Kieslinger J (2021)
Publication Language: English
Publication Type: Thesis
Publication year: 2021
URI: https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-fau/frontdoor/index/index/docId/17173
Migration is an issue that is discussed intensively both on a global scale and in the Latin American context. It is commonly associated with wider socio-ecological transformation processes such as global change, urbanization and land use transitions. Rural areas are often considered as regions of out-migration, with out-migration is usually understood to be related to profound structural transformations.
The present investigation is informed by insights from the dynamic and interdisciplinary fields of environment-migration nexus and migration-(rural) development nexus in the Global South, two fields that bring together scholars from environmental and climate science but also from social sciences and the humanities. Yet, since the inception of these fields of research, geographers have been participating in them, as they seem predestined to make a contribution that would bridge the gap between human and physical sciences (Felgentreff and Pott 2016). While scientific debates on environment-migration interlinkages predominantly revolved around external migration (Foresight 2011), discussions on migration-rural development interrelations emphasized internal rural-urban movements (Bilsborrow 2002). Within the vast fields, one common focus of interest was initially the environmental causation of migration (Hunter, Luna, and Norton 2015; Felgentreff and Pott 2016), whereas feedback effects of migration processes on rural sending areas tended to be underrepresented (Greiner and Sakdapolrak 2013). Scholars further pointed to the need for a greater consideration of the political, economic and social contextual factors that could influence both causes and effects of migration processes (Black et al. 2011). However, there is no consensus on how to conceptualize these contextual factors and how to integrate human-environment relations in migration theory (Hunter, Luna, and Norton 2015). With growing evidence from case studies in different geographical settings, academics increasingly addressed migration as a form of adaptation to environmental change and a household strategy of risk minimization (e.g. McLeman 2014). This point of view challenges the widespread notion of ‘passive’ or ‘forced’ migrants, which neglects migrants’ agency in decision-making and their potential role in the development of coping strategies. However, despite there also always having been people who remained in the investigated areas of out-migration, the phenomenon of staying put has been and still is starkly underrepresented in research (except some examples, for instance Mata-Codesal 2015; Mata Codesal 2016 for Latin America) – and especially with regard to environment and rural development interlinkages. Apart from content-related issues, there is an epistemological and methodological issue that represents a major shortcoming: both fields have been and still are dominated by external scientific views and do not sufficiently take into account the experiences of the people concerned.
The present doctoral thesis in the field of human geography aims to push these debates forward and to contribute to the aforementioned shortcomings. For this reason, this investigation addresses the diversity of people’s movements without predefined spatial and temporal categories and takes into account the phenomenon of staying, which in the following is termed and conceived of as human (im)mobilities (New Mobilities Paradigm, e.g. Sheller and Urry 2006). Further, the causes and feedback effects of these (im)mobilities are equally considered in order to capture interrelated socio-ecological transformations. Owing to a social constructivist research perspective, the focus is set on the everyday knowledge of actors from the field and how they construct social meanings. This investigation thus aims to grasp the participants’ views on interrelations between human (im)mobilities and changing living contexts (e.g. environmental changes, household dynamics). The overarching research question is set as follows:
From the perspective of the local population, what role do (im)mobilities of people play as a cause of and driver for changing living contexts and what is the significance of human (im)mobilities for rural livelihoods and everyday practices?
A place based study is the best way to address the complexity of human (im)mobilities and their interrelations with socio-ecological transformations. The Cantón of Macará in southern Ecuador was selected as a study area because various authors had observed historically high out-migration in general (Temme 1972; Bilsborrow et al. 1987; Gray 2009a) and for climatic reasons, specifically during the droughts of the 1960s (Temme 1972; OAS 1994). Nowadays, the municipality of Macará has highlighted in its local development agenda 2015-2019 the out-migration of population as an urgent field of action and points to climatic changes, recurring extreme events as well as the degradation of arable lands and tropical dry forests as major challenges for the rural livelihoods in the canton (GAD Macará 2015). Further, the study area is located in the western escarpment of the Andes, an area expected to be highly affected by the impacts of climate change in the future (IPCC 2014a; Kaenzig and Piguet 2014; Schoolmeester et al. 2016).
In order to carry through a people-centered research, I developed a research design that draws methodologically on the participatory research paradigm (e.g. Bergold and Thomas 2012) and on grounded theory procedures (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Charmaz 2006). The aim was to enable knowledge co-production in a collaborative research process representing the variety of actors relevant in the field. For this, strategies and new tools were elaborated with special emphasis on actors’ involvement, the reduction of power inequalities and immersion into the field (Kieslinger, Kordel, and Weidinger 2020, annex #2FQS). Consequently, this investigation required high flexibility, openness and the steady adaptation of proceedings and, finally, time and financial resources.
