Anthropogenic sea-level rise (SLR) is predicted to impact, and, in many cases, displace, a large proportion of the population via inundation and heightened SLR-related hazards. With the global coastal population projected to surpass one billion people this century, SLR might be among the most costly and permanent future consequences of climate change. In this Review, we synthesize the rapidly expanding knowledge of human mobility and migration responses to SLR, providing a coherent roadmap for future SLR research and associated policy. While it is often assumed that direct inundation forces a migration, we discuss how mobility responses are instead driven by a diversity of socioeconomic and demographic factors, which, in some cases, do not result in a migration response. We link SLR hazards with potential mechanisms of migration and the associated governmental or institutional policies that operate as obstacles or facilitators for that migration. Specific examples from the USA, Bangladesh and atoll island nations are used to contextualize these concepts. However, further research is needed on the fundamental mechanisms underlying SLR migration, tipping points, thresholds and feedbacks, risk perception and migration to fully understand migration responses to SLR.
A large proportion of the global population presently reside in coastal regions where sea-level rise (SLR) impacts are expected and, in many cases, may influence the migration of millions of people.
Migration from SLR is multifaceted, influenced by environmental hazards and political, demographic, economic and social factors embedded within policy incentives to encourage or obstruct migration — not just SLR itself.
Evidence suggests that there are strong economic, social and cultural reasons for households to resist migrating away from areas exposed to SLR until migration is the only remaining option.
Estimating the number of migrants is difficult because future exposure to SLR is dependent on choices about carbon emissions today, as well as the coastal-adaptation choices we make over time.
Policies addressing SLR migration via protection and accommodation are well developed but policies addressing relocation are still too abstract and lack guidance on ensuring equity.
Future research on thresholds related to SLR migration and the interplay between physical and social processes will be critical for informing climate-migration policies.
Global sea levels have risen by approximately 0.2 m since 1900 (ref.1), with projections showing continued changes under anthropogenic warming. However, estimates of future global mean sea-level rise (SLR) vary widely; current projections for the year 2100, for example, range from a low of 0.4 m to a high of 2.5 m (refs2,3,4), depending on assumptions of future greenhouse gas emissions, thermal expansion, melt of glaciers and the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and isostatic adjustment as ice sheets disappear5. These SLR projections are likely conservative, and continued improvements in ice-sheet modelling suggest high-end SLR predictions are increasingly likely6,7. With global coastal populations totalling more than 600 million (projected to surpass one billion people this century8), any level of SLR is expected to impact and potentially displace a large population9,10. As a result, SLR is anticipated to be one of the most expensive and irreversible future consequences of global climate change9,11,12,13, costing up to 4.5% of global gross domestic product14.
The implications of SLR on human migration first appeared in the scientific literature during the late 1970s16, when there was increased recognition that disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could lead to major disruption in coastal cities16, resulting in migration. It is now understood that SLR influences human migration in multiple ways. The most apparent influence involves permanent, irreversible inundation of low-elevation areas, which, under SLR, renders land uninhabitable and unavailable for livelihoods10,12,17, necessitating relocation. However, various other hazards associated with SLR will also impact migration patterns and, in fact, will exert their influence considerably sooner than complete inundation. Hazards include saltwater intrusion into groundwater and agricultural soils18,19,20,21,22,23, coastal flooding24,25,26, shifts in sediment regimes27, coastal erosion28,29 and increased inland penetration of tropical storm surges30,31,32,33. These hazards could spur migration by permanently destroying irrigated coastal agriculture and fresh drinking water supplies34,35, disrupting vital human systems36,37,38, reducing property values39,40 and, ultimately, destroying property and infrastructure41,42. SLR also threatens coastal livelihoods such as tourism43, coastal aquiculture44, fisheries45 and silviculture46, indirectly pressuring migration through adverse impacts on job security.
Since the first studies to quantify population displacement due to SLR15, our fundamental understanding of SLR and human migration has rapidly advanced with the development of basic theory on climate-change migration47,48,49,50, empirical case studies of historical analogues for future SLR51,52,53,54,55, integrated economic analysis and modelling of SLR retreat56,57,58, explicit models of SLR migration50,59,60,61, as well as contentious policy discussions on the need for coastal retreat62,63,64,65. In some cases, studies even question if SLR will spur widespread migration at all66,67, as demonstrated by island residents in the Philippines who would rather adapt in place to SLR-related hazards than follow a relocation programme to the mainland67.
Globally, however, SLR threatens millions of people68, and even with strong reductions in carbon emissions, we are committed to SLR that will impact coastal cities69. The cost to adapt to such hazards will be hundreds of billions of dollars per year9,14,70. Moreover, if SLR forces millions of people further inland, a potential domino effect could result, increasing migration to more distant destinations48 and significantly altering population distributions50,59,60,71. With such a large global population exposed to SLR, there are calls for governments and institutions to facilitate potential migration and protect vulnerable coastal populations72,73.
Given the societal significance surrounding the topic, this Review synthesizes knowledge of potential human mobility and migration responses to SLR, and, in the process, identifies gaps in the research to help further SLR research and migration-related policymaking. We first discuss predictions of SLR migration, before describing decision-making at the individual and household levels. We then consider the institutional or governmental obstacles and facilitators to SLR migration, illustrating differences across the regional contexts of the USA, Bangladesh and atoll island states. Finally, we provide future directions for SLR and human-migration research.
Defining at-risk populations
Under an assumption that exposure corresponds directly with displacement, numerous studies have sought to identify the numbers and locations of people exposed to SLR8,9,10,11,14,15,26,30,73,74,75,76,77,78. However, estimates of SLR displacement are highly divergent, ranging from 88 million14 to 1.4 billion, the variability driven by competing definitions of who is ‘at risk’11,12,30. The three most common ‘at-risk’ definitions are: populations living in the low-elevation coastal zone (LECZ)8,11,76,79,80,81,82, populations living in the 100-year floodplain9,30,73,74,75,83,84,85 and populations living in areas that would be inundated under selected SLR scenarios10,12,14,15,26,85,86,87,88,89,90. All three approaches have associated strengths, weaknesses and implications for understanding the links between SLR and migration.
Assessments using the LECZ approach — typically defined as any area under 10 m in elevation and sometimes within 100 km of a coast8,9,11,75,79 — employ the most generalized and broadest definition of exposure to SLR. Depending on assumptions of future population growth, global estimates of people residing in the LECZ by 2100 range from 634 million11 to 1.4 billion8. Such studies cast the widest net for identifying exposure to SLR and, thus, provide the largest estimates of who might need to relocate as a result. However, residency in the LECZ alone may not entail exposure to any given SLR hazard, let alone displacement due to SLR.
By considering the extent of extreme water levels expected under SLR, residency within the 100-year floodplain offers more precise estimates of population exposure9,30,73,74,75,83,84,85. In the floodplain, residents might experience various SLR-associated hazards that influence migration decisions, such as increased severe storm surges30,31,32,33,73,91, occasional or periodic flooding24,25,92, saltwater intrusion of surface water and soils and groundwater wells19,20,22,93,94,95, shifts in sediment regimes27,28,29,96 and coastal erosion. In comparison to the LECZ approach, the floodplain metric reduces the exposed population in 2100 by roughly two-thirds, from 1.4 billion to 444 million8. However, as with the LECZ, residence in the 100-year floodplain may not necessarily result in migration responses to SLR. Indeed, many low-lying areas in the 100-year floodplain, such as Asia’s densely populated ‘mega-deltas’, possess fertile soil and ample water, which is ideal for farming and fishing. Floodplains thus attract large numbers of migrants from other areas, notwithstanding the presence of coastal hazards97. Simple residency in the 100-year floodplain does not, therefore, result in migration; it is only when the costs of increasing exposure to SLR hazards exceed the benefits of coastal environments that migration may occur.
The most conservative definition of populations ‘at risk’ of relocation due to SLR involves demarcating those living below the future sea level and, thus, projected to be permanently inundated10,12,14. This approach directly links exposure to an SLR hazard that will likely spur human migration: permanent inundation. Unlike the 100-year floodplain, which holds millions of residents, virtually no one lives below sea level. However as much as 0.79% (95% credible interval: 0.22–1.60%) of the world’s population, approximately 88 million people, could be permanently inundated with a median rise of 0.79 m by 2100 (ref.14). While this approach more precisely identifies populations that will have little choice but to relocate under various SLR scenarios, it still only links exposure to a single SLR hazard (permanent inundation), setting aside exposure to salinity, routine flooding and extreme events.
