migration into and out of the East African coastal zone, ranging from out-migration of 750,000 people between 2020 and 2050 to a small in-migration (Kumari et al., 2018). However, this range includes migration stimulated by freshwater availability as well as SLR and episodic flooding. A generalised radiation or diffusion model predicts 0.9 million people will migrate due to SLR in Bangladesh by 2050 and 2.1 million by 2100, largely internally, with substantial implications for nutrition, shelter and employment in destination areas (Davis et al., 2018). A global dynamic general equilibrium framework (Desmet et al., 2018) provides a more comprehensive approach to accounting for economic factors including changes to trade, innovation, and agglomeration, and political factors, such as policy barriers to mobility, all of which influence the migration response to environmental change. Agent-based models attempt to simulate decisions by individuals who face a variety of socioeconomic and environmental changes (Kniveton et al., 2012). However, neither general equilibrium nor agent-based frameworks have been applied yet to migration responses to SLR. Econometric models, common in climate/migration studies (Millock, 2015), likewise have yet to be applied to the SLR context, except for a single case study where an econometric model was used to interpret the outcome of a discrete choice experiment (Buchanan et al., 2019). For example, an interesting distinction between migration responses to long term temperature and precipitation trends in contrast to extreme events like flooding has been noted (Bohra-Mishra et al., 2014; Mueller et al., 2014), but similar econometric studies have yet to be done comparing responses to gradual land loss versus flooding during ESL events. <div id="section-4-4-2-6retreat-block-3"></div> <span id="cost-of-retreat"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-4
(section)
Add languages
Add topic