Search for: All records

Bristol Bay in Alaska is home to the world’s largest commercial salmon fishery. During an average fishing season, the population of the Bristol Bay region more than doubles as thousands of workers from out of state converge on the fishery. In the months leading up to the 2020 commercial fishery opening, as the COVID-19 pandemic exploded worldwide, great uncertainty existed about the health risks of opening the fishery. Bristol Bay residents had not yet experienced any cases of COVID-19, yet the livelihoods of most were closely tied to the commercial fishery opening. To better understand how COVID-19 risk perceptions affected decisions to participate in the fishery, we administered an online survey to community members and fishery participants. We collected standard socioeconomic data and posed questions to gauge risk perceptions related to COVID-19. We find that COVID-19 risk perceptions vary across race/ethnic groups by residency and income. People with below median income who are members of minority groups—notably, non-resident Hispanic workers and resident Alaska Native respondents—reported the highest risk perceptions related to COVID-19. This study highlights the important linkages among risk perceptions, socioeconomic characteristics, and employment decisions during an infectious disease outbreak. 

Background: The amount of literature on environmental migration is increasing. However, existing studies exhibit contradictory results. A systematic synthesis of the environment–migration relationship is much needed. Objective: This study summarizes research findings, calculates the effect sizes of environmental stressors, identifies publication bias, and investigates heterogeneous environmental effects on migration. Methods: We collected 3,380 estimates from 128 studies published between 2000 and 2020 to explore the environment–migration relationship and performed weighted instrumental variable regression to unveil the heterogeneous environmental effects on out- and net migration. Results: The majority of environmental stressors were not important predictors of out- and net migration. Among the results showing environmental impacts on migration, 58% and 68% reported that environmental stressors increased out- and net migration, respectively, while 58% reported that environmental stressors decreased in-migration. The overall environmental impact on migration was small; however, disaster-related stressors showed a medium effect, and rapid-onset stressors had a stronger impact than slow-onset ones. Multivariate meta-regression analyses demonstrated that environmental stressors were more likely to trigger internal migration than international migration and that developed countries were less likely to experience out-migration. Rapid-onset environmental stressors did not increase out-migration but played an important role in decreasing net migration toward environmentally stressed areas. Meanwhile, we also found a publication bias toward studies showing a positive relationship between environmental stressors and migration in the previous environmental migration literature. Conclusions: Environmental stressors may affect migration; however, the environmental effect depends on migration measurements, environmental stressors' forces and rapidity, and the context in which migration takes place. Contribution: This study contributes to migration studies by synthesizing and validating the environment–migration relationship and enhancing our understanding of how and under what circumstances environmental stressors may affect migration.