Environmental displacement and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: a systematic review

Abstract

This systematic literature review explores the intersection of environmental displacement and the common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) principle, focusing on the ethical, legal, and practical dimensions of climate justice. We examine how current frameworks address disproportionate climate impacts on vulnerable populations, particularly in low-income nations, and evaluate obligations arising from historical emissions. Synthesizing research on climate migration, adaptation funding, socio-economic inequalities, and climate litigation, we identify critical gaps, including insufficient intersectional perspectives and inequitable resource allocation. Our findings emphasize the urgent need for stronger institutional mechanisms to enforce CBDR, especially for displaced individuals lacking legal protection. Although climate litigation is increasingly used to hold high-emission actors accountable, its effectiveness remains debated. Ultimately, while CBDR provides a normative foundation for addressing environmental displacement, its current application is fragmented. We conclude that unified international efforts and comprehensive policy frameworks are essential to align fairness and accountability in a warming world.

1 Introduction

Environmental displacement has become a critical humanitarian issue in the 21st century, propelled by the intensifying effects of climate change. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and prolonged droughts are increasingly intersecting with complex socio-economic and political factors to influence human mobility. While earlier literature often framed these populations strictly as “environmental migrants” (Lunstrum et al., 2016), contemporary research emphasizes that migration is a multi-causal phenomenon. Climate change rarely acts as the sole driver; rather, it functions as a threat multiplier. Furthermore, forced displacement stemming from extreme weather is frequently internal and short-term, with affected populations often returning once conditions allow (Boas et al., 2019; Selby and Daoust, 2021). It is also crucial to recognize that migration can serve as a vital climate adaptation strategy. In contrast, those unable to migrate due to resource constraints—often termed “trapped populations”—frequently face the most acute vulnerabilities (de Haas, 2024). Common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), established in global environmental accords, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), creates a framework for addressing the disparate impacts and susceptibilities of countries to climate change (Bushey and Jinnah, 2010). However, the application of CBDR to environmental displacement remains contested, particularly regarding legal accountability, financial obligations, and the protection of displaced populations.

CBDR’s historical foundation rests on the recognition that industrialized countries are more accountable for greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, developing nations, often the hardest hit by climate impacts, have made negligible contributions to the issue (Bou-Habib, 2019). This ethical and legal principle seeks to balance equity and fairness in global climate governance, yet its implementation has been inconsistent. For instance, while the Paris Agreement reaffirmed CBDR, it did not establish binding mechanisms to address displacement or allocate reparations for loss and damage (Ryder, 2017). Absent enforceable provisions, displaced populations remain in a legal limbo, with minimal access to compensation or resettlement assistance.

Unresolved questions remain regarding the implementation of CBDR to safeguard environmental migrants, especially in areas with inadequate governance frameworks. Current research tends to prioritize the legal categorization of displaced individuals, failing to address the overlapping vulnerabilities—including gender, economic standing, and indigenous background—that intensify displacement risks (Ryder, 2017). Moreover, while climate adaptation financing has gained attention, the distribution of funds remains uneven, with marginalized communities frequently excluded from decision-making processes (Persson and Remling, 2014). Another critical gap is the limited exploration of climate litigation as a tool for enforcing CBDR, despite its growing prominence in holding corporations and states accountable for climate-related harms (Nwapi, 2016).

This research is motivated by the urgent need to align the normative goals of CBDR with the complex realities of human mobility. Rather than viewing “environmental displacement” as a single-cause issue, it is important to recognize its multi-causal nature. We must critically assess literature that oversimplifies mobility, as such approaches risk supporting policies that undermine the rights of displaced populations. While some macro-level projections suggest the number of displaced persons will rise significantly as climate impacts intensify (Kuusipalo, 2017), these estimates often rely on deterministic extrapolations that are increasingly contested. Acknowledging the uncertainty in these projections is essential to avoid inadvertently feeding xenophobic or anti-migrant narratives. Nevertheless, international legal and normative frameworks remain ill-equipped to address the complex protection needs of those who do move. This review advances the discourse by integrating interdisciplinary perspectives on CBDR and displacement and providing a thorough examination of the ethical, legal, and policy dimensions. By recognizing systemic inequities and proposing reforms, this study seeks to guide policymakers, advocates, and scholars engaged at the nexus of climate justice and human mobility.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodology employed in this systematic literature review. Section 3 presents the findings, organized by major themes, including research trends, climate-related displacement, frameworks for justice, funding for adaptation, implications for gender and health, legal actions, and environmental effects. Section 4 discusses the findings in relation to broader debates on CBDR and displacement, while Section 5 concludes with reflections on future research directions and policy implications.

2 Methodology

2.1 Review protocol

This systematic literature review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework to achieve methodological rigor and transparency (Page et al., 2021). Five academic databases and search engines were selected based on their relevance to environmental studies, climate policy, and human rights. Web of Science was prioritized for its comprehensive coverage of high-impact journals in environmental law and climate justice. Scopus was included due to its interdisciplinary scope and robust indexing of policy-oriented research. ScienceDirect granted access to scholarly articles concentrating on climate adaptation and governance. SpringerLink was chosen for its extensive collection of environmental humanities and social science literature. Google Scholar supplemented these databases by capturing grey literature and emerging studies not yet indexed elsewhere.

The search queries merged terms associated with environmental displacement (“Desplazados ambientales”) and the common but differentiated responsibility principle (“responsabilidad común pero diferenciada”). They were narrowed using Boolean logic to exclude non-research materials, such as reviews and meta-analyses. Temporal filters limited results to studies published between 2019 and 2025, thereby aligning them with current discussions.

2.2 Analytical framework

The review adopts a multidimensional analytical framework to examine the interplay between environmental displacement and CBDR. Climate Change and Human Displacement examines the direct and indirect factors contributing to migration, such as sea-level rise and resource scarcity. Climate Justice assesses ethical and legal justifications for unequal obligations, with a focus on historical emissions and reparations. Climate Change Adaptation and Financing assesses the allocation of resources for resilience-building, particularly in vulnerable regions. Gender Issues and Health analyzes how displacement exacerbates inequalities in access to healthcare and livelihoods. Climate Litigation investigates legal strategies for enforcing accountability, while Environmental Impacts focuses on ecosystem degradation as both a cause and a consequence of displacement.