We illustrate the difference in estimates obtained by the three approaches using Bangladesh as an example. By the mid-21st century, Bangladesh is projected to have at least 110 million people living in the 10-m LECZ8, at least 12 million living in the 100-year floodplain8 and about 1 million people directly inundated by SLR10. The difference between each exposure estimate is about one order of magnitude. Thus, as few as 1 million people could be forced to migrate and as many as 110 million people could experience some SLR-related impact, depending on the selection of temporal horizons, vertical elevation thresholds and SLR forecasts.
In the absence of any adaptive measures, the estimate of populations directly inundated likely underestimates those who will migrate due to SLR impacts59, whereas the population estimates in the LECZ and 100-year floodplain likely overestimate potential future migrants. However, because exposure to hazard alone is not a valid indicator of migration potential, none of these estimates (alone or in combination with one another) reliably quantify the number of people likely to migrate due to SLR at global, regional or local scales49,98,99. Indeed, vulnerable communities have often shown an unwillingness or inability to migrate (Box 1), even under constant threat100, influenced by individual and household-level decisions.
Individual and household migration
Decisions by individuals and households to migrate are influenced by more than SLR risk. They instead fall on a multidimensional framework whereby individuals must also weigh up the costs and benefits of a myriad of economic, social, demographic, emotional and political factors97,101,102,103,104, as well as the onset and duration of the environmental hazard itself (Fig. 1). In the case of SLR, people migrate in response to policy incentives, employment opportunities, socioeconomics, and social and kin networks within perceptions of the risk before deciding to migrate. These factors might operate in concert or independently from each other. For instance, property damage from a storm surge alone might not be enough impetus for someone to migrate, but property damage in concert with a policy incentive such as home buyouts might be enough. These factors are then further mediated by individual/household preferences and institutional-level obstacles and facilitators. People make choices about when they move, their destination, who to move with and whether to return97,105,106 — all embedded within a multidimensional decision-making framework (Fig. 1). In different contexts and increasingly over time, SLR hazards, risk perception, adaptation policies and livelihood changes, in particular, will variably factor into migration decisions.
The perception of climate risk forms a critical bridge between a change in SLR and a potential migration response107. Both contextual and cognitive factors influence a person’s risk perception, including proximity to a hazard or potential hazard, past experience with a hazard, existence of structural protections against hazards and the individual’s ideology, economic resources and demographic characteristics108,109. For SLR migration, the perception of flood risk is often paramount110,111,112. Past experience with severe flooding causes people to perceive future flooding events as riskier113,114,115, amplifying possible forward-looking migration responses98,116. Perceptions of the risks of SLR combine with many other factors to influence the decision to move into or away from coastal areas. Therefore, SLR may marginally increase existing migration out-flows and decrease migration in-flows to coastal areas76.
Environmental drivers of migration typically operate by negatively affecting natural-resource-based livelihoods, such as farming and fishing, that are sustained by combining different types of capital (for example, natural, social, financial, physical)117. A sustainable livelihood allows coastal residents to cope with and recover from stresses and shocks while remaining in place. Soil salinization that lowers agricultural yields is one such threat to the sustainable livelihoods of coastal residents59. Other livelihoods threatened by SLR include tourism43, aquiculture44, fisheries45 and silviculture46. When livelihoods deteriorate, people diversify their livelihood portfolio by sending household members to work elsewhere temporarily, with the goal of remitting earnings118,119,120. To date, there is little evidence51 of environmental deterioration leading to complete settlement abandonment121.
Those who are most likely to move away from SLR hazards are those who can best absorb the emotional and financial costs and extract benefits associated with migrating: healthy, skilled, working-age adults, who can increase lifetime potential earnings by moving to higher-wage labour119,122,123,124,125,126. For example, in atoll island nations heavily threatened by SLR, evidence already suggests that SLR hazards translate into reduced housing values40 and migration of young, working-age people for economic opportunities127,128,129,130.
Tropical cyclones provide important analogues131 for SLR and human migration, as increased tropical cyclone intensity is associated with SLR. Generally, cyclones and associated flooding produce temporary, short-term mobility, and not permanent out-migration. For example, a study using millions of mobile network subscribers quantified mobility before, during and after Cyclone Mahasen, which struck Bangladesh in May 2013. They found evidence of slight anomalies in temporary mobility around the storm, but virtually no permanent migration132. In New Orleans, Louisiana, widespread destruction of housing from Hurricane Katrina produced near complete evacuation of the city and increased residents’ mobility over the next several years, but many residents returned after homes and neighbourhoods had been rebuilt133,134. Both examples point to a reluctance to permanently relocate to new destinations (Box 1). Cyclones have yet to produce long-term changes in coastal populations41,135, but higher-intensity cyclones could compromise economic growth in many regions of the world136,137 and, in the long term, affect the viability of coastal communities that are unable to adapt69.
While SLR may displace coastal populations in the future, urbanization and coastal amenities support large coastal populations, and continue to drive pro-coastal migration. For centuries, people have settled in river deltas and coasts for their natural resources and amenities, including fresh water, ecosystem services, transportation and recreational opportunities. These environmental resources and amenities, as well as the disamenities associated with SLR and cyclones, are capitalized in housing prices and wages138,139,140. The processes influencing migration are difficult to incorporate into demographic projections. Instead, those seeking to quantify how SLR will affect future populations identify geographic ‘hotspots’71,141. The extent of coastal urbanization provides clear motivation for institutions in these ‘hotspots’ to prevent SLR-related migration or, in the case where prevention is unfeasible, facilitate migration to safer locales.
Migration is often described as being one of a wide range of potential household-level adaptation choices to reduce exposure47,142,143. Yet, in the case of SLR-related hazards, there are relatively few long-term adaptation choices available to households apart from migration144. Thus, household-level responses to SLR and other hazards are typically contingent upon or ‘downstream’ from government and institutional responses145,146,147.
Institutional adaptive responses to SLR operate as either obstacles or facilitators to migration (Fig. 1) and fall under three broad categories: protection, accommodation and retreat (Fig. 2). A combination of environmental and socioeconomic conditions influences which response (or mixture of responses) governments employ to cope with, and adapt to, SLR. Protection and accommodation are policy actions designed to prevent migration by either reducing SLR hazards (through protection) or increasing capacity to cope with the hazard (via accommodation). Retreat, by contrast, directly facilitates migration.
Much of the adaptation literature focuses on protection measures designed to hold back the sea, prevent the negative impacts of SLR and, thus, reduce the need for migration9,30,73,74,148. These solutions include hard armouring like seawalls, groins and other infrastructure that maintain and expand the current shoreline and, in some cases, provide protection against storm surges. Soft-armouring methods, such as beach nourishment149,150,151 or ‘living shorelines’152,153 further replenish lost sediment and encourage more natural defences to SLR. The costs associated with protecting the world’s coastal populations via protection are astounding73,85 and are projected to reach nearly $100 billion by the end of the century70. Given both the costs and scale, it is unlikely that governments will armour every coastline in the world144,154.
Adaptation responses include accommodation of higher water levels, adjusting usage in and of the coastal zone145 to reduce negative SLR-related hazards that drive migration. Accommodation strategies include elevating homes and structures55,155,156, flood proofing157, managing land use, deploying flood warnings and pumps158, changing groundwater-extraction techniques145 or elevating roads. Many port cities’ coastal management plans already contain provisions to accommodate higher water levels155, such as coastal buffer zones in Ghana159 or multi-tiered terraces in Mokpo, Korea160. Much like costs for protection, those associated with accommodation can be high157, but remain lower than extensive protection. Thus, accommodation seems to be the most feasible adaptation measure154, as demonstrated by its already widespread adoption across the world55,144,161,162.
Retreat includes interventions that aim to facilitate migration out of SLR hazard areas or relocate residents and settlements to safer locations145. Although less desirable than protection and accommodation55,67,163, relocation is already seen as inevitable for a number of ‘hotspot’ communities62,164 now or in the future, when protection and accommodation become too costly or ineffective74. The Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea, Vunidogoloa in Fiji and Kivalina in Alaska, USA, are some communities either undergoing relocation or have already relocated due to SLR-associated hazards62,164. We identify two types of retreat: planned or managed retreat and unplanned retreat or migration.
