MARSHALLESEMIGRATION:
THE ROLE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
AND ECOSYSTEMSERVICES
SUMMARY FORPOLICYMAKERS
VAN DER GEEST, K., BURKETT,
M., FITZPATRICK, J., STEGE M.
& WHEELER, B. (2019)
THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
CLIMATE AND MIGRATIONPROJECT (MICMP)Source: Kees van der Geest

Marshallese migration:
The role of climate change
and ecosystem services
Summary for Policymakers
The Marshall Islands Climate
and Migration Project (MICMP)

van der Geest, K., Burkett, M., Fitzpatrick, J., M. Stege, and Wheeler, B. (2019). Marshallese migration: The role ofclimate change and ecosystem services: Summary for policymakers. Policy Brief of the Marshall Islands Climate
and Migration Project. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. Available at www.rmi-migration.com

Introduction
As one of the lowest-lying island nation-states in the world, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) is
acutely vulnerable to heat stress, drought, storms, sea-level rise, and the associated impacts on freshwatersupplies and habitable land. The RMI’s chain of 29 coral atolls—70 square miles of land spread across 750,000
square miles of ocean—stand at six feet above sea level at their highest and are at risk of relatively near-term
uninhabitability.
The RMI’s long and unique history of migration and displacement are entwined with this environmental
position. Oceanic voyaging, U.S. nuclear testing–induced relocation, and the recent dramatic emigration to
the U.S., enabled by the Compact of Free Association (COFA), have created a distinctive context for researchquestions around contemporary climate-induced migration.
Central to the conceptual framework behind this study is the prevailing notion that people do not migrate
because of climate change as such, but because of the way in which the changing climate affects theirlivelihoods, food security, and well-being. The impacts of climate change are often mediated throughenvironmental impacts on ecosystems and the services they provide, and act in concert with socioeconomic
factors to drive human mobility (Thomas 2014) or affect decision-making around migration.

Climatechange +extremeweather

Impact on
ecosystem
services

Impact on
people andlivelihoods

Migrant
decison

Impacts of
migration

This study aims to clarify the extent to which Marshallese people are already migrating because of climatechange, and the role affected ecosystem services play in their migration decisions. The research also aims tobetter understand the effects of this migration on migrants themselves, among communities in the RMI (in thecapital of Majuro, and on Mejit and Maleolap), and in destination states (Hawai‘i, Oregon, and Washington).
Finally, the research provides an analysis of shared views found within Marshallese perceptions on thesesubjects, which allows for a more fulsome assessment of the current state of well-being for Marshallese
migrants, contributes to a more informed discussion regarding whether migration is a successful adaptation
strategy, and provides context for assessing which legal, economic, and social services the Marshallese mayneed and desire in coming years.
1SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | INTRODUCTION

The Marshall Islands Climate and Migration Project (MICMP) asked three primary research questions:
1. To what extent are climate-related stressors—and their impacts on ecosystems,
livelihoods, and habitability—driving migration in the Marshall Islands and from the
Marshall Islands to the U.S.?
2. What are the impacts of migration on migrants themselves and their homecommunities?
3. Which shared views on climate change, environment, migration, and future habitability
exist within the study population?
This Summary for Policymakers begins by Contextualizing migration in the Marshall Islands, offering a brief
demographic and environmental overview of the RMI. In Research methods, we review participant and site
selection, supplementary and primary research methods (the household survey and Q-methodology), andmethodological limitations. In Research findings, we present our key results, organized by the primary researchquestions, synthesizing Migration drivers, Migration impacts, and Shared and differing perceptions. In Looking
forward: concluding remarks, we discuss the implications of our findings and future research directions.

Source: Kees van der Geest

2

Contextualizing migration in the Marshall Islands:
Demographic and environmental overview

Source: Michael Christopher Brown, Magnum Photos, MSNBC, “Hell and High Water” Graphic by Melissa Paige Taylor.