2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research was selected if it examined both environmental displacement and CBDR, employed empirical or theoretical approaches, and was published in English or Spanish from 2019 to 2024. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-peer-reviewed works, studies lacking clear methodological rigor, and those focused solely on internal displacement without international justice implications.

2.4 Study selection process

The initial search yielded 1,058 records, reduced to 299 after duplicate removal and preliminary screening. A full-text review of 80 articles identified 50 studies that met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1). The screening process required two independent reviewers to address discrepancies by reaching an agreement. Limitations include potential language bias (English/Spanish focus) and the underrepresentation of grey literature from grassroots organizations.

Figure 1

The final corpus reflects geographic and thematic diversity, with 32% of studies focusing on Latin America, 28% on small island states, and 22% on sub-Saharan Africa. Legal analyses (40%) were the most prevalent in the sample, with case studies (30%) and policy critiques (20%) constituting the remainder.

3 Results

3.1 Research trends

Examining publication trends shows a marked increase in academic focus on CBDR from 2019 to 2021, followed by a steady decrease. The year 2020 saw the highest research productivity, with 19 publications, which constituted 38% of the total corpus. This spike coincides with heightened global discourse on climate justice following the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit and the increasing visibility of displacement crises in vulnerable regions. The subsequent decline to 13 publications in 2021 and to only 5 in 2022 suggests either saturation in foundational research or a shift in priorities within climate scholarship.

Thematic analysis shows that Climate Change and Human Displacement were the primary focus of research, accounting for 56% of all studies. This focus aligns with the growing empirical evidence linking climate events to forced migration, particularly in the Global South. Climate Justice ranked as the second most common theme, yet its pattern differed from the general trend; publications in this area continued until 2025, indicating ongoing scholarly discussions on fairness in climate governance. The remaining themes—Adaptation Financing, Gender Issues, Health, Litigation, and Environmental Impacts—accounted for fewer than 30% of the corpus, suggesting these research areas remain underexplored despite their high relevance to displacement outcomes (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The chronological and subject-based trends indicate a shift in academic focus, with an early concentration on documenting displacement processes (2019–2021) that progressively transitions to studies centered on ethical standards and equity concerns (2021–2025). Nevertheless, the limited number of investigations on adaptation financing (merely 2 publications) and the irregular focus on gender (3 studies) and health (3 studies) indicate notable deficiencies. These imbalances may reflect methodological challenges in quantifying differentiated responsibilities or institutional biases toward legal and policy analyses over intersectional vulnerability assessments. Future-dated publications (2025) appearing solely in Climate Justice suggest forward-looking academic work that engages with the development of normative frameworks, yet their scarcity warrants careful analysis.

3.2 Climate change and human displacement: legal frameworks and justice imperatives

Climate change and human displacement converge in a multifaceted scenario in which legal safeguards are disjointed, and demands for justice increasingly overlap with migration policy frameworks. Studies in this domain converge on three critical dimensions: the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks, the role of CBDR in shaping protection mechanisms, and the socio-spatial dynamics of displacement.

A rights-based approach has become the prevailing framework, as Atapattu (2020) contends that the lack of a specific legal classification for “climate refugees” requires protections rooted in human rights legislation. This study underscores CBDR as a normative anchor and argues that high-emission states have duties toward displaced communities through monetary compensation and relocation initiatives. In a related vein, Gonzalez (2021) examines the influence of racial capitalism on displacement, showing that historical emissions trends align with current vulnerabilities in the Global South.

While the study indicates that an estimated 78% of displacements linked to extreme weather occur in nations responsible for fewer than 10% of worldwide emissions, such precise attribution must be approached with caution. Advancements in attribution science demonstrate that extreme weather events are rarely entirely caused by climate change; rather, their probability or intensity is altered (World Weather Attribution, 2026). Furthermore, resulting displacement is heavily exacerbated by pre-existing vulnerabilities, such as inadequate infrastructure or urban planning, which complicates the straightforward assignment of accountability solely to large emitters, even as it underscores the moral dimensions of CBDR.

Urbanization patterns further complicate displacement responses. While rural-to-urban migration can serve as an effective livelihood diversification strategy for some households, studies on Dhaka by Ayeb-Karlsson (2021) illustrate that under coercive circumstances, it can also intensify multidimensional poverty, as many displaced communities experience increased health vulnerabilities and marginalization in informal settlements. This aligns with findings from Kenya and Vietnam (Spilker et al., 2020), where urban residents’ ambivalence toward environmental migrants reflects narratives of resource competition. In contrast, Meth et al. (2023) question traditional displacement frameworks by examining “disruptive re-placement” in Ethiopia and South Africa, showing that resettlement initiatives frequently reinforce structural disparities rather than reducing them.

Table 1 synthesizes key studies across thematic clusters, highlighting the tension between legal innovation and structural constraints:

Two underexplored areas emerge from this synthesis. First, the mental health impacts of displacement receive scant attention despite evidence of trauma among relocated populations (Millar and Warwick, 2019; Grasser, 2022). Second, conceptual reframings of displacement—such as the “Anthropocene symptom” thesis—remain theoretically isolated from policy debates (Bettini, 2019). The table’s geographic distribution (60% Global South focus) mirrors displacement realities but reveals a research asymmetry where affected communities are studied more than engaged as knowledge producers.

The CBDR principle surfaces repeatedly as both a moral compass and a site of contention. While Atapattu (2020) and Gonzalez (2021) advocate for its legal codification, empirical work such as Meth et al. (2023) shows how top-down applications of responsibility frameworks can neglect local agency. This tension underscores the need for displacement governance that reconciles global equity principles with place-based adaptation strategies.

3.3 Climate justice: ethical foundations and operational challenges

The discourse on climate justice within environmental displacement studies reveals a dynamic interplay between ethical principles and their practical implementation. A rights-based approach dominates the conceptual landscape, with Atapattu (2020) advocating for the integration of human rights frameworks with the CBDR principle to protect displaced populations. This study contends that historical emissions create moral obligations for high-income nations, necessitating legal mechanisms for resettlement and compensation. Similarly, Gonzalez (2021) examines racial capitalism’s role in shaping displacement vulnerabilities, demonstrating how structural inequalities amplify climate risks for marginalized communities. The analysis underscores CBDR’s potential to address these disparities through redistributive justice, while noting persistent enforcement gaps.