Managed-retreat interventions might include a purposeful and coordinated process of relocation away from the path of eroding coastlines and coastal hazards62. Based on past analogues, managed retreat in response to SLR will likely be limited to small populations living in highly exposed areas49. Barring a catastrophic storm63, it is unlikely for many large cities due to the scale and value of infrastructure, or sunk costs. Instead, these cities are likely to commit to protection in the nearterm165.
Resettlement of a whole community requires centralized planning, where relocation includes considerations for infrastructure and service provisions, such as new roads, schools, markets, clinics and houses62,164,166,167,168. For many countries and areas where most property is privately owned, agreements to resettle are difficult to achieve and the cost is considerable62,167,169,170. Governments also lack coherent and coordinated regulatory approaches to address who exactly is vulnerable, what parameters determine habitability, where communities will relocate and when relocation will occur171. The success of a centrally planned managed retreat also depends on the availability of safer inland areas to host migrants. In many countries, private land owners can wield property rights and ‘institutional muscle’ to legally exclude others in a semi-permanent barrier to migrant entry172. In contrast, countries with capacity for strong centralized planning, like China, are more able to implement retreat strategies requiring involuntary relocation and large-scale mobilization of resources172. Likewise, retreat strategies may be more feasible in countries with large communally owned lands, like the Pacific Island countries of Fiji and Samoa49. For example, Fiji successfully relocated 26 households from the village of Vunidogoloa in 2012 (ref.173), whereas resettlement has been delayed in highly threatened Alaskan villages62.
Many countries lack comprehensive federal approaches for planned relocation174 but have a range of legal mechanisms to support individual and household-level retreat at multiple governmental scales (national, state and local). These policy responses lead to ‘unmanaged’ or ‘unplanned’ retreat175. These include ‘downzoning’ flood-prone areas, creating setbacks or buffers, securing easements from developers and protective zoning176,177,178. Market-based interventions, such as small-scale home buyouts63,112,179,180 may be popular, if not expensive, in higher-income countries with strong private property rights. For example, at least 40,000 voluntary buyouts have occurred in the USA since 1989 (ref.181).
Both managed and unmanaged retreat are generally contentious, with deep and persistent equity concerns. Factors of age, class, race, property ownership and historical structural/institutional disadvantage influence the experience of displacement and retreat180. Relocation can be perceived as ‘thinly veiled forms of social engineering’169 and those who are relocated might suggest that a government is ‘picking sides’169, deeming some ‘victims’ and unworthy of protection65,169. Relocations that follow ‘principles of equitable adaptation’182,183 and retreat can increase the success of a retreat programme, build social capital, deepen civic engagement and networks, and, ultimately, build resilience184,185.
Neumann et al.8 provide a comprehensive global analysis of the countries with the largest populations in the LECZ and in the 100-year floodplain (Fig. 3a). Countries with more than 50 million people in the LECZ are China (244 million), India (216 million), Bangladesh (109 million), Indonesia (93 million), Vietnam (80 million), Egypt (63 million) and Nigeria (57 million). Countries with more than 10 million people in the 100-year floodplain are China (103 million), India (63 million), Vietnam (50 million), Egypt (20 million), Indonesia (14 million) and Bangladesh (12 million). These countries represent the anticipated ‘hotspots’ of SLR migration, though neither the LECZ nor the 100-year floodplain metrics guarantee SLR-driven migration.
Some of these countries have few, if any, comprehensive studies on SLR and migration, lacking consideration of the potential destinations of migrations or when migration may occur. In some cases, there is more research on the migration of natural systems in response to SLR than of people186,187. Countries with at least 5 million people in the 100-year floodplain but lacking considerable SLR and migration research include China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Nigeria, Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, Pakistan, Myanmar and Iraq8. The behavioural dynamics of SLR migrants needs greater attention, with a focus on the potential destinations of these migrants50,59,60,71.
Governmental resources and adaptive capacity will combine with local geography to affect how SLR influences migration. Here, we discuss three regional contexts — the USA, Bangladesh and atoll island nations — to highlight similarities and differences in migration signals across contexts (Fig. 3).
Nearly 40% of the US population presently lives in coastal communities188 that are also predicted to see continued growth and development in the future. As a result, SLR (and its corresponding hazards) are projected to threaten between 3 million and 43 million people by 2100, with as many as 13 million that could face permanent inundation and displacement without protective measures8,10,12,76 (Fig. 3b). Half of those exposed to SLR reside in Florida and nearly a quarter in Miami, Florida alone10. Managed retreats in Alaska, Louisiana, New York and Texas offer a potential glimpse of broader-scale retreat in the USA63,65,180, including migration into less vulnerable coastal areas as a form of ‘climate gentrification’39,40, sometimes stemming from retreat itself189.
Numerous historical analyses in the US context51,52,54,55,190,191 find that SLR can overwhelm resilient coastal residents with strong emotional ties to place55, leading to abandonment51. In particular, the 1918 abandonment of Holland Island in the Chesapeake Bay due to SLR, triggered by population levels falling below a level to support community services, is a powerful analogue for potential future abandonment51. Moreover, when people do migrate in response to SLR hazards in the USA, they more often migrate to nearby urban job-growth centres190, rather than making small, incremental migrations52. Accordingly, future migration modelling suggests coastal adjacent, major inland cities, such as Austin, Texas, Orlando, Florida, or Atlanta, Georgia, might become major migration destinations for those migrating in response to SLR inundation50,76. For those migrating in response to a short-term risk, however, evidence suggests that people tend to migrate back to their home community once the risk has receded; for example, with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico42,133.
A wide range of protection and accommodation measures are routinely studied, discussed and deployed in anticipation of SLR in the USA155,192,193,194. Major US cities such as New York and Miami are actively working towards protection and accommodation. How many people these measures will protect from migrating is unknown. Many highly visible and contentious managed retreats are also presently underway in mainly indigenous communities across the USA65,167,170,195, such as the Isle De Jean Charles relocation in Louisiana or the Kivalina relocation in Alaska, where disagreements between tribal members and government agencies have slowed relocation efforts. No national government agency has the financial resources to coordinate or facilitate widespread adaptation and relocation policies196, leading to ad hoc policy deployment. With relocation cost estimates ranging between $200,000 and $1 million per capita62,167,196, widespread managed retreat seems unlikely in the US context, but a number of policy levers may be used to reduce incentives to live on vulnerable coastlines.
Owing to a long-standing concern for future SLR impacts, Bangladesh has been historically regarded as a major SLR hotspot197,198 and is the third most at-risk country to SLR, with 2 million to 110 million people at risk to SLR and its associated hazards8,60 (Fig. 3c).
Episodic tidal inundation and storm surge are major SLR hazards, amplified by riverine flooding associated with cyclones and seasonal monsoons132. These hazards threaten subsistence farmers and fishers living in low-lying delta, interrupting access to fresh water, driving soil salinization and eroding human settlements and arable farmland32,199,200,201. As 30% of the total cultivatable land of the country lies along the coast, the impacts of salinization on agriculture could undermine food security far beyond the coast202 and are estimated to displace more than 200,000 people annually59. Permanent inundation could ultimately displace upwards of 2.1 million people primarily towards Dhaka60. SLR-related migration in Bangladesh intentionally increases household resilience203 by migrating short distances204 towards pre-existing migration destinations132, spurred by both SLR and socioeconomic vulnerabilities205. This migration is likely to be internal, rather than international206,207.
As in the USA, many climate migrants in Bangladesh gravitate to wage opportunities in urban economic centres132. However, unlike the USA, many of these migrant destinations include cities under similar risk of future SLR. SLR-induced migration may, therefore, contribute to the further expansion of the nation’s informal settlements208. The permanence of these migration patterns has been relatively unexplored due to the paucity of migration data. However, recent work leverages data from millions of mobile network subscribers132 and existing longitudinal data in one survey site209 to monitor migration responses to other SLR hazards, such as cyclone incidence and torrential flooding. Although flooding, in these contexts, clearly disrupts livelihoods, these studies contribute to a growing consensus that the observed migration patterns around extreme events are relatively short-lived132,209,210,211 (Box 1). At present, coastal adaptation in Bangladesh almost exclusively consists of accommodation212. Without a concerted effort to facilitate retreat from coastlines98, SLR impacts may intensify the need to migrate, even while reducing people’s ability to absorb the losses, transition to urban-wage labour and relocate to urban slums.