The current estimated population of the RMI is 53,167 (United Nations Population Division, 2018). More thanhalf the population of the Marshall Islands currently lives on Majuro 1 —a marked departure from half a century
ago, when slightly less than a quarter did. 2 The 2011 RMI census shows that population growth slowed to anannual rate of 0.4 percent in the 1999–2011 intercensal period, and the outer islands’ populations, apart fromthree, have all decreased since 1999. The increasing dominance of urban centers within the RMI is importantas both an indicator of internal migration and a primary place of departure, including to the United States(U.S.). The number of Marshallese currently residing in the U.S. is roughly 30,000, and has risen rapidly over the

1 The 2011 Population Census counted 27,797 people on Majuro out of a total of 53,158 for the entire nation(source: http://www.statoids.com/ymh.html).
2 The 1958 Population Census counted 3,415 people on Majuro out of a total of 14,163 for the entire nation(source: http://www.statoids.com/ymh.html).

3

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | RESEARCH ME THODS

past two decades. Overall, the population has increased four-fold between 2000 and 2010, and has sustained
continued growth in the 2010s.
There is scientific consensus that global air and water temperatures will increase, sea levels will rise due tothermal expansion and glacier melting, oceans will absorb more carbon dioxide causing acidification (IPCC
AR5, 2014), and extreme weather events are expected to become more intense (IPCC, 2012).
Climate change also has the potential to reduce the level of ecosystem services by causing environmental
degradation, especially in atoll environments (Staudinger et al., 2012; Stege, 2018). Persistent climatic shocks
and El Niño events are already affecting livelihoods in the RMI. Rising sea levels mean that the RMI’s coastal
areas are increasingly vulnerable to flooding, wave inundation, erosion from storms, shifts in precipitation andresulting drought, surface temperature increases, hurricanes, and tsunamis, as well as the associated impacts
on freshwater supply and habitable land (Keener at al., 2012; Marra et al., 2017). Going forward, the MarshallIslands will see increased temperatures, increased heat stress days, and decreased annual rainfall.

Research methods
The Marshall Islands Climate and Migration Project used mixed social science methods to conduct six weeks
of fieldwork in the Marshall Islands, and four weeks in Hawai‘i, Oregon, and Washington states.

Participant and site selection
In the RMI, we surveyed 199 households across Majuro (99), Maloelap Atoll (50), and Mejit Island (50).
The distribution of these households is representative of the total population of the RMI (roughly half live on
urban Majuro, and half on the outer islands). Almost half the respondents on Majuro and Mejit were born onother islands, and Majuro is both a source of international migration and a destination for internal migration.
Ecologically, the two outer islands represent an atoll (Maloelap) and a raised coral island (Mejit), of which there
are 29 and 5, respectively, throughout the RMI. These sites were also selected for ease of transport (to andfrom Mejit and Maloelap) and because they were the sites of work already underway with the Marshall Islands
Conservation Society (MICS), which offered in situ data on ecosystem services.
In the destination states, 79 households—located on Oahu (70%) and the Big Island (30%) in Hawai‘i, andOregon (92%) and Washington (8%) in the Pacific Northwest—were selected as primary destination statesin need of further study. Most respondents were born in the Marshall Islands (100 percent in Hawai‘i and 87
percent in the Pacific Northwest), and of those born in the RMI, 70 percent originated from Majuro or Ebeye.
In the Pacific Northwest, most respondents lived in Salem, Oregon, and in Hawai‘i, most resided in Honolulu,
O‘ahu. These states were chosen for their high concentration of diaspora groups, support from communitybased organizations and NGOs able to facilitate introductions and translation, and linkages to the Marshallese
Consulate. We used snowball sampling to select additional research participants.