To properly evaluate these frameworks, it is essential to distinguish CBDR, particularly in its evolved form as Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), from broader concepts of equity and justice. As Chalifour (2021) notes regarding loss and damage, CBDR is a state-to-state principle rooted in international environmental law, whereas equity encompasses a broader range of moral and distributive issues. Intergenerational equity, often cited in climate justice debates, also operates on a different normative basis than the state-focused obligations of CBDR. Because this review focuses methodologically on CBDR, it primarily addresses state-level accountability and does not fully engage with literature on climate displacement that uses broader equity frameworks.

Urban climate justice emerges as a critical subtheme, particularly in studies of coastal adaptation and built-environment inequities. Tubridy et al. (2022) evaluate managed retreat strategies through an environmental justice lens, revealing how top-down relocation policies often exacerbate social exclusion. The study highlights the value of coproduction approaches in ensuring equitable outcomes for displaced communities. Parallel findings appear in Klinsky and Mavrogianni (2020) examination of built-environment injustices, in which urban planning failures systematically disadvantage a wide range of low-income and vulnerable residents, compounding the specific precarities faced by those arriving due to climate-related impacts. These cases illustrate the spatial dimensions of climate justice, where geographic and socioeconomic factors intersect to produce uneven vulnerabilities.

Recognition justice emerges as a pivotal concern in studies of marginalized populations. Chu and Michael (2019) document the systemic exclusion of migrants in Indian cities, where climate displacement compounds existing precarities tied to caste and informal labor status. The research demonstrates how legal invisibility undermines access to housing, healthcare, and political representation—a pattern echoed in Deivanayagam et al. (2023) analysis of racial health disparities in U. S. climate migration contexts. These studies collectively argue for justice frameworks that address both material inequities and epistemic erasures, challenging dominant narratives that depoliticize displacement.

The table reveals tensions between justice aspirations and institutional realities. While distributive justice principles like CBDR gain theoretical traction, their translation into actionable policies remains inconsistent—particularly in fossil fuel phase-out governance (Muttitt and Kartha, 2020). Carbon market critiques further complicate this picture, showing how market-based solutions often replicate colonial patterns of resource extraction while failing to mitigate displacement risks (Choi, 2025). These findings align with Boyd et al. (2021) call for a new loss and damage agenda that moves beyond compensatory models toward transformative justice.

Conceptual contributions such as Puaschunder (2025) justice mapping exercise provide scaffolding for these debates, yet persistent asymmetries persist. Only 2 of 10 justice-focused studies engage substantively with Indigenous knowledge systems, despite their relevance to displacement governance. Similarly, the gendered dimensions of climate justice receive limited attention outside Deivanayagam et al. (2023) health-focused analysis. These omissions reflect broader disciplinary biases that prioritize legal-institutional analyses over grassroots justice praxis. The synthesis suggests that while climate justice frameworks offer vital tools for addressing displacement inequities, their effectiveness hinges on overcoming fragmentation between global norms and local realities.

3.4 Climate change adaptation and financing: equity in resource allocation

The intersection of climate change adaptation and financing reveals critical disparities in how resources are allocated to address environmental displacement, particularly under the principle of CBDR. Two pivotal studies illuminate contrasting approaches to this challenge, each emphasizing distinct dimensions of justice and governance in adaptation strategies.

Tubridy et al. (2022) examine managed retreat as a coastal adaptation strategy, arguing that its environmental justice implications are often overlooked in top-down policy implementations. The study advocates for coproduction approaches that integrate local knowledge with scientific expertise, thereby ensuring equitable outcomes for displaced communities. This perspective challenges conventional financing models that prioritize infrastructure over social equity, suggesting that CBDR must encompass not only financial transfers but also participatory governance structures. The research underscores how marginalized coastal populations—frequently bearing minimal responsibility for climate change—face disproportionate burdens when relocation programs fail to address underlying power asymmetries (Tables 2–7).

Addressing planned relocations necessitates nuanced frameworks that prioritize human rights and community agency. Ferris and Bower (2023) provide a comprehensive review of the literature, highlighting the complexities inherent in these processes. Their analysis underscores the importance of managing planned relocations by carefully integrating contemporary research to prevent unintended violations of displaced persons’ rights, framing these interventions as significant social reorganizations rather than solely logistical undertakings.

In contrast, Khan and Munira (2021) frame climate change adaptation as a global public good and analyze financing mechanisms through the lens of CBDR. The study critiques the displacement of official development assistance by adaptation funds, revealing how wealthy nations often repurpose existing aid rather than provide new resources. This practice undermines the equity objectives of CBDR by diluting financial commitments to vulnerable states. The analysis combines environmental economics with international relations theory, demonstrating how historical responsibility and capacity differentials should inform adaptation financing. However, the study also identifies structural barriers, including donor reluctance to cede control over fund allocation and the lack of enforceable accountability measures.

The table highlights a tension between localized, justice-oriented adaptation (Tubridy et al., 2022) and systemic financing reforms (Khan and Munira, 2021). While both studies affirm CBDR’s normative value, their divergent emphases—on governance processes versus financial architectures—reveal unresolved questions about prioritization in adaptation funding. For instance, Tubridy et al. (2022) emphasize community agency, contrasting with Khan and Munira (2021) macro-level focus on intergovernmental transfers, suggesting a need for multiscalar approaches that bridge these perspectives.

Emerging themes from these studies include the role of insurance mechanisms in distributing climate risks and the potential for litigation to enforce financing commitments. Neither study fully explores gender-differentiated impacts of adaptation financing, representing a critical gap given the disproportionate burdens borne by women in displacement scenarios. The synthesis suggests that operationalizing CBDR in adaptation finance requires both innovative governance models and robust monitoring frameworks to prevent elite capture of resources.

