Abstract
The oft-cited statistic that one in seven people globally is on the move (IOM, 2015) rarely prompts a deeper inquiry into its inverse: why are six out of seven people not migrating?
This research directly engages with that gap, exploring climate change as a dual driver of both displacement and immobility, emphasizing how gendered power structures shape people's ability to move—or remain—in the face of climate impacts. While climate-induced displacement receives increasing attention, this study highlights climate immobility: the condition of those who are unable or unwilling to leave their homes despite growing environmental and climate risks.
In Nepal, male outmigration driven by socio-economic and climatic stressors has positioned women as the main agents of adaptation in rural areas. In communities like Sangrumba in eastern Nepal, women and other marginalized people are managing fragile agricultural systems and household responsibilities under intensifying climate pressures. Yet, their ability to move—or to adapt in place—is often constrained by patriarchal norms, insecure land tenure, limited access to credit, and exclusion from decision-making spaces.
By centering local, intersectional adaptation practices, this study challenges technocratic understandings of adaptation as a neutral or universally accessible process. It argues that when adaptation policies ignore social context, they risk reinforcing structural inequalities and erasing the labor and knowledge of those most impacted.
Understanding who adapts, how, and under what constraints is crucial for designing just and inclusive climate policies. Building on this premise, the research promotes the right to adapt in place with dignity—especially for women and marginalized communities—being not only a question of resilience, but of climate justice and human rights. The law can, and must, play a central role in advancing this agenda.
While combining a literature review on immobility with a case study in rural Nepal, this study explores how socio-economic, environmental—particularly water scarcity—and cultural factors shape immobility. Findings show that mobility decisions are not static but evolve with shifting socio-economic and climatic conditions. The boundary between voluntary and involuntary immobility is often blurred, as motivations and perceptions are deeply personal and complex. For instance, while some participants expressed a desire to stay, they also acknowledged that worsening water insecurity might force future migration—if financially possible—or lead to being effectively “trapped.” A gendered lens reveals that women often remain in the village not by active choice, but due to limited alternatives outside of it.
These insights will be complemented by the initial findings of my upcoming PhD research, starting in November, which narrows the focus toward climate immobility in mountain areas and approaches the right to remain through the lens of international law—an alternative framework that seeks to empower communities and enable just, place-based adaptation on their own terms.