4

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | PRIM ARY RESEARCH ME THODS

Source: Kees van der Geest

Primary research methods
The MICMP used two primary research methods—a household survey and 40-question Q-methodology—both ofwhich were undertaken with the same research populations in the RMI and the U.S. The methodology built on
and expanded the methods used in the Pacific Climate Change and Migration project (Oakes et al., 2017).
The household questionnaire generated quantitative and qualitative information by gathering sociodemographic data, the risk-proneness of respondents’ houses (recorded with GPS), the impacts ofenvironmental stressors, trends in ecosystem services, respondents’ migration histories and future migration
intentions, and perceptions on policy interventions.
To gain a deeper understanding of respondents’ attitudes and perceptions around climate change, ecosystemservices, and migration drivers and outcomes, the research teams in the RMI and the U.S. also conducteda Q-study. Researchers use this method to investigate opinions or “shared views” on a particular theme byanalyzing how participants rank a set of statements from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” about thattheme (Oakes et al., 2017; Danielson, 2009). In Q-methodology, the data is analyzed quantitatively—with
Principal Component Analysis—but the interpretation is largely qualitative. This methodology enabled thedistinction of several groups of shared views within the survey population, beyond individual perceptions.
Source: Kees van der Geest

5

Supplementary and participatory methods
These methods were supplemented by a desk study, undertaken to better
understand the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and to further
contextualize the respondents’ perceptions and experiences with thechanging climate. In the RMI, geospatial information was collected to assesscorrelations between environmental stressors and migration decision-makingof participant households.
In the RMI, we undertook participatory research (transect walks, contextual
change listings, fuzzy cognitive mapping, and mobility mapping) with the aimof gathering qualitative and visual data to complement the household survey.
The written Marshallese language was utilized, and research enumeratorsfrom the island were trained to conduct interviews and surveys.

Methodological limitations
A limitation of this research is that the research team could only survey threestudy sites in the RMI, while the country consists of 29 coral atolls and fiveraised coral islands. The study makes no claim about the relevance of thesefindings to all islands of the RMI. It is possible that sea-level rise, coastal
inundation, drought, and freshwater scarcity are more severe in other parts of
the RMI. In addition, the legacy of nuclear testing—and related compensation—
may affect other islands and their population’s migration decisions.

Research findings
Below, we present our key results, organized by the primary researchquestions, synthesizing migration drivers, migration impacts, and shared anddiffering perceptions.

Migration drivers
To what extent are climate-related stressors—and their impacts on ecosystems,
livelihoods, and habitability—driving migration in the Marshall Islands and from
the Marshall Islands to the U.S.?
This study sought to provide a more complete picture of environmental andother drivers of migration by triangulating the findings from the household
survey, focus group discussions, Q-methodology, and a spatial analysis offlood-extent and migration rates. Key findings include:
6

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | RESEARCH FINDINGS•

Primary drivers of migration in the RMI and the U.S.: Respondents in the RMI and the
U.S. primarily cite education, health care, work, and family connections as motivators of
migration. However, the picture is more complex than this.

•A divergence in environmental migration rationales between the RMI and the U.S.: This
study shows a divergence in findings regarding the rationales for migration between
participants in the RMI and those in the United States. Many more respondents in the
U.S., and particularly in Hawai‘i, cite environmental problems in the RMI as the drivers
for moving than those presently living in the RMI.

•

Climate impact and ecosystem services variables in the RMI: Although the mostpressing problems identified by those living in the RMI were a lack of job opportunities,
respondents also ranked drought (2nd), lack of fresh water (3rd), and sea-level rise(4th) as serious concerns when problem ranking statements. In addition, half of the
respondents in the RMI perceived a general negative trend in ecosystem services (theprovision of local food and access to freshwater, fuelwood, and safety). The relationshipbetween migration and ecosystem services shows several significant relationships,
particularly between migration intentions and perceived trends in the ecosystemservices of food provision, fuelwood provision, and protection against storms andfloods. Household members of respondents who perceive that these ecosystemservices are deteriorating are more likely to intend to migrate in the next 10 years.
The survey also finds positive correlations between household-level impacts of heatwaves, storm surges, and migration propensities, which is an indication that migration
propensities tend to be higher in climate-stressed households.

