Trapped in the prison of the mind: Notions of climate-induced (im)mobility decision-making and wellbeing from an urban informal settlement in Bangladesh

The paper investigates how climate-induced (im)mobility decisions interrelate with psychosocial wellbeing among residents of Bhola Slum, an urban informal settlement in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Traditionally, ‘trapped populations’ are framed as economically constrained rural residents unable to move away from environmental risk. This study challenges and extends that framing by focusing on urban immobility after migration from Bhola Island, emphasizing non-economic, psychosocial factors (identity, belonging, risk attitudes, mental health) shaping decision-making. It addresses gaps in empirical evidence on climate-related immobility—especially in urban settings—and critiques rational, linear models of migration decisions and the mobility bias in migration research.

The article situates immobility within broader migration and climate literature, noting terms such as involuntary immobility, stayers, and left behind. It highlights the Foresight (2011) report’s ‘Trapped Populations’ concept and subsequent expansions to legal, social, and gendered constraints, alongside UNFCCC’s Non-Economic Losses and Damages. Despite these, the literature often remains economically framed and rural-focused, with limited empirical work on urban immobility. The review also links urban slum living to heightened physical and mental health risks and underscores the paucity of research on mental wellbeing in slums (especially for women, adolescents, and children) and its connections to climate-induced mobility. Prior studies in Bangladesh slums identify elevated depression, anxiety, PTSD, and life dissatisfaction, sometimes linked to climate-related migration.

An interdisciplinary mixed-methods approach combined Q-methodology with Discourse Analysis (DA), implemented over three years. Participants (n=62) from Bhola Slum were recruited via respondent-driven (snowball) sampling to reflect socio-economic, religious, age, gender, and livelihood diversity; a sampling route ensured geographic spread. From earlier qualitative fieldwork (2014–2015), 100 statements about (im)mobility were distilled into themes; 40 balanced statements comprised the final Q-set. Participants completed Q-sorts on an 11-point (-5 to +5) distribution grid, followed by post-sorting interviews probing statement extremes and a brief survey (≈10 questions) capturing backgrounds and mobility histories/aspirations. Q-sorts were analyzed using PQMethod software with centroid factor analysis and varimax rotation. Significance thresholds followed 2.58×(1/√N) with N=62 (≈0.33). Eigenvalues >1 guided factor extraction. Unrotated selected factors explained 41% of variance; 46 of 62 Q-sorts loaded significantly on one factor, identifying five discourse groups. DA (including Foucauldian insights on knowledge/power) provided contextual, psychosocial interpretation of the factor-derived discourses and linked them to wellbeing and decision-making dynamics.

- Five discourse groups capture diverse (im)mobility–wellbeing patterns: 1) The Landless (A; 11% variance; 15/46 loads; mostly female, avg age 33): Strong agreement that riverbank erosion forced migration (2+5); fear of eviction (1+4) and unmet expectations (27+4/+5). Feel emotionally numb, emphasize lack of land and finances preventing return or onward movement. 2) The Displaced (B; 8% variance; 11/46; mostly male, avg age 35): Desire to return home (30+5); feel no belonging in the slum; migration framed mainly for economic reasons (disagree cyclones as primary driver, 12-5). Lack of money constrains moving out. 3) The Sacrificed (C; 8% variance; 9/46; avg age 42): Report losses in honour and women’s security; strong erosion-driven displacement and eviction fears (2+5; 1+4). Disagree that women live better in the slum (13-5). Ill-health and lack of land/finances constrain mobility. 4) The Returners (D; 6% variance; 6/46; youngest, avg <33): Came for jobs (31+5) to save money and return (30+4; 10+5). Disagree loss of honour/ill-health as primary constraints; view stay as temporary, contingent on ability to save and go back. 5) The Dreamers (E; 7% variance; 5/46; avg age 40): Fear eviction (1+5) yet view women’s security positively (13+4) and uphold male decision authority (39+5). Reject returning to home district (30-5); aspire to move to better urban areas or abroad (Mauritius/Saudi Arabia); constrained by health and weak finances. - Across groups, most want to leave Bhola Slum but differ on destinations and timelines: A/C/B favor return to Bhola Island; D mentions other rural areas; E prefers other urban areas or international migration. - Non-economic losses and damages are prominent: identity, honour, belonging, and physical/mental health are eroded by the move and slum conditions. - Mental ill-health manifestations include anxiety (eviction risk), depression/apathy (loss of identity/belonging), and trauma/PTSD (violence, abuse, harsh work/living conditions). Psychosocial constraints can mentally and geographically ‘trap’ people. - Economic constraints (lack of money/land) combine with psychosocial factors and ill-health to shape immobility; decision-making is non-linear and emotionally embedded.

Findings demonstrate that urban climate-induced (im)mobility is shaped by intertwined economic and psychosocial factors. The five discourses show varied desires and capacities to move, with many expressing wish to return home or relocate, yet remaining in situ due to combined constraints: finances, landlessness, ill-health, fear of eviction, and compromised identity/honour/belonging. This challenges rational, linear migration models and the mobility bias, highlighting how mental wellbeing and non-economic losses condition intentions, aspirations, and actions. Policy implications include integrating mental health and psychosocial support into climate and urban policy (e.g., UNFCCC Loss and Damage), addressing gendered risks (e.g., women’s safety, garment factory conditions), and focusing on structural determinants (poverty, rights, living conditions). Mobility framed as adaptation must consider for whom and by whom it serves; urban immobility, including being ‘trapped’ after moving, requires attention beyond rural contexts.

The study broadens the concept of ‘trapped populations’ by revealing urban, psychosocially driven immobility among climate-affected migrants in Dhaka’s Bhola Slum. Using a replicable Q-DA approach, it shows that identity loss, place attachment disruptions, honour, and mental health significantly contribute to subjective immobility alongside economic constraints. It pioneers linking mental health and wellbeing directly to climate-induced immobility. Future research should: (1) explicitly investigate mental disorders and ill-health across climate (im)mobility settings; (2) conduct people-centered, comparative studies across diverse locales to discern generalizable versus context-specific dynamics; (3) refine policy frameworks (e.g., Loss and Damage) to recognize non-economic harms and provide psychosocial support. Decision-making around (im)mobility emerges as a complex network of emotions, norms, knowledge/power relations, and material conditions—highlighting the continuum between feeling trapped and being trapped.

- Sampling and generalizability: Respondent-driven sampling can introduce network biases; the single-site, time-specific Q-study limits generalizability. Q findings are topic/group/time dependent. - Data structure: Only 46 of 62 Q-sorts loaded significantly; unrotated selected factors explained 41% variance, indicating unmodeled complexity. - Scope: Urban focus on one Dhaka settlement (Bhola Slum); results may be location-specific. Psychosocial and cultural dynamics may vary elsewhere. - Methodological: While post-sorting interviews and DA added depth, Q-methodology can miss nuances beyond the Q-set; statement selection, though balanced, constrains the concourse. - Data access: Datasets are not publicly available due to sensitivity, limiting external validation. - Causality: Cross-sectional perceptions limit causal inference between climate impacts, mental health, and immobility.