3.5 Gendered vulnerabilities in climate-induced displacement

The intersection of climate change and gender issues reveals profound disparities in how environmental displacement affects women and marginalized genders, with existing studies highlighting two critical dimensions: migration patterns and gender-based violence. Research demonstrates that climate-induced displacement exacerbates pre-existing gender inequalities, often leaving women disproportionately vulnerable to systemic harms.

Lama et al. (2021) examine the gendered dimensions of migration in climate-affected regions, revealing how structural inequalities shape displacement trajectories. Women frequently face restricted mobility due to cultural norms, caregiving responsibilities, and limited access to financial resources, which constrain their adaptation options when environmental disasters strike. The study underscores how these barriers intersect with class and ethnicity, creating layered vulnerabilities that mainstream displacement policies often overlook. For example, rural women in agrarian economies may lack the autonomy to migrate independently, forcing them to remain in high-risk areas or become dependent on male relatives for relocation—a dynamic that reinforces patriarchal structures even in displacement contexts.

Violence against women emerges as a recurrent theme across studies analyzing climate-related crises. Desai and Mandal (2021) investigate the role of climate change in exacerbating sexual and gender-based violence, framing it as an emerging challenge for international law. The research identifies how extreme weather events and resource scarcity destabilize social protections, increasing women’s exposure to exploitation in temporary shelters and refugee camps. This legal analysis argues that current international frameworks fail to recognize climate-induced violence as a distinct category of human rights violation, thereby limiting accountability mechanisms for perpetrators and redress for survivors. Similarly, Memon (2020) provides empirical evidence from flood-affected communities in rural Sindh, Pakistan, documenting a 40% increase in intimate partner violence following climate disasters. The study links this surge to economic stressors, disrupted social networks, and the collapse of community-based support systems—factors that compound women’s precarity in displacement scenarios.

The table illustrates how climate displacement acts as a threat multiplier for gender inequalities, with each.

The impact pathway requires tailored policy interventions. Notably absent from these studies is substantive analysis of LGBTQ+ populations in displacement contexts—a critical gap given documented discrimination in humanitarian settings. Furthermore, while Memon (2020) touches on health outcomes, the broader health implications of gendered displacement (e.g., maternal mortality, mental health trauma) remain underexplored relative to their demonstrated severity in field observations.

The synthesis suggests that operationalizing CBDR in gender-climate contexts necessitates both legal innovation and grassroots empowerment. Current frameworks seldom address how high-emission states’ historical contributions correlate with gendered patterns of harm in vulnerable nations. Integrating feminist political ecology perspectives could bridge this gap by centering the experiences of displaced women in climate justice advocacy and reparations design. The studies collectively affirm that without gender-transformative approaches, climate displacement policies risk perpetuating the very inequalities they aim to mitigate.

3.6 Climate change and health: disparities in environmental displacement

The health consequences of climate-induced displacement reveal profound inequities that intersect with environmental justice and the principle of CBDR. The included studies demonstrate how displaced populations face compounded health risks, with vulnerabilities shaped by socioeconomic status, racial identity, and mental health stressors. These findings underscore the ethical imperative for robust health interventions. While access to healthcare remains a universal human right based on human need rather than the environmental origin of an illness, CBDR provides a compelling framework for determining how to finance the strengthening of these universal health systems globally.

However, applying a normative CBDR foundation to health-related impacts requires a broader scope than mobility alone can provide. Climate change affects public health in many ways, including significant shifts in the distribution of disease vectors. In addition, higher temperatures severely impact vulnerable groups, such as agricultural and construction workers who face ongoing exposure. A comprehensive CBDR approach must address these systemic health risks as well as displacement.

Chowdhury et al. (2020) examine the physical health impacts on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in coastal Bangladesh, where rising sea levels and intensified cyclones have forced communities into precarious living conditions. The study documents elevated rates of waterborne diseases, malnutrition, and respiratory illnesses in displacement camps, exacerbated by inadequate sanitation and overcrowding. These health burdens disproportionately affect low-income households, illustrating how climate change amplifies existing health inequities. The research highlights the absence of targeted healthcare services for IDPs, despite Bangladesh’s negligible contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. In this clear case, CBDR could mandate health infrastructure investments from high-emission nations.

Mental health emerges as a critical yet understudied dimension of climate displacement. Grasser (2022) analyzes the psychological toll on refugees and displaced populations, identifying trauma, anxiety, and depression as pervasive consequences of forced migration. It is important to note that these mental health challenges are not exclusive to climate-related events; they are well-documented across various forms of forced displacement, including conflict (World Health Organization, 2025). Nevertheless, the study critiques the global health community’s inadequate response, noting that less than 20% of displaced persons in crisis settings receive mental health support. This gap reflects systemic neglect of non-physical health impacts in climate adaptation policies, particularly in regions with fragile healthcare systems. The research calls for CBDR-aligned mental health funding that acknowledges the emotional suffering inflicted by climate disasters, which are increasingly attributable to historical emissions from industrialized nations.

Racial justice intersects with climate health outcomes in Deivanayagam et al. (2023) analysis of environmental equity. The study traces how racialized communities—often residing in climate-vulnerable areas due to discriminatory housing policies—experience heightened health risks when displaced. For example, Black and Indigenous populations in urban heat islands face greater heat-related mortality during climate migrations. The authors frame this as a form of “climate redlining,” where systemic racism compounds the health impacts of displacement. Their findings challenge conventional CBDR frameworks by emphasizing intra-national inequities that mirror global North–South disparities, necessitating multiscalar approaches to health justice.

The table reveals a striking absence of gender-disaggregated health data in these studies, despite evidence that women and girls face unique risks during displacement (e.g., maternal health crises, sexual violence-related trauma). Furthermore, while all three studies implicitly invoke CBDR through their equity lenses, none explicitly model how differentiated responsibility might be operationalized to strengthen health systems. Operationalizing CBDR in this context does not mean restricting or tailoring care based on a patient’s displacement history, but rather ensuring that high-emission nations fulfill obligations to finance robust, rights-based health infrastructures in vulnerable regions.

