Search

Abstract New migrant populations in rapidly growing cities globally are often socially and politically marginalized, limiting their potential to contribute to the positive transformation of urban futures. Such marginalisation can potentially be overcome through deliberate efforts to build empathy between groups. Here we apply insights on empathic action to planning processes with the aim of diversifying planning processes to provide plural perspectives on risk and sustainability and giving marginalised groups opportunities to shape key decisions. We report on action research to examine whether empathic connection between urban planners and new migrant populations leads to processes that enhance and integrate new voices and perspectives. The intervention involved photo-elicitation interviews, focus groups and perspective exchange workshops over eighteen months of intensive engagement in Chattogram, Bangladesh. The findings demonstrate that empathy for diverse social groups has practical implications for sustainability where individuals have agency and feel empowered to enhance each other’s wellbeing.

Abstract Non-technical summary Cities typically treat migration and sustainability as separate policy domains. When migration is highlighted in the context of sustainability in urban destination areas, it is typically understood to have no, or at worst, negative impacts on sustainability. As a result, migration and migrants are commonly left out of sustainability policy and planning. Here, we present emerging evidence to reframe the debate, demonstrating that migration is a force for sustainable development and that migrants can be sustainability actors in urban environments. We point to key action points for cities to better address the migration–sustainability nexus and harness this potential. Technical summary For long, migration has been recognized in literature as a force for societal transformations. Yet, mainstream policies dealing with sustainability generally downplay the role of migration. The Sustainable Development Goals, for example, frame migration as a temporary phenomenon needing management rather than as an integral part of sustainable development. As a result, cities generally overlook broader perspectives on migration and transformation in their sustainability strategies. Here, we present key policy insights building on an emerging field of research exploring the migration–sustainability nexus in urban governance. We focus specifically on the city scale, recognizing that cities are situated at the crossroads of migration and sustainability challenges and opportunities, bringing new possibilities to address current sustainability challenges. For example, migrants interact with their destination areas through influencing consumption behavior and resource conservation and migration contributes to sustainable development through the potential of enhancing wellbeing of residents. There is thus an urgent opportunity to address policy gaps to embrace the potentially transformative role of migration for sustainability transitions. We present critical action points to incorporate new insights into policymaking, emphasizing integrated, coordinated and reflexive approaches across all levels of governance. Social media summary Migration drives sustainable development. We show how urban governance can seize opportunities for transformation.

Abstract Research on the impacts of COVID-19 on mobility has focused primarily on the increased health vulnerabilities of involuntary migrant and displaced populations. But virtually all migration flows have been truncated and altered because of reduced economic and mobility opportunities of migrants. Here we use a well-established framework of migration decision-making, whereby individual decisions combine the aspiration and ability to migrate, to explain how public responses to the COVID-19 pandemic alter migration patterns among urban populations across the world. The principal responses to COVID-19 pandemic that affected migration are: 1) through travel restrictions and border closures, 2) by affecting abilities to move through economic and other means, and 3) by affecting aspirations to move. Using in-depth qualitative data collected in six cities in four continents (Accra, Amsterdam, Brussels, Dhaka, Maputo, and Worcester), we explore how populations with diverse levels of education and occupations were affected in their current and future mobility decisions. We use data from interviews with sample of internal and international migrants and non-migrants during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic outbreak to identify the mechanisms through which the pandemic affected their mobility decisions. The results show common processes across the different geographical contexts: individuals perceived increased risks associated with further migration, which affected their migration aspirations, and had reduced abilities to migrate, all of which affected their migration decision-making processes. The results also reveal stark differences in perceived and experienced migration decision-making across precarious migrant groups compared to high-skilled and formally employed international migrants in all settings. This precarity of place is particularly evident in low-income marginalised populations.

The term ‘vulnerability’ is used to examine the interlinkages between humans and their social and physical surroundings. This approach is similar to the IPCC AR4's (2007) conceptual framework of vulnerability to climate change. The IPCC AR5 (2014) introduces a new approach and terminology that is in line with the concept of risk, thus differing from the previous understanding of vulnerability as mentioned in the IPCC AR4. This study attempts to link the new concept of risk (AR5) with the previous concept of vulnerability (AR4). Based on IPCC AR4 and AR5 frameworks, different bio-physical and socio-economic variables have been used for vulnerability (AR4) and risk (AR5) assessments in the 51 sub-districts (community development blocks) of the Indian part of Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Delta (Indian Bengal Delta or IBD) applying principal component analysis (PCA). The results show that Basanti is the most vulnerable sub-district using the AR4 approach, whereas Gosaba is found to be the highly exposed to risk using the AR5 approach. Both sub-districts are spatially contiguous and with similar geographic characteristics which reflects the validity of the IPCC frameworks of assessment.