The peculiarity of this investigation is its processual character, a direct result of its intentions. Firstly, initial aims and research questions were adapted according to new insights based on scientific perspectives and participants’ priorities. Secondly, methods for data generation were jointly elaborated with co-investigators and adjusted according to the participants’ interests, capabilities and needs. Thirdly, the participants’ grassroots views were contrasted with scientific findings about interlinkages between migration, environment and rural development in the Global South. Fourthly, the issues under study were approached as openly as possible and without predefined theoretical concepts in order to make a contribution to theory formation by means of own empirical findings.
Findings of this doctoral thesis provide empirical evidence of the importance of human (im)mobilities and interrelated socio-ecological transformations in rural Ecuador. Three levels of analysis were considered: study area, household and individuals in social structures. Findings from these distinct analytical levels were combined to get a more profound understanding of the emerging concepts and categories used by the participants.
In line with the participants’ perspectives, two core categories were identified: “(im)mobilities in everyday life” and “(im)mobilities related to changing places of living”. Mobilities of people in everyday life are closely intertwined with practices to secure livelihoods and satisfy basic needs. This relates to routines in the closer surroundings of the place of living (e.g. for water management, agricultural production, forest use and conservation, social organization, purchase and sale of products, education, work, medical treatments, recreation and religion) and occasional mobilities to cities like Loja, Cuenca, Guayaquil and Quito (e.g. for medical treatments, administrative procedures at public institutions, family visits). Distinct (im)mobilities and practices in everyday life depend on individuals’ roles and memberships, gender and age, but also to the distance of places and public infrastructures.
The overall participants’ observation of population decline and changes in population structure has been associated with a continuous trend of people’s mobilities related to changing places of living. The results of the historical analysis (1960-2017) show that there has been a continuous trend of out-migration with changing patterns according to common destinations. These patterns could be grouped under the categories of domestic rural-rural and rural-urban as well as external movements. Findings provide evidence that grasping the historical context of the respective period and the events and trends occurring during a certain period of time is of vital importance to understand human (im)mobilities. Events and trends unfold in different spatial and temporal dimensions, as well as in political, economic, ecological and social contexts while different events and trends may overlap or interact with each other. Over time, mobility processes of people from the study area have become more diverse and complex due to translocal and/or -national networks. Based on young peoples’ statements, it can be assumed that the trend of out-migration will continue in the future. It also appeared that domestic rural-urban movements are nowadays the dominant pattern. The motivations expressed by participants encompass education, personal development and self-realization as well as work were quite homogeneous and are closely interrelated.
However, participants also highlighted that there have always been people who remained in the study area, even in crisis situations. Further, movement patterns changed despite events of the same kind repeatedly occurring (e.g. droughts), with individuals opting for different destinations than the common ones. Findings of this thesis show that there are no linear cause-effect relations, but common issues of concern which the participants relate to human (im)mobilities. The comparison of findings from different analytical units (study area, household, individual) demonstrates the complexity of multiple drivers and multidimensional interactions that shape human (im)mobilities.
In order to fully understand people’s mobilities and immobilities, I undertook an in-depth examination of decision-making processes on leaving and staying as well as the selection of places for living. At the individuals’ level, I was able to demonstrate that mobility processes are neither unique endeavors nor simply unidirectional, resulting in complex spatial patterns, while immobilities occurred at distinct places during different phases of staying. Further, the results show that decision making is a negotiation process, wherein certain issues of interest such as social relations, financial income and investments, agricultural production, risk and security, experiences and knowledge are taken into account. Additionally, these negotiations are constantly adapted to individuals’ perspectives on past, present and future, living here and there as well as self-realization and social interaction. After combining these findings with a literature review (Kieslinger, Kordel, and Weidinger 2020, annex #2FQS), decision-making on leaving and staying has been conceived as a process of negotiations based on relational meanings of place(s), (life) time(s) and social interaction(s).
By putting mobile and immobile persons as agents of their own lives center stage and focusing on the meaningful living contexts in which they are situated when negotiating and enacting (im)mobilities, I could develop a new conceptual framework to address both agency and contextual factors in migration environment and rural development interrelations. For this, I draw on spatial human (im)mobilities as conceived of by the New Mobilities Paradigm (e.g. Sheller and Urry 2006) and use the life conditions and lifeworlds concepts of Björn Kraus (2015) to conceptualize the living context. In doing so, I conclude that life conditions determine the opportunities and constraints of human (im)mobilities, whereas lifeworlds as the subjective constructions of reality under these conditions are the basis for decision-making on leaving and staying; life conditions, but also mobilities and immobilities are constantly re-evaluated. Consequently, lifeworlds are highly dynamic and influenced by experiences concerning (im)mobilities. In this framing social meanings of (im)mobilities can be accessed by approaching lifeworlds and vice versa.
APA:
Kieslinger, J. (2021). The Importance of Spatial (Im)mobilities in the Context of Changing Life Conditions and Lifeworlds: The Example of Socio-Ecological Transformation in Rural Ecuador (Dissertation).
MLA:
Kieslinger, Julia. The Importance of Spatial (Im)mobilities in the Context of Changing Life Conditions and Lifeworlds: The Example of Socio-Ecological Transformation in Rural Ecuador. Dissertation, 2021.
BibTeX: Download