Atoll island nations
Unlike the USA and Bangladesh with tens of millions of people threatened by SLR, the sparsely populated atoll island nations contain comparatively far fewer people at risk to SLR. For example, SLR threatens 6,000 people in Nauru, 9,000 in Guam, 25,000 in the Northern Mariana Islands, 31,000 in Vanuatu, 91,000 in the Marshall Islands, 133,000 in Fiji, 190,000 in Kiribati and 234,000 in the Solomon Islands8 (Fig. 3d–h).
The SLR forecast is so severe for the most low-lying nations that the possibility of deterritorialization has captured much of the discourse on SLR and human migration for many atoll island nations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees noted 10 years ago that early action was needed to prevent statelessness in the low-lying atoll nation states of the Maldives, Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands213. Loss of an entire territory or the exile of an entire population is unprecedented213, introducing unparalleled scenarios of state dissolution and possible statelessness — even if it is unclear that a state would cease to exist if submerged214. This anticipated deterritorialization or substantial territorial loss encompasses legal concerns regarding statehood, national identity, refugee status, state responsibility and access to resources, among other things215 (Box 2). While inundation is a significant concern, atoll nations are likely to face uninhabitability before complete submersion due to lack of fresh water and increased soil salinization215.
There is growing consensus that migration should be planned and coordinated171,182, facilitating movement and admission to other countries for displaced persons214 but strict migration-eligibility criteria and the lack of financial assistance restricts access to neighbouring countries216. The Maldives, Micronesia, the Marshall Island, Kiribati and Fiji have included migration in their national adaptation policies173,217. Kiribati’s noted ‘Migration with Dignity’ approach seeks to ensure the best outcome for cross-border migration I-Kiribati people who flee the impacts of climate change218. However, the policy only paves the way for those already willing and ready to migrate, possibly excluding those with limited literacy skills or those who rely on agriculture and place-based livelihoods218,219.
Conclusion and perspectives
SLR-driven human migration has the potential to alter population distributions at all scales. The work discussed in this Review highlights how hazards associated with SLR might spur human migration and the obstacles and facilitators for this migration. Nonetheless, several significant gaps remain in modelling, measuring and policy development around the implications of SLR for human migration.
First, quantifying the locations and numbers of people ‘at risk’ to SLR cannot be equated with the numbers of migrants responding to SLR. SLR hazards are highly variable across space and time, and their significance for migration, especially towards the end of this century, will largely be driven by greenhouse gas emissions. There must be more careful consideration of what exactly constitutes exposure to SLR and the time frames associated with these exposures. SLR impacts are often discussed in the far future5,12, yet impacts such as reduced housing prices, gentrification and migration are documented today where contemporary SLR is already minimal39,40,59. Additionally, many people presently reside in highly exposed coastal communities and it is necessary to connect the actual hazards of SLR to human migration on timescales of human decision-making.
Second, as many SLR hazards are still yet to manifest, the empirical linkages between SLR hazards and human migration are still too tenuous. Some commentators continue to erroneously describe a predetermined relationship between the inundation of coastal communities and the resultant waves of migration6,172. Research has only begun to turn to the underlying mechanisms that might drive this migration39,40,59, but it is abundantly clear that more research is critically needed to understand the numbers of future migrants, the decades in which migration may occur and their potential destinations. Human behaviour is complex and scientists should focus on how SLR hazards might translate into migration signals. The work on soil salinization is a start59 but is limited to agriculturally dominant contexts. Critically, our understanding of thresholds and tipping points beyond which human migration becomes inevitable is severely limited. Further, this Review highlights the dearth of science on SLR and migration for numerous countries highly threatened by SLR, most notably China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt and Nigeria.
Third, common non-migration household adaptations to coastal hazards (such as elevating houses and storing valuables above ground) are not sensible if schools, clinics, workplaces or neighbouring households do not take similar actions. Protection — the most effective adaptations to reduce exposure to SLR and coastal hazards — requires resources generally only available through coordinated policy interventions. Policies addressing relocation are still too abstract and lack guidance to ensure equity. Without more concrete policy guidance for relocation across borders and to facilitate integration into destination communities, migrants from atoll island nations may endure a climate-change-related human rights catastrophe and magnified suffering of the most vulnerable populations. Just as with research on the mechanisms associated with SLR migration, research on immobile or trapped populations (those who are unable or unwilling to migrate) is crucially needed. An important priority is to identify the policies that will best alleviate the suffering of those trapped in increasingly flood-prone areas.
Fourth, global population projections from the United Nations show widespread ageing in every country by the century’s end220. The well-documented relationship between age and migration propensity221 suggests that youthful populations are more likely to migrate than older populations. What are the implications of an ageing coastal zone if ‘migration as adaptation’ is the primary adaptation strategy in many developing countries and older people migrate less than younger people? Migrants continue to migrate to the economic engines in coastal cities and mega-deltas222 but will changing demographics alter this migration dynamic? Relatively little research explores the important implication of ageing on human mobility and migration in the coastal zone.
Rigorous scientific research on SLR and human migration will result from multidisciplinary data, methods and research teams involving oceanographers, anthropologists, geographers, economists, remote sensors, sociologists and geomorphologists, to name a few. Alarmist predictions of ‘climate refugees’ garner press headlines in the Global North and fuel anti-immigrant sentiments. However, the research reviewed here paints a much more complex picture that allows us to anticipate how SLR migration may unfold in different scenarios to develop informed policies that avert crises and promote more equitable and humane outcomes.
Rahmstorf, S. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 315, 368–370 (2007).
Stocker, T. et al. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J. C. & Grinsted, A. Sea level projections to AD2500 with a new generation of climate change scenarios. Glob. Planet. Change 80, 14–20 (2012).
Sweet, W. V. et al. Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017).
Kopp, R. E. et al. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earths Future 2, 383–406 (2014).
Bamber, J. L., Oppenheimer, M., Kopp, R. E., Aspinall, W. P. & Cooke, R. M. Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11195–11200 (2019).
Dangendorf, S. et al. Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 705–710 (2019).
Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J. & Nicholls, R. J. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding — a global assessment. PLOS ONE 10, e0118571 (2015). A global assessment of the populations living in the LECZ and in the 100-year floodplain.
Nicholls, R. J. et al. Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a ‘beyond 4°C world’ in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 369, 161–181 (2011).
Hauer, M. E., Evans, J. M. & Mishra, D. R. Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 691–695 (2016).
McGranahan, G., Balk, D. & Anderson, B. The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ. Urban. 19, 17–37 (2007).
Strauss, B. H., Kulp, S. & Levermann, A. Carbon choices determine US cities committed to futures below sea level. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 13508–13513 (2015).
Field, C. B. et al. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects. Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Desmet, K. et al. Evaluating the economic cost of coastal flooding. NBER Work. Pap. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24918 (2018).
Schneider, S. H. & Chen, R. S. Carbon dioxide warming and coastline flooding: physical factors and climatic impact. Annu. Rev. Energy 5, 107–140 (1980). One of, if not the, first articles to quantify the potential displacement associated with SLR.
Mercer, J. H. West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster. Nature 271, 321–325 (1978).
Poulter, B. & Halpin, P. N. Raster modelling of coastal flooding from sea-level rise. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 22, 167–182 (2008).
Chang, S. W., Clement, T. P., Simpson, M. J. & Lee, K.-K. Does sea-level rise have an impact on saltwater intrusion? Adv. Water Resour. 34, 1283–1291 (2011).
Carretero, S., Rapaglia, J., Bokuniewicz, H. & Kruse, E. Impact of sea-level rise on saltwater intrusion length into the coastal aquifer, Partido de La Costa, Argentina. Cont. Shelf Res. 61–62, 62–70 (2013).
Knighton, A. D., Mills, K. & Woodroffe, C. D. Tidal-creek extension and saltwater intrusion in northern Australia. Geology 19, 831–834 (1991).
Werner, A. D. & Simmons, C. T. Impact of sea-level rise on sea water intrusion in coastal aquifers. Groundwater 47, 197–204 (2009).