The synthesis suggests that health considerations remain peripheral in CBDR debates, despite their centrality to displacement outcomes. Integrating health metrics into climate liability frameworks could strengthen accountability, for example, by linking carbon emissions to disease burden calculations in vulnerable nations. The studies collectively demonstrate that without health-just approaches to CBDR, climate displacement will continue to impose intolerable and unevenly distributed suffering on those least responsible for planetary warming.

3.7 Climate litigation: strategic approaches and emerging trends

Climate litigation has emerged as a critical tool for enforcing accountability and advancing climate justice, particularly in the context of environmental displacement and the principle of CBDR. The included studies examine strategic litigation through two distinct yet complementary lenses: lessons from landmark cases and the role of children and youth in advancing rights through legal mobilization.

Peel and Markey-Towler (2021) analyze three high-profile climate cases—Sharma v. Minister for the Environment (Australia), Neubauer v. Germany (Germany), and Shell (Netherlands)—to distill key lessons for strategic climate litigation. The study identifies common success factors, including robust scientific evidence linking emissions to harm, creative legal arguments grounded in human rights and intergenerational equity, and effective coalition-building between plaintiffs and civil society. The Sharma case, for instance, demonstrated how domestic environmental laws could be interpreted to impose a duty of care for young people’s futures. At the same time, the Neubauer ruling reinforced the constitutional imperative for stringent climate targets. These cases collectively illustrate the potential of litigation to operationalize CBDR by holding high-emission actors accountable for climate harms that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

Donger (2022) shifts focus to the participation of children and youth in climate litigation, examining how this demographic cohort has mobilized legal systems to assert their rights. The study highlights innovative legal strategies employed by young plaintiffs, such as framing climate inaction as a violation of the constitutional rights to life and dignity (as seen in the Juliana v. United States case) or leveraging international human rights instruments, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This research underscores the unique moral authority of youth plaintiffs in climate cases, which often resonates with courts and the public alike. The analysis also reveals procedural challenges, including standing requirements and political question doctrines, that frequently impede youth-led climate claims despite their substantive merits.

The table reveals a strategic evolution in climate litigation, from early cases focused narrowly on regulatory compliance to contemporary suits that explicitly connect emissions to human rights violations and intergenerational justice—core concerns of CBDR. Notably, both studies emphasize the importance of framing climate harms as immediate and personal rather than abstract or future-oriented, a rhetorical strategy that has proven effective in overcoming judicial reluctance to engage with climate issues.

Procedural innovations emerge as a recurring theme across the studies. Peel and Markey-Towler (2021) document how plaintiffs in the Shell case successfully invoked the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to establish corporate climate obligations, while Donger (2022) highlights youth advocates’ use of amicus briefs and expert testimony to bolster scientific and legal arguments. These tactics reflect an increasingly sophisticated understanding of how to navigate complex evidentiary and jurisdictional hurdles in climate litigation. However, both studies also caution against overreliance on judicial remedies, noting that litigation works best when complemented by political mobilization and public education campaigns.

The synthesis suggests that climate litigation, while not a panacea, offers a promising avenue for enforcing CBDR principles—particularly when combined with other advocacy tools. Future research could explore how these legal strategies might be adapted to address the specific needs of environmentally displaced populations, who currently lack standing in most international forums. The studies collectively demonstrate that courts are becoming crucial arenas for contesting the uneven distribution of climate responsibilities and harms, albeit within the constraints of existing legal architectures.

3.8 Ecological marginalization and systemic racism in climate displacement

The intersection of climate change and environmental degradation reveals how ecological transformations disproportionately displace marginalized communities while reinforcing systemic inequities. The included studies collectively demonstrate that environmental displacement is not merely a biophysical phenomenon but a socio-political process shaped by historical injustices, racial capitalism, and extractive economic models.

Schell et al. (2020) examine systemic racism’s role in urban ecological changes, arguing that racialized zoning and housing policies have concentrated minority populations in environmentally vulnerable areas. The study traces how these communities then face displacement pressures from both climate impacts and subsequent “green gentrification,” where environmental remediation projects paradoxically price out original residents. This creates a double bind: marginalized groups endure the worst effects of environmental degradation while being excluded from the benefits of ecological restoration. The research highlights how CBDR frameworks must account for these intra-national inequities, which mirror global North–South disparities in climate vulnerability.

Forest-dependent communities emerge as particularly vulnerable to climate-induced displacement in Levers et al. (2021) analysis of agricultural expansion in the Gran Chaco region. The study documents how deforestation for industrial soy production disrupts traditional livelihoods, forcing indigenous groups into urban peripheries where they face cultural erosion and economic precarity. While the authors note data limitations in tracking displaced household members, their findings align with broader patterns of “ecological marginalization”—in which environmental changes render traditional lifeways untenable without viable alternatives. This dynamic exemplifies how climate adaptation failures intersect with development pressures to produce cascading displacement effects.

The table reveals how place-specific environmental changes—from urban heat islands to deforested hinterlands—generate distinct displacement patterns that challenge uniform policy responses. Nygren et al. (2022) global analysis of extractivism underscores this point, showing how mining and oil production create “sacrifice zones” where environmental degradation forces population displacement. The study critiques mainstream sustainability discourses that ignore these frontline impacts and advocates for CBDR models that hold transnational corporations accountable for ecological harms.

Marine environments feature prominently in displacement research, with Bennett (2019) analyzing how ocean enclosures through conservation or development projects displace coastal communities. The study identifies a “blue paradox” whereby marine protection initiatives intended to mitigate climate change often replicate terrestrial patterns of exclusion and dispossession. This raises critical questions about how CBDR applies to oceanic spaces, where jurisdictional complexities and weak governance structures exacerbate vulnerabilities for small-scale fishers and indigenous seafaring peoples.

The synthesis suggests that environmental displacement cannot be addressed without confronting the structural drivers of ecological marginalization. While Aune et al. (2020) study on post-Katrina New Orleans was not included in the final table due to its U. S.-specific focus, its findings on climate gentrification resonate with broader global patterns. The research collectively demonstrates that CBDR must evolve beyond nation-state frameworks to address subnational and corporate actors whose practices accelerate both climate change and displacement. Future studies could further explore the epistemic dimensions of these dynamics—particularly how indigenous ecological knowledge is systematically excluded from displacement policymaking despite its relevance for sustainable adaptation.