•

Climate impact and ecosystem services variables in destination states: Almost all
respondents in the U.S. (95%) perceived that king tides have drastically increased inrecent years, followed by large percentages of concern around drought and heat waves.
Survey respondents identified sea-level rise as the most threatening factor facing
their previous residences in the RMI, followed by ocean pollution. However, the study
finds no statistically significant relationship between sea-level rise and the decision to
migrate to Hawai‘i or the Pacific Northwest. Sea-level rise is also more often mentioned
as a factor that works against future return to the RMI. There is a positive correlation
between the lack of access to drinkable water/freshwater sources as a threat to theinterviewees’ previous living situations in the Marshalls and respondents’ reluctance toreturn to the RMI.

•

“Non-environmental” migration rationales in the RMI: In the RMI, respondents identified
job opportunities as their greatest concern, though migration for seeking better
education and health care is also common. The primary reason that migration for work
occurs (to both the U.S. and within the RMI) is the limited opportunities for generating
income on the outer islands, which participants noted is because of stagnant(government) wages despite an increase in prices, delayed payment of goods sold anddelivered (e.g., copra), not enough diversity in livelihoods and income sources, and a7

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | MIGRATION IMPACTS

deterioration of the island’s productivity. The primary reason behind the decision to
migrate for education or health care is the low level of these services on the island.
Finally, family networks enable migration, as 40 percent of respondents noted that thiswas a factor in their migration decisions.
•“Non-environmental” migration rationales in destination states: Respondents selectededucation (80%), health care (72.5%), economic opportunities (70%), and familial
networks (70%) as the most prominent drivers of recent migration. In the U.S.,
respondents also noted the inadequacy of the health and education systems and thestagnation of the economy in the RMI as significant reasons for recent migration.
Respondents taking the household survey expressed concern about the inadequate
response of the Marshallese government in mitigating against the loss of ecosystemservices, the lack of extension of services beyond those that serve an emergency
function, and the resulting reliance upon external aid. Among Marshallese interviewees,
55 percent of those based in Hawai‘i stated that their rationale for selecting the state
above others was its proximity to the RMI, its more closely aligned culture, and its
strategic positioning as a departure point to travel to the continental U.S. Respondents
in Hawai‘i (82.5%) cited familial networks and the support system provided by extended
family throughout their established diaspora networks as important to their rationale for
migration.

•

Spatial analysis of the relationship between environmental stressors and migration:
In overlaying past flood extents (2014, 2015) and the migration data from the household
survey, the study found no statistically significant difference in migration rates ofhouseholds within and outside areas that had recently been flooded. This was the casewhen considering both the percentage of current migrant relatives in their household (inthe U.S. or elsewhere) and the percentage of those that intended to migrate (to the U.S.
or elsewhere).

Migration impacts
What are the impacts of migration on migrants themselves and their home communities?
This section summarizes the research findings on migration impacts, both from the perspective of migrants in
the U.S. and from the perspective of the home community. The findings are based on the household survey and
the Q-methodology. Key findings include:•

Overall findings from the RMI: Respondents were on average more positive (39.2%)
than negative (20.1%) about the impacts of migration upon the economic situation
and well-being of their households. The other respondents (40.7%) were neutral about
the impacts of migration. Overall, evaluations were more positive on Mejit and Majuro
than on Maloelap, and the impacts of the respondents’ own previous migrations wereassessed more positively than those currently undertaken by their siblings and children.
8

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | MIGRATION IMPACTS•

Positive impacts perceived in the RMI: Respondents primarily noted the following
positive impacts of migration: improved education, finding employment, receiving
better health care, gaining life experience, connecting to relatives (which also eases
migration), and reducing pressure on resources, such as foodstuffs and living space.

•

Negative impacts perceived in the RMI: Respondents most frequently mentioned thefollowing negative impacts of migration: it affected the lack of care for children andthe elderly, contributed to “brain drain,” had adverse effects on development, resulted
in homesickness, being separated from loved ones, and undesirable experiencesin migrant destination areas (unemployment, alcoholism, lack of mobility), and haddamaging effects on social cohesion and the Marshallese culture and language.