Giambastiani, B. M. S., Antonellini, M., Oude Essink, G. H. P. & Stuurman, R. J. Saltwater intrusion in the unconfined coastal aquifer of Ravenna (Italy): a numerical model. J. Hydrol. 340, 91–104 (2007).
Ketabchi, H., Mahmoodzadeh, D., Ataie-Ashtiani, B. & Simmons, C. T. Sea-level rise impacts on seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers: review and integration. J. Hydrol. 535, 235–255 (2016).
Moftakhari, H. R. et al. Increased nuisance flooding along the coasts of the United States due to sea level rise: past and future. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 9846–9852 (2015).
Vitousek, S. et al. Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within decades due to sea-level rise. Sci. Rep. 7, 1399 (2017).
Strauss, B. H., Ziemlinski, R., Weiss, J. L. & Overpeck, J. T. Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 014033 (2012).
Van Manh, N. et al. Future sediment dynamics in the Mekong Delta floodplains: Impacts of hydropower development, climate change and sea level rise. Glob. Planet. Change 127, 22–33 (2015).
Bruun, P. Sea-level rise as a cause of shore erosion. J. Waterw. Harb. Div. 88, 117–132 (1962).
Leatherman, S. P., Zhang, K. & Douglas, B. C. Sea level rise shown to drive coastal erosion. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 81, 55–57 (2000).
Hallegatte, S. et al. Assessing climate change impacts, sea level rise and storm surge risk in port cities: a case study on Copenhagen. Clim. Change 104, 113–137 (2011).
Tebaldi, C., Strauss, B. H. & Zervas, C. E. Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm surges along US coasts. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 014032 (2012).
Karim, M. F. & Mimura, N. Impacts of climate change and sea-level rise on cyclonic storm surge floods in Bangladesh. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 490–500 (2008).
Woodruff, J. D., Irish, J. L. & Camargo, S. J. Coastal flooding by tropical cyclones and sea-level rise. Nature 504, 44–52 (2013).
Mahmuduzzaman, M., Ahmed, Z. U., Nuruzzaman, A. K. M. & Ahmed, F. R. S. Causes of salinity intrusion in coastal belt of Bangladesh. Int. J. Plant. Res. 4, 8–13 (2014).
Sušnik, J. et al. Interdisciplinary assessment of sea-level rise and climate change impacts on the lower Nile delta, Egypt. Sci. Total. Environ. 503–504, 279–288 (2015).
Suarez, P., Anderson, W., Mahal, V. & Lakshmanan, T. R. Impacts of flooding and climate change on urban transportation: A systemwide performance assessment of the Boston Metro Area. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 10, 231–244 (2005).
Jacobs, J. M., Cattaneo, L. R., Sweet, W. & Mansfield, T. Recent and future outlooks for nuisance flooding impacts on roadways on the US East Coast. Transp. Res. Rec. 2672, 1–10 (2018).
Dawson, D., Shaw, J. & Gehrels, W. R. Sea-level rise impacts on transport infrastructure: The notorious case of the coastal railway line at Dawlish, England. J. Transp. Geogr. 51, 97–109 (2016).
Keenan, J. M., Hill, T. & Gumber, A. Climate gentrification: from theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054001 (2018). Discusses the concept of ‘climate gentrification’ due to SLR.
McAlpine, S. A. & Porter, J. R. Estimating recent local impacts of sea-level rise on current real-estate losses: a housing market case study in Miami-Dade, Florida. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 37, 871–895 (2018).
Fussell, E. et al. Weather-related hazards and population change: a study of hurricanes and tropical storms in the United States, 1980–2012. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 669, 146–167 (2017).
Alexander, M., Polimis, K. & Zagheni, E. The impact of Hurricane Maria on out-migration from Puerto Rico: evidence from Facebook data. Popul. Dev. Rev. 45, 617–630 (2019).
Scott, D., Simpson, M. C. & Sim, R. The vulnerability of Caribbean coastal tourism to scenarios of climate change related sea level rise. J. Sustain. Tour. 20, 883–898 (2012).
Mehvar, S., Filatova, T., Syukri, I., Dastgheib, A. & Ranasinghe, R. Developing a framework to quantify potential sea level rise-driven environmental losses: a case study in Semarang coastal area, Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 216–230 (2018).
Badjeck, M.-C., Allison, E. H., Halls, A. S. & Dulvy, N. K. Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-based livelihoods. Mar. Policy 34, 375–383 (2010).
Desantis, L. R., Bhotika, S., Williams, K. & Putz, F. E. Sea-level rise and drought interactions accelerate forest decline on the Gulf Coast of Florida, USA. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2349–2360 (2007).
Black, R., Bennett, S. R. G., Thomas, S. M. & Beddington, J. R. Climate change: Migration as adaptation. Nature 478, 447–449 (2011). An especially useful overarching framework to discuss migration as multifaceted.
Döös, B. R. Can large-scale environmental migrations be predicted? Glob. Environ. Change 7, 41–61 (1997).
McLeman, R. A. Climate and Human Migration: Past Experiences, Future Challenges (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Hauer, M. E. Migration induced by sea-level rise could reshape the US population landscape. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 321–325 (2017). One of the first studies to model the potential migration destinations of SLR migrants.
Gibbons, S. J. A. & Nicholls, R. J. Island abandonment and sea-level rise: An historical analog from the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 40–47 (2006). One of the few historical analogues of island abandonment.
Hauer, M. E., Hardy, R. D., Mishra, D. R. & Pippin, J. S. No landward movement: examining 80 years of population migration and shoreline change in Louisiana. Popul. Environ. 40, 369–387 (2019).
Trincardi, F. et al. The 1966 flooding of Venice: What time taught us for the future. Oceanography 29, 178–186 (2016).
Fussell, E., Curtis, K. J. & DeWaard, J. Recovery migration to the City of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: a migration systems approach. Popul. Environ. 35, 305–322 (2014).
Bailey, C., Gramling, R. & Laska, S. B. in Perspectives on the Restoration of the Mississippi Delta: The Once and Future Delta (eds Day, J. W., Kemp, G. P., Freeman, A. M. & Muth, D. P.) 125–140 (Springer, 2014).
Yohe, G. W. & Schlesinger, M. E. Sea-level change: the expected economic cost of protection or abandonment in the United States. Clim. Change 38, 447–472 (1998).
Yohe, G., Neumann, J., Marshall, P. & Ameden, H. The economic cost of greenhouse-induced sea-level rise for developed property in the United States. Clim. Change 32, 387–410 (1996).
Fankhauser, S. Protection versus retreat: the economic costs of sea-level rise. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 27, 299–319 (1995).
Chen, J. & Mueller, V. Coastal climate change, soil salinity and human migration in Bangladesh. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 981–985 (2018). One of the few studies to link a SLR hazard to empirical models of human migration.
Davis, K. F., Battachan, A., D’Odorico, P. & Suweis, S. A universal model for predicting human migration under climate change: examining future sea level rise in Bangladesh. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064030 (2018).
Adams, H. & Kay, S. Migration as a human affair: Integrating individual stress thresholds into quantitative models of climate migration. Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 129–138 (2019). Quantifies potential thresholds for migrating due to SLR.
Hino, M., Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 364–370 (2017). A global study of historic managed retreats that identifies four types of managed retreats.
Koslov, L. The case for retreat. Public Cult. 28, 359–387 (2016).
Pilkey, O. H., Pilkey-Jarvis, L. & Pilkey, K. C. Retreat From a Rising Sea: Hard Choices in an Age of Climate Change (Columbia Univ. Press, 2016).
Maldonado, J. K., Shearer, C., Bronen, R., Peterson, K. & Lazrus, H. in Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples in the United States: Impacts, Experiences and Actions (eds Maldonado, J. K., Colombi, B. & Pandya, R.) 93–106 (Springer, 2014).
Kniveton, D. Sea-level-rise impacts: Questioning inevitable migration. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 548–549 (2017).
Laurice Jamero, M. A. et al. Small-island communities in the Philippines prefer local measures to relocation in response to sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 581–586 (2017). Demonstrates that, when given the option to relocate, people prefer to stay and protect in place rather than migrate.
Kulp, S. A. & Strauss, B. H. New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat. Commun. 10, 4844 (2019).
Mengel, M., Nauels, A., Rogelj, J. & Schleussner, C.-F. Committed sea-level rise under the Paris Agreement and the legacy of delayed mitigation action. Nat. Commun. 9, 601 (2018).