The studies underscore that while environmental justice, climate justice, and environmental racism are distinct concepts, they are inextricably linked in displacement contexts. Environmental justice traditionally focuses on the localized, disproportionate exposure of marginalized communities to pollution and hazards. In contrast, climate justice scales these concerns globally, addressing systemic disparities in emissions, historical responsibility, and vulnerability. Environmental racism specifically identifies the racially discriminatory policies and practices that force racialized groups into these hazard-prone areas. In the context of displacement, these concepts converge: populations are often displaced by global climate impacts (climate justice) because they were historically relegated to vulnerable zones (environmental racism) lacking adequate infrastructural protection (environmental justice).

Therefore, effective implementation of CBDR requires not only macro-level redistributive mechanisms but also transformative approaches that dismantle the localized racialized and colonial logics underpinning ecological exploitation. As Boelens et al. (2023) suggest in their river commons research, alternative socionatural relations—centered on collective stewardship rather than extractive ownership—may offer pathways for addressing displacement that are both ecologically sustainable and socially just.

4 Discussion

The synthesis of findings across the reviewed literature reveals several critical patterns that advance our understanding of environmental displacement and the principle of CBDR. Taken together, the studies consistently demonstrate that climate-induced migration is not merely an environmental phenomenon but a deeply political issue shaped by historical inequities, structural vulnerabilities, and contested governance frameworks. Three overarching themes emerge from this integration: the inadequacy of current legal protections, the intersectional nature of displacement risks, and the contested implementation of CBDR in practice.

The legal limbo facing migrating populations surfaces as a persistent concern. While Atapattu (2020) and McAdam (2020) highlight the absence of binding international protection, it must be acknowledged that the majority of weather-related displacement is internal. Consequently, protection mechanisms are primarily domestic, guided by soft-law instruments like the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. In this context, the role of CBDR is less about creating new international legal categories and more about high-emission states fulfilling moral and financial obligations to support domestic adaptation and protection efforts.

The tension between moral imperatives and legal realities emerges most starkly in climate litigation cases analyzed by Peel and Markey-Towler (2021), where judicial victories often lack corresponding policy changes. This disconnect suggests that while litigation can shape normative expectations, it alone is insufficient to operationalize CBDR for displaced populations. The collective evidence points to a need for multilateral agreements that explicitly link historical emissions to obligations for resettlement and compensation, moving beyond the current ad hoc humanitarian responses.

Intersectional vulnerabilities permeate the displacement landscape, yet receive uneven attention in both research and policy. Studies such as Lama et al. (2021) and Chu and Michael (2019) demonstrate how gender, race, and class mediate displacement outcomes, creating layered precarities that conventional adaptation programs overlook. The health impacts documented by Chowdhury et al. (2020) and Grasser (2022) further reveal how physiological and psychological burdens cluster among those least equipped to cope. This pattern mirrors global disparities in emissions.

These findings collectively argue for CBDR frameworks that account for multidimensional vulnerability, rather than treating displaced populations as homogeneous groups. However, the literature reveals critical blind spots. The near-absence of LGBTQ+ perspectives and the complete omission of disability justice represent severe gaps in the current scholarship. Individuals facing discrimination based on disability experience profoundly magnified risks during environmental displacement, ranging from inaccessible evacuation routes to the disruption of specialized healthcare networks. Future research must explicitly center disability justice alongside other intersectional dynamics to fully capture the complex realities of climate-induced mobility.

The operationalization of CBDR reveals fundamental tensions between its ethical foundations and practical applications. While Khan and Munira (2021) analysis of adaptation financing underscores the principle’s normative appeal, it also exposes how donor preferences and bureaucratic hurdles dilute its redistributive potential. Similarly, Tubridy et al. (2022) coproduction model illustrates the promise of participatory approaches yet raises questions about scalability in resource-constrained settings. These contradictions suggest that CBDR’s implementation gap stems not from conceptual flaws, but from the reluctance of high-emission states to cede decision-making power or financial control. The emerging focus on corporate accountability in climate litigation (Peel and Markey-Towler, 2021) offers one pathway to circumvent this impasse by targeting non-state actors, though its long-term efficacy remains uncertain.

Theoretical implications of this synthesis challenge conventional boundaries between climate justice and environmental justice scholarship. The urban ecological racism examined by Schell et al. (2020) and the racial health disparities documented by Deivanayagam et al. (2023) demonstrate how displacement perpetuates systemic inequities across scales—from global North–South divides to intra-national marginalization. This multiscalar injustice necessitates CBDR models that transcend nation-state frameworks to address subnational and corporate actors. The concept of “ecological marginalization” advanced by Levers et al. (2021) further enriches theoretical discourse by linking environmental degradation to displacement through the lens of political ecology, offering a bridge between material and epistemic dimensions of climate harm.

Practical implications center on policy innovation and institutional reform. The consistent evidence of gendered displacement risks Lama et al. (2021) call for mandatory gender impact assessments in climate adaptation funding, while the health disparities identified by Chowdhury et al. (2020) demand that historical emitters provide CBDR-aligned financing to support robust, rights-based health services—including mobile clinics and mental health support—accessible to all vulnerable populations. The litigation strategies analyzed by Peel and Markey-Towler (2021) and Donger (2022) provide templates for advocacy groups seeking to enforce accountability, though their replication requires context-specific adaptations. Policymakers must also confront the “blue paradox” highlighted by Bennett (2019), ensuring marine conservation and renewable energy projects do not replicate terrestrial patterns of dispossession.

Methodological limitations of this review warrant consideration. First, the search strategy’s strict focus on journal databases and specific terms such as “CBDR” means the review conflates some state-to-state principles with broader equity concepts, potentially omitting papers that use different terminology. Second, this journal-centric approach overlooks the profound collective insights that emerge from edited books and special issues, where chapters are designed to be read in dialogue. For instance, landmark edited collections—such as Doelle and Seck’s Handbook on Climate Loss and Damage Law—provide interrelated perspectives on corporate accountability, human rights, and displacement that discrete search parameters often miss.

