Migration Pathways Under Climate Stress: Implications for Health In Bangladesh.

Climate change is displacing millions across Bangladesh through cyclones, riverbank erosion, and flooding, driving large-scale internal migration to urban centers. Despite growing policy attention to climate migrants as a uniquely vulnerable population, empirical evidence on whether they differ from other migrants in well-being and migration trajectories remains limited. This study asks: do the migration aspirations and capabilities of self-reported climate migrants differ from those who report no climate influence on their migration? Grounded in De Haas's (2021) aspirations and capabilities framework, this study hypothesized that climate migrants would demonstrate lower capabilities for future migration and higher aspirations to return home, consistent with involuntary displacement, and would include higher rates of female and elderly participants.

Cross-sectional survey data from 497 migrant brick laborers in Dhaka were analyzed, about ¼ of whom self-identified as climate migrants. Multistage random sampling was used to select 25 kilns with proportional geographic representation and ~20 workers per kiln. Women were oversampled to 25% of the total. Climate migration status was operationalized as a yes/no response to whether environmental degradation or natural disasters influenced the decision to migrate. Ten dependent variables were examined: five related to migration aspirations (quality of life, post-migration comparative living conditions, current relocation considerations, five-year living preferences, and ten-year relocation expectations) and five related to migration capabilities (financial inclusion, financial strain, financial worry, housing deprivation, and perceived health). Linear, logistic, and Poisson regression models estimated the effect of climate migration on each outcome, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates and kiln-level clustering.

Contrary to the primary hypothesis, climate migrants did not differ significantly from non-climate migrants on financial, housing, or health outcomes. Climate migrants did score significantly higher on three aspiration-related variables: more positive assessments of post-migration relative to pre-migration living conditions (β = 1.27, p < .01), greater likelihood of currently considering relocation (OR = 1.36, p = .04), and substantially higher expectations of reaching their preferred location within ten years (OR = 2.06, p < .01) — with 98% naming their village of origin as that location. Partially consistent with the secondary hypothesis, women were significantly more likely to be climate migrants; age was not significantly related.

These findings challenge narratives of climate migrants as a categorically more vulnerable population. Poor financial circumstances, living conditions, and health across the full sample suggest both groups are embedded within the same structurally constrained labor system, where precarity is pervasive regardless of migration type. Climate migrants were more likely to anticipate moving sooner — possibly reflecting greater urgency or instability — and were overrepresented by women living with children, suggesting climate stress disproportionately draws caregivers into constrained migration. Perceived post-migration gains likely reflect prior deprivation rather than successful adaptation. Climate migration is better understood as adaptive mobility within bounded opportunity structures than forced, one-way displacement. For social work policy and practice, these findings argue against categorical approaches that isolate climate migrants as a distinct intervention target; effective responses must address the structural conditions — gender, caregiving burdens, and labor precarity — shaping vulnerability across this population.