Hinkel, J. et al. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3292–3297 (2014).
Rigaud, K. K. et al. Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration (World Bank, 2018).
Siders, A. R., Hino, M. & Mach, K. J. The case for strategic and managed climate retreat. Science 365, 761–763 (2019).
Hallegatte, S., Green, C., Nicholls, R. J. & Corfee-Morlot, J. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 802–806 (2013).
Brown, S. et al. Quantifying land and people exposed to sea-level rise with no mitigation and 1.5°C and 2.0°C rise in global temperatures to year 2300. Earths Future 6, 583–600 (2018).
Nicholls, R. J. & Cazenave, A. Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science 328, 1517–1520 (2010).
Curtis, K. J. & Schneider, A. Understanding the demographic implications of climate change: estimates of localized population predictions under future scenarios of sea-level rise. Popul. Environ. 33, 28–54 (2011). One of the first studies to hypothesize that SLR might not just spur people to migrate but will actually alter migration destinations.
Marzeion, B. & Levermann, A. Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034001 (2014).
Rowley, R. J., Kostelnick, J. C., Braaten, D., Li, X. & Meisel, J. Risk of rising sea level to population and land area. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 88, 105–107 (2007).
Small, C. & Nicholls, R. J. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. J. Coast. Res. 19, 584–599 (2003).
Lichter, M., Vafeidis, A. T. & Nicholls, R. J. Exploring data-related uncertainties in analyses of land area and population in the “low-elevation coastal zone” (LECZ). J. Coast. Res. 27, 757–768 (2010).
Small, C., Gornitz, V. & Cohen, J. E. Coastal hazards and the global distribution of human population. Environ. Geosci. 7, 3–12 (2000).
Mondal, P. & Tatem, A. J. Uncertainties in measuring populations potentially impacted by sea level rise and coastal flooding. PLOS ONE 7, e48191 (2012).
Purvis, M. J., Bates, P. D. & Hayes, C. M. A probabilistic methodology to estimate future coastal flood risk due to sea level rise. Coast. Eng. 55, 1062–1073 (2008).
Crowell, M. et al. An estimate of the U.S. population living in 100-year coastal flood hazard areas. J. Coast. Res. 262, 201–211 (2010).
Heberger, M., Cooley, H., Herrera, P., Gleick, P. H. & Moore, E. Potential impacts of increased coastal flooding in California due to sea-level rise. Clim. Change 109, 229–249 (2011).
Hauer, M. E., Evans, J. M. & Alexander, C. R. Sea-level rise and sub-county population projections in coastal Georgia. Popul. Environ. 37, 44–62 (2015).
Hardy, R. D. & Hauer, M. E. Social vulnerability projections improve sea-level rise risk assessments. Appl. Geogr. 91, 10–20 (2018).
El-Raey, M. Vulnerability assessment of the coastal zone of the Nile delta of Egypt, to the impacts of sea level rise. Ocean Coast. Manag. 37, 29–40 (1997).
Zhang, K., Dittmar, J., Ross, M. & Bergh, C. Assessment of sea level rise impacts on human population and real property in the Florida Keys. Clim. Change 107, 129–146 (2011).
Li, X. et al. GIS analysis of global impacts from sea level rise. Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens. 75, 807–818 (2009).
Kleinosky, L. R., Yarnal, B. & Fisher, A. Vulnerability of Hampton Roads, Virginia to storm-surge flooding and sea-level rise. Nat. Hazards 40, 43–70 (2007).
Sweet, W. V. & Park, J. From the extreme to the mean: Acceleration and tipping points of coastal inundation from sea level rise. Earths Future 2, 579–600 (2014).
Bobba, A. G. Numerical modelling of salt-water intrusion due to human activities and sea-level change in the Godavari Delta, India. Hydrol. Sci. J. 47, S67–S80 (2002).
Ataie-Ashtiani, B., Werner, A. D., Simmons, C. T., Morgan, L. K. & Lu, C. How important is the impact of land-surface inundation on seawater intrusion caused by sea-level rise? Hydrogeol. J. 21, 1673–1677 (2013).
Loáiciga, H. A., Pingel, T. J. & Garcia, E. S. Sea water intrusion by sea-level rise: scenarios for the 21st century. Groundwater 50, 37–47 (2012).
Ranasinghe, R., Callaghan, D. & Stive, M. J. Estimating coastal recession due to sea level rise: beyond the Bruun rule. Clim. Change 110, 561–574 (2012).
Seto, K. C. Exploring the dynamics of migration to mega-delta cities in Asia and Africa: Contemporary drivers and future scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 21, S94–S107 (2011).
Black, R., Arnell, N. W., Adger, W. N., Thomas, D. & Geddes, A. Migration, immobility and displacement outcomes following extreme events. Environ. Sci. Policy 27, S32–S43 (2013).
Adger, W. N. et al. Focus on environmental risks and migration: causes and consequences. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 060201 (2015).
Connell, J. Last days in the Carteret Islands? Climate change, livelihoods and migration on coral atolls. Asia Pac. Viewp. 57, 3–15 (2016).
Black, R. et al. The effect of environmental change on human migration. Glob. Environ. Change 21, S3–S11 (2011).
Dieleman, F. M. Modelling residential mobility; a review of recent trends in research. J. Hous. Built Environ. 16, 249–265 (2001).
Clark, W. A. & Maas, R. Interpreting migration through the prism of reasons for moves. Popul. Space Place 21, 54–67 (2015).
De Longueville, F., Zhu, Y. & Henry, S. Direct and indirect impacts of environmental factors on migration in Burkina Faso: application of structural equation modelling. Popul. Environ. 40, 456–479 (2019).
Findlay, A. M. Migrant destinations in an era of environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 21, S50–S58 (2011).
Fussell, E., Hunter, L. M. & Gray, C. L. Measuring the environmental dimensions of human migration: the demographer’s toolkit. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 182–191 (2014).
Adams, H. Why populations persist: mobility, place attachment and climate change. Popul. Environ. 37, 429–448 (2016).
Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk (Routledge, 2016).
Ludy, J. & Kondolf, G. M. Flood risk perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees. Nat. Hazards 61, 829–842 (2012).
Botzen, W. J. W., Aerts, J. C. J. H. & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors: individual perceptions of climate change. Water Resour. Res. 45, W10440 (2009).
Bubeck, P., Botzen, W. J. W. & Aerts, J. C. J. H. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Anal. 32, 1481–1495 (2012).
Kousky, C. Managing shoreline retreat: a US perspective. Clim. Change 124, 9–20 (2014).
Grothmann, T. & Reusswig, F. People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat. Hazards 38, 101–120 (2006).
Knocke, E. T. & Kolivras, K. N. Flash flood awareness in southwest Virginia. Risk Anal. 27, 155–169 (2007).
Solberg, C., Rossetto, T. & Joffe, H. The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 1663–1677 (2010).
Kayastha, S. L. & Yadava, R. P. in Population Redistribution and Development in South Asia Vol. 3 (eds Kosiński, L. A. & Elahi, K. M.) 79–88 (Springer, 1985).
Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis (Institute of Development Studies, 1998).
Hunter, L. M., Luna, J. K. & Norton, R. M. Environmental dimensions of migration. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41, 377–397 (2015).
Stark, O. & Bloom, D. E. The new economics of labor migration. Am. Econ. Rev. 75, 173–178 (1985).
McDowell, C. & de Haan, A. Migration and Sustainable Livelihoods: A Critical Review of the Literature (Institute of Development Studies, 1997).
McLeman, R. A. Settlement abandonment in the context of global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 21, S108–S120 (2011).
Harris, J. R. & Todaro, M. P. Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis. Am. Econ. Rev. 60, 126–142 (1970).
Lee, E. S. A theory of migration. Demography 3, 47–57 (1966).
Greenwood, M. J. Internal migration in developed countries. Handb. Popul. Fam. Econ. 1, 647–720 (1997).
Plane, D. A., Henrie, C. J. & Perry, M. J. Migration up and down the urban hierarchy and across the life course. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 15313–15318 (2005).
Morrison, P. S. & Clark, W. A. Internal migration and employment: macro flows and micro motives. Environ. Plan. A. 43, 1948–1964 (2011).
Donner, S. D. & Webber, S. Obstacles to climate change adaptation decisions: a case study of sea-level rise and coastal protection measures in Kiribati. Sustain. Sci. 9, 331–345 (2014).