Furthermore, the English/Spanish language restriction likely excluded relevant studies from Francophone and Lusophone contexts, particularly in displacement hotspots like West Africa. Finally, the temporal focus on 2019–2024, while ensuring relevance, omitted foundational works and immediate subsequent publications, such as Galvão Ferreira (2016) analysis of CBDR-RC and climate litigation. These constraints suggest that the review’s findings should be interpreted as indicative rather than exhaustive of the field.

Future research directions emerge clearly from the identified gaps and contradictions. While valuable longitudinal studies exist within the broader refugee and disaster literature, there remains a pressing need to adapt and expand these methodologies to track specific climate-related mobility outcomes across generations, particularly in small island states facing existential threats. The health-climate displacement nexus requires further investigation, with particular attention to non-communicable diseases and reproductive health impacts among transient populations. Ethnographic work centering on indigenous and local knowledge systems could challenge dominant adaptation paradigms, while comparative legal analyses might identify transferable models for codifying CBDR obligations. Perhaps most urgently, participatory action research is needed to amplify the voices of displaced communities in shaping the policies that affect them—a corrective to the extractive tendencies evident in much current scholarship.

The collective evidence underscores that environmental displacement represents both a symptom and a catalyst of deeper systemic injustices. While CBDR provides a moral and legal framework for addressing these inequities, its transformative potential remains unrealized without structural reforms that redistribute power alongside resources. The studies converge on a sobering reality: climate change is not just displacing people but exposing the fault lines of a global order that prioritizes growth over justice. Addressing this crisis demands more than technical solutions—it requires reimagining responsibility itself in ways that repair historical harms while preventing their recurrence.

5 Conclusion

This systematic review has synthesized contemporary scholarship on environmental displacement and the principle of CBDR, revealing critical tensions between ethical imperatives and practical implementation. The analysis confirms that climate-induced migration disproportionately affects historically marginalized communities while exposing systemic gaps in legal protections and adaptation financing.

The findings challenge prevailing policy frameworks that treat “environmental displacement” or “climate displacement” as distinct, monocausal categories, an approach that fails to capture the complexity of human mobility. It is necessary to rigorously question literature that risks reinforcing policies that undermine the rights of displaced populations, and to recognize that displacement is deeply intertwined with structural inequities rooted in colonial and capitalist legacies.

This review advances theoretical understanding by demonstrating how Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) intersect with intersectional vulnerabilities such as gender, race, class, and indigeneity to produce layered forms of climate injustice. In practical terms, it underscores the need for binding mechanisms that operationalize historical responsibility through reparative finance, inclusive governance, and rights-based protection systems, reflecting contemporary research on human mobility.

Future research must prioritize longitudinal studies on displacement trajectories and participatory methodologies that center affected communities’ knowledge. As climate impacts intensify, this synthesis affirms that meaningful implementation of CBDR remains both an ethical obligation and a pragmatic necessity for equitable global governance.

References

• 1

  AtapattuS. (2020). Climate change and displacement: protecting ‘climate refugees’ within a framework of justice and human rights. J. Hum. Rights Environ.11, 86–113. doi: 10.4337/jhre.2020.01.04

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AuneK. T.GeschD.SmithG. S. (2020). A spatial analysis of climate gentrification in Orleans parish, Louisiana post-hurricane Katrina. Environ. Res.185:109384. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109384,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Ayeb-KarlssonS. (2021). ‘When we were children we had dreams, then we came to Dhaka to survive’: urban stories connecting loss of wellbeing, displacement and (im) mobility. Clim. Dev.13, 348–359. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1777078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BennettN. J. (2019). In political seas: engaging with political ecology in the ocean and coastal environment. Coast. Manag.47, 67–87. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2019.1540905

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BettiniG. (2019). And yet it moves! (climate) migration as a symptom in the Anthropocene. Mobilities14, 336–350. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2019.1612613

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BoasI.FarbotkoC.AdamsH.SterlyH.BushS.van der GeestK.et al. (2019). Climate migration myths. Nat. Clim. Chang.9, 901–903. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0633-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BoelensR.EscobarA.BakkerK.HommesL.SwyngedouwE.HogenboomB.et al. (2023). Riverhood: political ecologies of socionature commoning and translocal struggles for water justice. J. Peasant Stud.50, 1125–1156. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2022.2120810

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Bou-HabibP. (2019). Climate justice and historical responsibility. J. Polit.81, 1298–1310. doi: 10.1086/704325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BoydE.ChaffinB. C.DorkenooK.JacksonG.HarringtonL.N’guettaA.et al. (2021). Loss and damage from climate change: a new climate justice agenda. One Earth4, 1365–1370. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BusheyD.JinnahS. (2010). Evolving Responsibility-The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility in the UNFCCC. 6, 1. Available online at: https://www.sikinajinnah.org/uploads/5/6/7/3/56736401/evolvingresponsbility.pdf (Accessed February 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ChalifourN. (2021). “Equity considerations in loss and damage,” in Research Handbook on Climate Change Law and Loss and Damage, eds. DoelleM.SeckS. (London: Edward Elgar Publishing), 18–42.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ChoiC. (2025). Trading carbon, trading justice: ethical dimensions of market-based climate solutions. East Asian J. Bus. Econ.13, 1–16. doi: 10.20498/eajbe.2025.13.1.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  ChowdhuryM.HasanM.HasanM.YounosT. (2020). Climate change impacts and adaptations on health of internally displaced people (IDP): an exploratory study on coastal areas of Bangladesh. Heliyon6:e05018. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05018,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ChuE.MichaelK. (2019). Recognition in urban climate justice: marginality and exclusion of migrants in Indian cities. Environ. Urban.31, 139–156. doi: 10.1177/0956247818814449

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  de HaasH. (2024). How Migration Really Works. Penguin.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DeivanayagamT.EnglishS.HickelJ.BonifacioJ.GuintoR. R.HillK. X.et al. (2023). Envisioning environmental equity: climate change, health, and racial justice. Lancet402, 64–78. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00919-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DesaiB. H.MandalM. (2021). Role of climate change in exacerbating sexual and gender-based violence against women: a new challenge for international law. Environ. Policy Law51, 137–157. doi: 10.3233/EPL-210055

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DongerE. (2022). Children and youth in strategic climate litigation: advancing rights through legal argument and legal mobilization. Transnatl. Environ. Law11, 263–289. doi: 10.1017/S2047102522000218

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FerrisE.BowerE. (2023) Planned Relocations: A Review of the Literature. Available online at: https://researchinginternaldisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Ferris-and-Bower_Planned-Relocations_150323.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FerrisE.WeerasingheS. (2020). Promoting human security: planned relocation as a protection tool in a time of climate change. J. Migr. Hum. Secur.8, 134–149. doi: 10.1177/2331502420909305 (Accessed January 25, 2026).