•

Overall findings from the U.S. fieldwork: Questionnaire respondents in the U.S. were,on average, also more positive than negative about the impacts of migration on theeconomic situation and well-being of their households. Among interviewees in the
Pacific Northwest, 53.9 percent recorded an improvement in their economic situation,
while 77.5 percent in Hawai‘i did so. Furthermore, roughly half of respondents in eachof the destination states felt that migration had “quite a positive” influence on theeconomic situation and well-being of family members in the RMI. Interviewees in the
U.S. stated that there are available job opportunities for the Marshallese in Hawai‘i and
the Pacific Northwest.

•

Remittances: In Hawai‘i, 70 percent of respondents reported sending remittances
home, and 85 percent did so from the Pacific Northwest. In the RMI, roughly a third of
respondents (32.4%) had received remittances in the past 12 months.

•

Perception of improved health care in Hawai‘i: Respondents living in Hawai‘i ranked
their health care as highly improved over their previous residences within the RMI.
Respondents reported a 64 percent increase in the perception of the quality ofhealth care.

•

Perceived negative effects of migration: According to survey respondents in the U.S.,
migration comes with significant non-economic losses, such as weakened conservationof language and cultural ties.

Photo source: Kees van der Geest

9

Shared and differing perceptions
Which shared views on climate change, environment, migration, andfuture habitability exist within the study population?
This study used Q-methodology to identify shared views within
respondent groups in the RMI, Hawai‘i, and the Pacific Northwest.

In the RMI, the Q-methodology identified three groups that sharedsimilar views:
1. Migration critics (43.6%): Respondents
in this group are satisfied with the qualityof life, development, governance, andsecurity in the RMI. They are clear about
not wanting to move, and are very critical
about the impacts of migration, both in the
RMI and for migrants themselves. Although
they are happy with life as it is now, they doworry about the future of their islands.
2. Adaptation optimists (25.5%): This
group is more critical about the qualityof life in the RMI, and especially the lackof employment. However, they are quite
optimistic about the future of their islands.
“God will take care of us” was one of thestatements they most agreed with, andthey also put more trust in the international
community. They do not perceive theproblems and risks that the other groups
do, and answered more optimistically
about future habitability, climate risk
preparedness, and the level of adaptive
capacity. They do not oppose migration andthink it can be part of the solution, but they
are critical about the impact of migration on
Marshallese culture.

10

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | SH ARED AND DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS

3. Island pessimists (14.9%) 3: Respondents in this group are clearly dissatisfied with lifein the RMI, and have a strong desire to move to a different place, preferably the U.S.
Members of this group are very critical about changes in the quality of life, governance,development, and livelihood security in the RMI, and they question the future habitabilityof their islands. They see migration to the U.S. as the best or the only option, and arevery positive about the impacts of migration, emphasizing its benefits and downplaying
adverse effects.

The Q-analysis in the RMI shows that there are quite distinct views on migration and future habitability within
the population of the Marshall Islands. This is important for policy-makers as people in these groups may
respond differently to migration and climate change adaptation policy.

In Hawai‘i, the Q-methodology identified two groups that shared similar views:
1. Habitability pessimists (45.0%): These respondents have had their livelihoods
affected by climate-related stressors, have experienced discrimination, possess afatalistic perspective on future island habitability, note the Marshallese government’s
lack of a resilience strategy, have a neutral position on employability in Hawai‘i, andhave often come to Hawai‘i to seek health care.
2. Migration optimists (37.5%): Respondents in this group view migration as a successful
adaptation strategy, and they try to integrate in the U.S. while also valuing preservationof Marshallese culture. They perceive that they have improved livelihoods in Hawai‘i andplace less importance on climate issues than the group of “habitability pessimists.”
In the Pacific Northwest, the Q-methodology identified three groups that shared similar views:
1. Health care migrants (30.8%): These respondents are characterized by migrating
to seek health care, employment, and training; having had their livelihoods and foodsecurity affected by a changing climate; and placing weight on the importance ofremittances rather than government’s support.
2. Climate-concerned migrants (25.6%): These respondents are characterized by seeing
climate as a future driver of migration, believing that climate change is worsening extant
environmental issues caused by nuclear testing, and having experienced discriminationin the continental U.S.