Farbotko, C. & Lazrus, H. The first climate refugees? Contesting global narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 382–390 (2012).
Shen, S. & Gemenne, F. Contrasted views on environmental change and migration: the case of Tuvaluan migration to New Zealand. Int. Migr. 49, e224–e242 (2011).
Campbell, J. & Warrick, O. Climate Change and Migration Issues in the Pacific (United Nations ESCAP, 2014).
McLeman, R. A. & Hunter, L. M. Migration in the context of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change: insights from analogues. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1, 450–461 (2010).
Lu, X. et al. Unveiling hidden migration and mobility patterns in climate stressed regions: A longitudinal study of six million anonymous mobile phone users in Bangladesh. Glob. Environ. Change 38, 1–7 (2016).
Curtis, K. J., Fussell, E. & DeWaard, J. Recovery migration after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: spatial concentration and intensification in the migration system. Demography 52, 1269–1293 (2015).
DeWaard, J., Curtis, K. J. & Fussell, E. Population recovery in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: exploring the potential role of stage migration in migration systems. Popul. Environ. 37, 449–463 (2016).
Pais, J. F. & Elliott, J. R. Places as recovery machines: vulnerability and neighborhood change after major hurricanes. Soc. Forces 86, 1415–1453 (2008).
Hsiang, S. M. & Jina, A. S. Geography, depreciation, and growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 252–256 (2015).
Hsiang, S. M. & Jina, A. S. The Causal Effect of Environmental Catastrophe on Long-Run Economic Growth: Evidence From 6,700 Cyclones (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014).
Roback, J. Wages, rents, and the quality of life. J. Polit. Econ. 90, 1257–1278 (1982).
Cragg, M. & Kahn, M. New estimates of climate demand: evidence from location choice. J. Urban Econ. 42, 261–284 (1997).
Rappaport, J. in Environmental Amenities and Regional Economic Development (eds Cherry, T. L. & Rickman, D.) 25–53 (Routledge, 2009).
de Sherbinin, A. et al. Climate vulnerability mapping: a systematic review and future prospects. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 10, e600 (2019).
McLeman, R. & Smit, B. Migration as an adaptation to climate change. Clim. Change 76, 31–53 (2006).
Adger, W. N. D., de Campos, R. S. K. & Mortreux, C. R. in Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration (eds McLeman, R. & Gemenne, F.) 29–41 (Routledge, 2018).
Koerth, J., Vafeidis, A. T. & Hinkel, J. Household-level coastal adaptation and its drivers: a systematic case study review. Risk Anal. 37, 629–646 (2017). A review of household coastal adaptation processes, including the sociodemographic characteristics of who adapts in place.
Nicholls, R. J. Planning for the impacts of sea level rise. Oceanography 24, 144–157 (2011). An easy-to-read and interpret overview of adaptation options for SLR.
Cartwright, A. Global Climate Change and Adaptation – A Sea-Level Rise Risk Assessment (LaquaR Consultants CC, 2008).
Herzog, M. M. & Hecht, S. B. Combatting sea level rise in Southern California: how local governments can seize adaptation opportunities while minimizing legal risk. Hastings West-Northwest J. Environ. Law Policy 19, 463 (2013).
Hinkel, J. et al. The ability of societies to adapt to twenty-first-century sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 570–578 (2018).
Stive, M. J. F. et al. A new alternative to saving our beaches from sea-level rise: the sand engine. J. Coast. Res. 29, 1001–1008 (2013).
Nicholls, R. J., Leatherman, S. P., Dennis, K. C. & Volonté, C. R. Impacts and responses to sea-level rise: qualitative and quantitative assessments. J. Coast. Res. 26–43 (1995).
Hinkel, J. et al. A global analysis of erosion of sandy beaches and sea-level rise: An application of DIVA. Glob. Planet. Change 111, 150–158 (2013).
Davis, J. L., Currin, C. A., O’Brien, C., Raffenburg, C. & Davis, A. Living shorelines: coastal resilience with a blue carbon benefit. PLOS ONE 10, e0142595 (2015).
Swann, L. The Use of Living Shorelines to Mitigate the Effects of Storm Events on Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA (American Fisheries Society, 2008).
Hinkel, J. et al. Sea-level rise impacts on Africa and the effects of mitigation and adaptation: an application of DIVA. Reg. Environ. Change 12, 207–224 (2012).
Fu, X., Gomaa, M., Deng, Y. & Peng, Z.-R. Adaptation planning for sea level rise: a study of US coastal cities. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 60, 249–265 (2017).
Klein, R. J. T. et al. Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. J. Coast. Res. 17, 531–543 (2001).
Aerts, J. C. J. H. A review of cost estimates for flood adaptation. Water 10, 1646 (2018).
Bloetscher, F., Romah, T., Berry, L., Hammer, N. H. & Cahill, M. A. Identification of physical transportation infrastructure vulnerable to sea level rise. J. Sustain. Dev. 5, 40–51 (2012).
Boateng, I. An assessment of the physical impacts of sea-level rise and coastal adaptation: a case study of the eastern coast of Ghana. Clim. Change 114, 273–293 (2012).
Lee, Y. Coastal planning strategies for adaptation to sea level rise: a case study of Mokpo, Korea. J. Build. Constr. Plan. Res. 2, 74–81 (2014).
Esteban, M. et al. Adaptation to sea level rise on low coral islands: Lessons from recent events. Ocean Coast. Manag. 168, 35–40 (2019).
Mortreux, C. & Barnett, J. Climate change, migration and adaptation in Funafuti, Tuvalu. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 105–112 (2009).
Jamero, Ma. L., Onuki, M., Esteban, M. & Tan, N. Community-based adaptation in low-lying islands in the Philippines: challenges and lessons learned. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 2249–2260 (2018).
Dannenberg, A. L., Frumkin, H., Hess, J. J. & Ebi, K. L. Managed retreat as a strategy for climate change adaptation in small communities: public health implications. Clim. Change 153, 1–4 (2019).
Lincke, D. & Hinkel, J. Economically robust protection against 21st century sea-level rise. Glob. Environ. Change 51, 67–73 (2018).
Danh, V. T. & Mushtaq, S. in Environmental Change and Agricultural Sustainability in the Mekong Delta (eds. Stewart, M. A. & Coclanis, P. A.) 181–204 (Springer, 2011).
Huntington, H. P., Goodstein, E. & Euskirchen, E. Towards a tipping point in responding to change: rising costs, fewer options for arctic and global societies. AMBIO 41, 66–74 (2012).
Abel, N. et al. Sea level rise, coastal development and planned retreat: analytical framework, governance principles and an Australian case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 279–288 (2011).
Lemann, A. B. Stronger than the storm: disaster law in a defiant age. LA Law Rev. 78, 437–498 (2017).
King, M. A tribe faces rising tides: the resettlement of Isle de Jean Charles comments. LSU J. Energy Law Resour. 6, 295–318 (2017).
Flatt, V. B. et al. From surviving to thriving: equity in disaster planning and recovery. Univ. Hawai’i Richardson School Law https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3340133 (2019).
Geisler, C. & Currens, B. Impediments to inland resettlement under conditions of accelerated sea level rise. Land Use Policy 66, 322–330 (2017).
McNamara, K. E. & Des Combes, H. J. Planning for community relocations due to climate change in Fiji. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 6, 315–319 (2015).
Bronen, R. Climate-induced community relocations: using integrated social-ecological assessments to foster adaptation and resilience. Ecol. Soc. 20, 36 (2015).
King, D. et al. Voluntary relocation as an adaptation strategy to extreme weather events. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 8, 83–90 (2014).
Siders, A. Managed coastal retreat: a legal handbook on shifting development away from vulnerable areas. Columbia Public Law https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2349461 (2013).
Liu, L. et al. Natural environment: saving an essential part of Hawaii. Hawaii Business Magazine https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/change-report-environment/ (2019).
Byrne, J. P. The cathedral engulfed: Sea-level rise, property rights, and time. LA Law Rev. 73, 69–118 (2012).
Butler, W. H., Deyle, R. E. & Mutnansky, C. Low-regrets incrementalism: land use planning adaptation to accelerating sea level rise in Florida’s coastal communities. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 36, 319–332 (2016).