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Galvão FerreiraP. (2016). “Common but differentiated responsibilities” in the national courts: lessons from Urgenda v. the Netherlands. Transnat. Environ. Law5, 329–351. doi: 10.1017/S2047102516000248

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GonzalezC. G. (2021). Racial capitalism, climate justice, and climate displacement. Oñati Socio-Legal Series Symposium Climate Justice Anthropocene11, 108–147. doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1137

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GrasserL. (2022). Addressing mental health concerns in refugees and displaced populations: is enough being done?Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy15, 909–922. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S270233,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  HuqE.MiraftabF. (2020). “We are all refugees”: camps and informal settlements as converging spaces of global displacements. Plan. Theory Pract.21, 351–370. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2020.1776376

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  KhanM. R.MuniraS. (2021). Climate change adaptation as a global public good: implications for financing. Clim. Chang.167:50. doi: 10.1007/s10584-021-03195-w,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  KlinskyS.MavrogianniA. (2020). Climate justice and the built environment. Buildings and Cities1:412–428. doi: 10.5334/bc.65,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  KuusipaloR. (2017). Exiled by emissions—climate change related displacement and migration in international law: gaps in global governance and the role of the UN climate convention. Vt. J. Environ. Law18, 614–647. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44807699

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  LamaP.HamzaM.WesterM. (2021). Gendered dimensions of migration in relation to climate change. Clim. Dev.13, 326–336. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1772708

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  LeversC.Romero-MuñozA.BaumannM.De MarzoT.FernándezP. D.GasparriN. I.et al. (2021). Agricultural expansion and the ecological marginalization of forest-dependent people. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA118:e2100436118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2100436118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  LunstrumE.BoseP.ZalikA. (2016). Environmental displacement: the common ground of climate change, extraction and conservation. Area48, 130–133. doi: 10.1111/area.12193

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  McAdamJ. (2020). Protecting people displaced by the impacts of climate change: the UN human rights committee and the principle of non-refoulement. Am. J. Int. Law114, 708–725. doi: 10.1017/ajil.2020.31

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  MemonF. S. (2020). Climate change and violence against women: study of a flood-affected population in the rural area of Sindh, PakistanMemon, FS.(2020). Climate Change and Violence Against Women: Study of a Flood-Affected Population in the Rural Area of Sindh, Pakistan.Pak. J. Womens Stud.27, 65–85. doi: 10.46521/pjws.027.01.0039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  MethP.BelihuM.ButheleziS.MasikaneF. (2023). Not entirely displacement: conceptualizing relocation in Ethiopia and South Africa as “disruptive re-placement”. Urban Geogr.44, 824–849. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2022.2042067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  MillarO.WarwickI. (2019). Music and refugees’ wellbeing in contexts of protracted displacement. Health Educ. J.78, 67–80. doi: 10.1177/0017896918785991

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  MuttittG.KarthaS. (2020). Equity, climate justice and fossil fuel extraction: principles for a managed phase out. Clim. Pol.20, 1024–1042. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2020.1763900%4010.1080/tfocoll.2022.0.issue-Just-Transition-and-Climate-Justice

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  NwapiC. (2016). From responsibility to cost-effectiveness to litigation: the evolution of climate change regulation and the emergence of climate justice litigation. Climate Justice: Case Studies in Global and Regional Governance Challenges (Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 517–542. Available online at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876777 (Accessed February 11, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  NygrenA.KrögerM.GillsB. (2022). Global extractivisms and transformative alternatives. J. Peasant Stud.49, 734–759. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2022.2069495

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  PageM.McKenzieJ.BossuytP.PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  PeelJ.Markey-TowlerR. (2021). Recipe for success?: lessons for strategic climate litigation from the Sharma, Neubauer, and Shell cases. Ger. Law J.22, 1484–1498. doi: 10.1017/glj.2021.83

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  PerssonA.RemlingE. (2014). Equity and efficiency in adaptation finance: initial experiences of the adaptation fund. Clim. Pol.14, 488–506. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2013.879514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  PetrovaK. (2021). Natural hazards, internal migration and protests in Bangladesh. J. Peace Res.58, 33–49. doi: 10.1177/0022343320973741

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  PuaschunderJ. (2025). “Mapping climate justice,” in Governance & Climate Justice: Wealth of Nature, (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 45–68.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  RyderS. (2017). A bridge to challenging environmental inequality: intersectionality, environmental justice, and disaster vulnerability. Soc. Thought Res., 34:85–115. doi: 10.17161/1808.25571

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  SchellC. J.DysonK.FuentesT. L.Des RochesS.HarrisN. C.MillerD. S.et al. (2020). The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. Science369:eaay4497. doi: 10.1126/science.aay4497

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  SelbyJ.DaoustG. (2021) Rapid Evidence Assessment on the Impacts of Climate Change on Migration PatternsForeign, Commonwealth & Development Office. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/rapid-evidence-assessment-on-the-impacts-of-climate-change-on-migration-patterns (Accessed January 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  SpilkerG.NguyenQ.KoubiV.BöhmeltT. (2020). Attitudes of urban residents towards environmental migration in Kenya and Vietnam. Nat. Clim. Chang.10, 622–627. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0805-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  TubridyF.LennonM.ScottM. (2022). Managed retreat and coastal climate change adaptation: the environmental justice implications and value of a coproduction approach. Land Use Policy114:105960. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105960

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  World Health Organization (2025) Refugee and Migrant Mental Health. Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/refugee-and-migrant-mental-health (Accessed January 25, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  World Weather Attribution (2026) Extreme Rainfall. Available online at: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/analysis/rainfall/ (Accessed January 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar