The article addresses the limited understanding of climate-induced immobility, particularly in urban informal settlements. Existing literature largely focuses on economically constrained populations trapped in rural areas, neglecting the complex socio-psychological factors influencing immobility decisions in urban slums. The study uses Bhola Slum in Dhaka, Bangladesh, as a case study. This slum is populated by migrants from Bhola Island, displaced by cyclones and riverbank erosion. The researchers aim to expand the understanding of 'trapped populations' beyond economic factors, incorporating emotional and psychosocial aspects into the analysis of (im)mobility decision-making and wellbeing. The importance of this study is underscored by the growing number of people living in urban slums who are vulnerable to climate change impacts and the critical lack of empirical evidence on climate-induced immobility in urban settings. The research attempts to overcome the 'mobility bias' in migration research, which prioritizes migration flows while neglecting immobility outcomes. This study offers valuable insights into the complex, and often less rational, decision-making processes surrounding climate-induced immobility and their significant implications for the well-being of vulnerable populations, particularly in rapidly urbanizing contexts.

The existing literature on climate-induced immobility predominantly frames immobility in terms of economic constraints. The concept of 'Trapped Populations', initially focused on rural populations lacking the resources to escape environmental hazards, has been broadened to include legal, border, social, and gender-based barriers. While the UNFCCC acknowledges 'Non-Economic Losses and Damages' caused by climate change, the literature largely remains rooted in economic framings and predominantly focuses on rural contexts. There's a significant gap in empirical research examining climate-induced immobility in urban areas and, particularly, in slums. This gap is problematic given that slums are rapidly growing and increasingly vulnerable to climate change impacts. Moreover, existing research exhibits a 'mobility bias', focusing on migration drivers and neglecting immobility outcomes. A deeper understanding of the psychosocial elements is missing and the research acknowledges this as an important limitation.

This study employs a mixed-methods approach combining Q-methodology and discourse analysis (DA). The research was conducted over three years in Bhola Slum, Dhaka. The study did not use random sampling, but employed respondent-driven sampling (also known as snowball sampling) to recruit participants reflecting the socio-economic and religious groups, age, gender, and livelihood backgrounds of the slum. This sampling technique, while prone to bias, was mitigated by recruiting an initial diverse group of informants. Q-methodology, focusing on subjective attitudes, involved a sorting exercise of 40 Q-statements derived from qualitative fieldwork. These statements covered migration and non-migration behaviors, values, and attitudes. The statements were carefully crafted to be clear, simple, and avoid ambiguous phrasing. The Q-sorts were analyzed using PQ Method software to identify discourse groups. Centroid factor analysis with Varimax rotation was used to detect factor patterns, selecting Q-sorts with significant factor loadings (above 0.33) and eigenvalues exceeding 1.00. A post-sorting interview, a survey questionnaire gathering background information on (im)mobility decisions, and DA of interview transcripts complemented the Q-sorting exercise, providing detailed insights into participants' reasoning. This combined approach aimed to overcome limitations often found in Q-studies regarding a lack of detailed post-sorting interview information and the criticism of Q's generalizing tendencies.

The factor analysis identified five discourse groups representing distinct perspectives on (im)mobility and wellbeing: 1. **The Landless:** Primarily women, average age 33, displaced by riverbank erosion on Bhola Island, expressing fear of eviction, disappointment with the move, and emotional emptiness. Immobility is explained by lack of financial resources and land, hindering their ability to move or return home. Despite the dissatisfaction, they lack the mental or emotional preparation to relocate. 2. **The Displaced:** Predominantly men, average age 35, highlighting displacement and a strong desire to return to their home villages. Economic reasons, rather than environmental stress, drive their migration. Lack of finances is the primary constraint preventing their return. 3. **The Sacrificed:** Average age 42, mostly women, many of whom are household decision-makers due to various circumstances. They express similar feelings regarding erosion and eviction risk to the Landless but further experience a sense of loss (of health and honor). This group emphasizes the sacrifice made by living in the slum, highlighting the adverse impacts on well-being and gendered social risks. 4. **The Returners:** Youngest group, average age under 33, migrated for increased job opportunities, viewing their stay as temporary. They aim to save money to return home. They express less attachment to Bhola Slum and disagree with statements about ill-health and loss of honor. 5. **The Dreamers:** Average age 40, not identifying as landless, express a desire for betterment. They migrated due to family issues and environmental stress, and aspire to move to other urban areas or even abroad. Immobility is attributed to ill-health and economic instability.

The findings demonstrate that climate-induced immobility is a multifaceted process deeply intertwined with wellbeing. All groups expressed a desire to leave Bhola Slum, but their reasons, timelines, and destinations varied significantly. The study revealed a range of climate-induced non-economic losses and damages, including loss of identity, honor, sense of belonging, and physical and mental health. These losses occurred even among those who actively chose to migrate, highlighting the need to broaden the conceptualization of 'trapped populations'. The study underscores the importance of addressing mental health concerns resulting from climate change impacts and the need to provide immediate access to psychological support for those affected by climate-induced migration or immobility. Structural, political, and societal factors such as poverty, poor living conditions, and human rights violations contribute to the eroded well-being of these populations. It challenges existing narratives which overrepresent rural 'trapped populations' and urges consideration of diverse immobility scenarios, including urban contexts and short-term or temporary immobility.

This study demonstrates the need to shift the understanding of immobility and 'trapped populations' beyond economic constraints to encompass a complex interplay of subjective and psychosocial factors. Psychosocial processes and mental health are crucial elements influencing immobility, indicating a need for more research on the mental health impacts of both climate-induced migration and immobility. The study provides valuable methodological tools and a discursive decision-making model potentially applicable to wider contexts. It challenges the simplistic 'push and pull' model of migration, emphasizing the role of subjective feelings, emotions, and mental states in shaping migration decisions and immobility.

The study's use of respondent-driven sampling may have introduced bias. The findings, though insightful, are specific to Bhola Slum and may not be directly generalizable to all contexts. While the study addresses mental health and well-being, a more explicit focus on diagnosing specific mental disorders and exploring longer health pathways would enhance understanding.