Marino, E. Adaptation privilege and voluntary buyouts: perspectives on ethnocentrism in sea level rise relocation and retreat policies in the US. Glob. Environ. Change 49, 10–13 (2018).
Mach, K. J. et al. Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of flood-prone properties. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax8995 (2019).
Kaswan, A. Seven principles for equitable adaptation. Sustain. Dev. Law Policy 13, 41–46 (2012).
Verchick, R. R. M. & Johnson, L. R. When retreat is the best option: flood insurance after Biggert-Waters and other climate change puzzles. John Marshall Law Rev. 47, 695–718 (2013).
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J. & Shirley, W. L. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 242–261 (2003).
McDowell, C. Climate-change adaptation and mitigation: implications for land acquisition and population relocation. Dev. Policy Rev. 31, 677–695 (2013).
Lovelock, C. E. et al. The vulnerability of Indo-Pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise. Nature 526, 559–563 (2015).
Wetzel, F. T., Kissling, W. D., Beissmann, H. & Penn, D. J. Future climate change driven sea-level rise: secondary consequences from human displacement for island biodiversity. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2707–2719 (2012).
Crossett, K., Ache, B., Pacheco, P. & Haber, K. National coastal population report, population trends from 1970 to 2020 (NOAA, 2013).
Loughran, K. & Elliott, J. R. Residential buyouts as environmental mobility: examining where homeowners move to illuminate social inequities in climate adaptation. Popul. Environ. 41, 52–70 (2019).
Hori, M., Schafer, M. J. & Bowman, D. J. Displacement dynamics in southern Louisiana after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 28, 45–65 (2009).
Thiede, B. C. & Brown, D. L. Hurricane Katrina: Who stayed and why? Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 32, 803–824 (2013).
Rosenzweig, C. et al. Developing coastal adaptation to climate change in the New York City infrastructure-shed: process, approach, tools, and strategies. Clim. Change 106, 93–127 (2011).
Parris, A. S. et al. Global sea level rise scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment. NOAA Institutional Repository (2012).
Quay, R. Anticipatory governance: a tool for climate change adaptation. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 76, 496–511 (2010).
Hamilton, L. C., Saito, K., Loring, P. A., Lammers, R. B. & Huntington, H. P. Climigration? Population and climate change in Arctic Alaska. Popul. Environ. 38, 115–133 (2016).
Albert, S. et al. Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 °C future. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 2261–2272 (2018).
Ali, A. Vulnerability of Bangladesh to climate change and sea level rise through tropical cyclones and storm surges. Water Air Soil Pollut. 92, 171–179 (1996).
Huq, S., Ali, S. I. & Rahman, A. A. Sea-level rise and Bangladesh: A preliminary analysis. J. Coast. Res. 44–53 (1995).
Dasgupta, S., Kamal, F. A., Khan, Z. H., Choudhury, S. & Nishat, A. in World Scientific Reference on Asia and the World Economy (eds Agarwal, M., Pan, J. & Whalley, J.) 205–242 (World Scientific, 2015).
Clarke, D., Williams, S., Jahiruddin, M., Parks, K. & Salehin, M. Projections of on-farm salinity in costal Bangladesh. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 17, 1127–1136 (2015).
Payo, A. et al. Modeling daily soil salinity dynamics in response to agricultural and environmental changes in coastal Bangladesh. Earths Future 5, 495–514 (2017).
Khanom, T. Effect of salinity on food security in the context of interior coast of Bangladesh. Ocean Coast. Manag. 130, 205–212 (2016).
Kartiki, K. Climate change and migration: a case study from rural Bangladesh. Gend. Dev. 19, 23–38 (2011).
Mallick, B. & Vogt, J. Cyclone, coastal society and migration: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 34, 217–240 (2012).
Islam, M. R. Climate change, natural disasters and socioeconomic livelihood vulnerabilities: migration decision among the char land people in Bangladesh. Soc. Indic. Res. 136, 575–593 (2018).
Hassani-Mahmooei, B. & Parris, B. W. Climate change and internal migration patterns in Bangladesh: an agent-based model. Environ. Dev. Econ. 17, 763–780 (2012).
Poncelet, A., Gemenne, F., Martiniello, M. & Bousetta, H. in Environment, Forced Migration and Social Vulnerability (eds Afifi, T. & Jäger, J.) 211–222 (Springer, 2010).
Mallick, B. & Vogt, J. Population displacement after cyclone and its consequences: empirical evidence from coastal Bangladesh. Nat. Hazards 73, 191–212 (2014).
Call, M., Gray, C., Yunus, M. & Emch, M. Disruption, not displacement: environmental variability and temporary migration in Bangladesh. Glob. Environ. Change 46, 157–165 (2017).
Gray, C. L. & Mueller, V. Natural disasters and population mobility in Bangladesh. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6000–6005 (2012).
Chen, J. J., Mueller, V., Jia, Y. & Tseng, S. K.-H. Validating migration responses to flooding using satellite and vital registration data. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 441–445 (2017).
Shaw, R., Mallick, F. H. & Islam, M. A. Climate Change Adaptation Actions in Bangladesh (Springer, 2013).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Climate change and statelessness: an overview (UNHCR, 2009).
Kälin, W. & Schrepfer, N. Protecting People Crossing Borders in the Context of Climate Change - Normative Gaps and Possible Approaches (Univ. Bern, 2012).
Vidas, D., Freestone, D. & McAdam, J. International law and sea level rise: the new ILA Committee. ILSA J. Int. Comp. Law 21, 397–408 (2015).
Constable, A. L., Climate change and migration in the Pacific: options for Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1029–1038 (2017).
Ionesco, D., Mokhnacheva, D. & Gemenne, F. The Atlas of Environmental Migration (Routledge, 2016).
McNamara, K. E. Cross-border migration with dignity in Kiribati. Forced Migr. Rev. 49, 62 (2015). An example of an unplanned or unmanaged retreat in Kiribati, where economic and educational opportunities are enhanced for cross-border, international migrants.
Klepp, S. & Herbeck, J. The politics of environmental migration and climate justice in the Pacific region. J. Hum. Rights Environ. 7, 54–73 (2016).
Gerland, P. et al. World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science 346, 234–237 (2014).
Rogers, A. Age patterns of elderly migration: an international comparison. Demography 25, 355–370 (1988).
Nicholls, R. J., Adger, W. N., Hutton, C. W. & Hanson, S. E. Deltas in the Anthropocene (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).
Barnett, J. & McMichael, C. The effects of climate change on the geography and timing of human mobility. Popul. Environ. 39, 339–356 (2018).
Gharbaoui, D. J. in Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration Vol. 300 (eds McLeman, R. & Gemenne, F.) 300–319 (Routledge, 2018).
Hutton, D. & Haque, C. E. Patterns of coping and adaptation among erosion-induced displacees in Bangladesh: implications for hazard analysis and mitigation. Nat. Hazards 29, 405–421 (2003).
Barman, D. S., Majumder, C. S., Rahaman, M. Z. & Sarker, S. Foundations of migration from the disaster consequences coastal area of Bangladesh. Dev. Ctry. Stud. 2, 22–29 (2012).
Chhetri, P., Stimson, R. J. & Western, J. Understanding the downshifting phenomenon: a case of South East Queensland, Australia. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 44, 345–362 (2009).
Fussell, E., Sastry, N. & VanLandingham, M. Race, socioeconomic status, and return migration to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Popul. Environ. 31, 20–42 (2010).
Chamlee-Wright, E. & Storr, V. H. “There’s no place like New Orleans”: sense of place and community recovery in the Ninth Ward after Hurricane Katrina. J. Urban Aff. 31, 615–634 (2009).
Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N. & O’brien, K. Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 112–117 (2013).
Zickgraf, C. in Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration (eds McLeman, R. & Gemenne, F.) 71–84 (Routledge, 2018).
Warner, K. Coordinated approaches to large-scale movements of people: contributions of the Paris Agreement and the Global Compacts for migration and on refugees. Popul. Environ. 39, 384–401 (2018).
McAdam, J. The emerging New Zealand jurisprudence on climate change, disasters and displacement. Migr. Stud. 3, 131–142 (2015).
This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1639145 and based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1600131.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Helen Adams, William Adger, Barbara Neumann and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Hauer, M.E., Fussell, E., Mueller, V. et al. Sea-level rise and human migration. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 28–39 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0002-9