3

The percentages do not add up to 100 percent because some respondents did not fit in any of the shared views.

11

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | SH ARED AND DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS

3. Community supporters (28.2%): TThese respondents can be characterized by theirmigrating for employment and health care, feeling threatened by environmental
changes in their past residences, and having strong cultural ties with Marshallese
culture.

The Q-analyses in the destination states show that there are quite distinct views on migration drivers andimpacts, integration in U.S. society, future habitability of the RMI, and the preservation of Marshallese language
and culture. This is important for policy-makers as people in these groups may respond differently to policy—
for instance, in the areas of integration, social welfare, education, and health.

Source: Kees van der Geest

12

Looking forward: concluding remarks
Decision-makers at local and state levels in both the RMI and the U.S. require better information on the factors
contributing to current migration in order to anticipate possible future impacts of the changing climate on
human migration, and to act appropriately in regard to policy and service provision. The findings in this reportprovide a mixed-methods, multi-site analysis of the ways in which migration impacts livelihoods and well-being
in the places in which migrants arrive and settle, as well as the rationales informing migration that has alreadyoccurred and is yet to come.
Respondents in the RMI perceive that the main drivers of migration in and from the RMI are related toeducation, health care, work, and family networks. Very few respondents in the RMI cite climate impacts orenvironmental change as drivers of migration. This was the case for past migrations (of the respondents),
current migrations (of siblings and children), and future migrations (of household members). In the U.S., ahigher proportion of respondents stated that environmental problems and sea-level rise had influenced theirdecision to migrate to the U.S.
Triangulating these findings with other research tools and analyses revealed a more complex picture, including
indications that households that had experienced more climate-related stresses and that perceived morenegative trends in ecosystem services had higher migration propensities. The evidence found in the study sites
is not conclusive. Moreover, it is important to distinguish between migration today and population movementsa few decades from now. While climate hazards currently still play a modest role in driving migration, it isalmost certain that climate change will have substantial impacts on mobility patterns in the next decades.
An important limitation of this research is that the research team could only survey three study sites, while the
RMI consists of 29 coral atolls and five raised coral islands. Therefore, the findings may not be representative
for the entire RMI. There may be parts of the RMI—particularly the northernmost islands—that are harder hit
by drought and heat waves, and there may be lower-lying atolls that are more at risk of inundation. During aworkshop on Majuro, in which the researchers presented results to Marshallese policy-makers and community
representatives, participants emphasized that this research should be considered a baseline for future
research, and that similar studies need to be conducted every five to ten years and covering more islands.
The next stage of the Marshall Islands Climate and Migration Project (MICMP) leverages the legal research
being done within the Pacific Research and Integrated Science Association (Pacific RISA) program to support
the critical quantitative and qualitative social science research on which optimal policy framework analysis
relies.

13

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | LOOKING FORWARD: CONCLUDING REM ARKS

Source: Kees van der Geest

14

About the authors
Kees van der Geest
is a human geographer who studies the impacts of climate change, humanmobility, environmental change, adaptation and livelihood resilience. Keyfeatures of his work are the people-centred perspective and the mixedmethod approach combining quantitative and qualitative research tools.
His work has contributed substantially to expanding the empirical evidencebase on migration–environment linkages and impacts of climate change
beyond adaptation (“loss and damage”). He is currently Head of the‘Environment and Migration: Interactions and Choices’ (EMIC) Section at
United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security in
Bonn.

Maxine Burkett
is a Professor of Law at the William S. Richardson School of Law, Universityof Hawai‘i and a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars. She is also Co-Founder and Executive Director of the nonprofit Institute for Climate and Peace. Burkett is an expert in the law andpolicy of climate change, with a specific focus on climate justice, climateinduced migration, and climate change, peace, and conflict. Prof. Burkett
is a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform, the Lancet
Commission for Reparations and Redistributive Justice, and the American
Law Institute. She is also Co-Rapporteur for the International Law
Association’s Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise.

15

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS | ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Juno Fitzpatrickis the Social Responsibility Programme Manager within Conservation
International’s Center for Oceans. Her work supports Conservation
International’s global effort to address human rights violations in thefishing industry. A development practitioner and political ecologist, she hasover seven years of experience in international development and humanrights, implementing natural resource governance projects on ground in
sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and the Pacific. Juno has an MSc from the
University of California, Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources.

Mark Stegeis a consultant based in Majuro with over 17 years of research andprofessional experience in a broad range of Micronesian island affairs.
He also leads research on atoll habitability thresholds at the MarshallIslands Conservation Society. His research approach is to develop and pilot
participatory frameworks for ecosystem services monitoring to assess
an atoll community’s exposure to various climate risks, as these increase
exponentially in the coming decades, and strengthen an atoll community’scapacity to self-determine “How much flood risk is too much?”, “Whatamount of groundwater and rainwater is adequate?”, “What constitutes
potable water?” and others.

Brittany Lauren Wheeler
works and researches at the moral-legal interfaces of migration in thefield of geography. She holds an MA in Forced Migration (University of the
Witwatersrand, South Africa) and is completing her PhD at the Graduate
School of Geography at Clark University. Her previous work has focused
most extensively on matters of human and object-based repatriation
processes and dialogues, and the historical and social-environmental
interpretation of materiality and cultural space. She has engaged herconcern with matters of reparation, historical justice, death-and-dying work,and the future of environmental migration in various research, editing,teaching and project-based work.

16

References
Danielson, S. (2009). “Q method and surveys: Three ways to combine Q and R.” Field Methods 21(3): 219-237.
IPCC. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working
Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Keener, V. W., Marra, J. J., Finucane, M. L., Spooner, D., & Smith, M. H. (2012). Climate Change and Pacific Islands: Indicators and Impacts.
Report for the 2012 Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment (PIRCA). National Climate Assessment Regional Technical Input
Report Series. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Marra, J. J. & Kruk, M. C. (coordinating authors), Abecassis, M., Diamond, H., Genz, A., Heron, S. F., Lander, M., Liu, G., Potemra, J. T.,
Sweet, W. V., Thompson, P., Widlansky, M. W., & Woodworth-Jefcoats, P. (contributing authors). (2017). State of Environmental Conditionsin Hawaii and the U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands under a Changing Climate: 2017. NOAA NCEI.
Oakes, R., Milan, A., & Schindler, M. (2017). Research Methods for the Pacific Climate Change and Migration (PCCM) Project. Bonn: UNUEHS.
Staudinger, M. D., Grimm, N. B., Staudt, A., Carter, S. L., Stuart III, F. S., Kareiva, P., Ruckelshaus, M., & Stein, B. A. (2012). Impacts of
Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services: Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment. Washington,
DC: United States Global Change Research Program.
Stege, M. H. (2018). “Atoll habitability thresholds.” In Leal Filho, W., & Nalau, J. (eds). Limits to Climate Change Adaptation, pp 381-399.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Thomas, A. (2014). “Protecting people displaced by weather-related disasters and climate change: Experience from the field.” Vermont
Journal of Environmental Law 15: 803-808.
United Nations Population Division. (2018). “World population prospects, 2017.” Online tool: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/.
van der Geest, K., Burkett, M., Fitzpatrick, J., M. Stege, and Wheeler, B. (2019). Marshallese migration: The role of climate change andecosystem services. Case study report of the Marshall Islands Climate and Migration Project. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Available at www.rmi-migration.com

17Source: Kees van der Geest
Graphic Design by Ryookyung Kim