JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY GIESSEN DOCTORAL THESIS Essays on Climate Change, Migration and Labor Mobility Author: Marius Braun Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Jürgen Meckl Prof. Dr. Matthias Göcke A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor rerum politicarum in the Faculty of Economics and Business Studies May 19, 2025 iii Acknowledgements This dissertation was written while I was employed as research and teaching assis- tant at the Chair for International Economics (VWL III) at the Faculty of Economics and Business Studies of the Justus Liebig University Gießen. I am very thankful to Prof. Dr. Jürgen Meckl for providing me the opportunity to write my dissertation at his chair in the first place and giving me the freedom to explore my research topics. I would also like to thank him for providing me with the financial means necessary to present my research throughout Europe and for his guidance and constructive comments and recommendations. I am also grateful that Prof. Dr. Matthias Göcke was willing to serve as my second advisor and for his constructive comments. This doctoral thesis also includes joint papers with other co-authors, namely Johannes Damster, Jarom Görts, Michael Hübler, Nils Keimes and Malin Wiese. I would like to thank all of them for the very constructive and rewarding cooperation. Furthermore, I thank my former colleagues at Justus Liebig University. I am grateful for all the new friendships, critical discussions, and conversations. Many thanks to Cornelia Strack for her patience and for helping me to navigate the university’s bureaucracy. I would also like to thank the wonderful baristas at Kuchen & so, where significant parts of this dissertation were created. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and my friends for their love, patience, and support throughout this journey. Without you, this dissertation would not have been possible. Thank you! 1 Chapter 1 Introduction This dissertation consists of five papers that explore different themes from the fields of environmental and migration economics. The first two papers are concerned with the impacts of climate change and natural disasters on international as well as re- gional migration patterns. The following two articles investigate the distributional and regional effects of CO2 pricing in Germany. The final paper analyzes differences in labor mobility across immigrant generations in the context of the European Debt Crisis. The paper “A Real-Options Analysis of Climate Change and International Migration” (Chapter 2) investigates the “immobility paradox”, i.e. the observation that recent empirical research has largely failed to observe the large-scale international migra- tion frequently predicted to occur as a result of climate change. The paper attempts to resolve this apparent paradox by applying a real-options framework to the re- lationship between climate change and international migration. This framework suggests that individuals may postpone their migration response to climate change in the face of uncertainty and only migrate once impacts of climate change have exceeded certain thresholds. This prediction is tested using semiparametric regres- sion methods which allow for the empirical identification of the threshold effects implied by the real-options framework. However, the findings are generally incon- sistent with such threshold effects. Rather, the results indicate that in low-income countries, individuals’ migration response is hampered by the existence of liquidity constraints. These are likely to become more binding due to climate change-induced decreases in agricultural productivity. The second paper “Climate-Related Natural Disasters and Regional Migration in Eu- rope: A Spatial Econometric Analysis” (Chapter 3), co-authored with Jarom Görts, an- alyzes the impact of climate-related disasters on NUTS-2 region-level migration for the period 2000-2019. Employing spatial econometric methods, we find that experi- encing a severe disaster leads to an increase in net out-migration of 0.9 individuals per 1000 inhabitants, followed by an increase in net in-migration of 0.6 individuals per 1000 inhabitants two years later. When using spatial Durbin models, we observe a negative spatial spillover effect of severe disasters on net migration, suggesting that neighboring regions may also be affected by the disasters, which may induce individuals in those regions to out-migrate. For less severe disaster events, no con- clusive evidence is found that disasters are driving regional migration. The paper “The distributional effects of CO2 pricing at home and at the border on Ger- man income groups” (Chapter 4), co-authored with Michael Hübler, Malin Wiese and Johannes Damster, presents a step-by-step approach for incorporating distributional analysis into computable general equilibrium (CGE) models, with a focus on as- sessing the effects of climate policies on different income groups in Germany. We utilize a CGE model calibrated with the latest GTAP data from 2014 and adopt a 2 Chapter 1. Introduction representative consumer framework for three income groups to evaluate the distri- butional consequences of CO2 emissions reduction policies. Our findings indicate that the low-income group benefits the most from carbon pricing, especially due to per capita revenue redistribution and social transfer programs. Applying CO2 pric- ing to imports at the EU border slightly reinforces these distributional effects and primarily benefits the low-income group. Expanding emissions trading through a “climate club” generates significant efficiency gains that are advantageous for both Germany and the EU. The paper “Regional Climate Policy Analysis in the EU Member Country Germany” (Chapter 5), co-authored with Michael Hübler and Nils Keimes, analyzes the re- gional impacts of climate policy within Germany and across EU member states. Us- ing a CGE model, we investigate the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) in combination with the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), highlighting notable variation in policy effects both among EU countries and within Germany. Under a medium CO2 reduction target, CBAM has a minimal average welfare im- pact on the EU as a whole, while effectively preventing carbon leakage caused by the EU ETS. With a less ambitious target, CBAM yields welfare gains for the EU; under a more ambitious target, it leads to welfare losses compared to the EU ETS alone. More stringent CO2 targets enhance CBAM’s effectiveness in curbing carbon leakage and reducing global emissions. The final paper “Differences in Labour Mobility Between Immigrant Generations: Ev- idence From the European Debt Crisis”, (Chapter 6), co-authored with Jarom Görts, studies how labor mobility patterns are passed on across immigrant generations in the European Union. Using household-level data from the European Labor Force Survey for the period 2007 to 2014, we compare mobility patterns of first- and 1.5- generation immigrants and natives. We observe that 1.5-generation immigrants have a significantly lower interregional and international mobility compared to first- generation immigrants but are more mobile than natives. The results thus suggest that not only first-generation immigrants but also their descendants contribute to labor market flexibility. All five papers are separate works and presented as such. As the first, third and fifth paper are already published, they are included in the layout of the respective journals. The second and fourth paper are unpublished working papers. 3 Chapter 2 A Real-Options Analysis of Climate Change and International Migration Reference for this Paper: Braun, M. (2023), A Real-Options Analysis of Climate Change and International Mi- gration, Environment and Development Economics 28, 429–448. DOI: 10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Conferences with Review Process: • 27th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, June 28 – July 1, 2022, Rimini, Italy • Annual Conference of the Verein für Socialpolitik, September 11 – 14, 2022, Bern, Switzerland Environment and Development Economics (2023), 28, 429–448 doi:10.1017/S1355770X23000013 EDE RESEARCH ARTICLE A real-options analysis of climate change and international migration Marius Braun* Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany *Corresponding author. E-mail: marius.braun-2@wirtschaft.uni-giessen.de (Submitted 7 December 2021; revised 23 January 2023; accepted 26 January 2023; first published online 6 March 2023) Abstract The potential impact of climate change on international migration patterns has recently received considerable attention, yet much of the empirical literature fails to find increases in international migration due to climate change. This paper attempts to resolve this “immo- bility paradox” by applying a real-options framework to the relationship between climate change and internationalmigration. This framework suggests that individualsmay postpone their migration response to climate change in the face of uncertainty and only migrate once impacts of climate change have exceeded certain thresholds. We test this prediction using semiparametric regression methods which allow us to empirically identify the threshold effects implied by the real-options framework. However, the findings are generally incon- sistent with such threshold effects. Rather, the results suggest that in low-income countries, individuals’ migration response is hampered by the existence of liquidity constraints. These are likely to become more binding due to climate change-induced decreases in agricultural productivity. Keywords: climate change; international migration; real-options; semiparametric methods 1. Introduction In its 2014 assessment report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that recent impacts of climate change “reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability” (Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014: 40). One potentially important adaptation response which has recently received increasing attention in both the public and aca- demic debate is migration, both within countries and across borders. Yet, much of the empirical literature fails to observe increases in international migration due to climate change (e.g., Millock, 2015; Burzynski et al., 2019; Bertoli et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2020). This finding is in contrast to the large-scale international movements frequently predicted to occur as a result of climate change (e.g., Myers, 2005; Stern, 2006). The current paper attempts to resolve this “immobility paradox” (Beine et al., 2021) by applying a real-options framework to the relationship between climate change and © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 430 Marius Braun international migration. First developed by Dixit (1992) and Dixit and Pindyck (1994), this framework has been applied extensively in the economic literature on migration (e.g., Burda, 1995; O’Connell, 1997; Anam et al., 2008; Moretto and Vergalli, 2008; Gardner and Hendrickson, 2018; Mense, 2018) and suggests that migration is akin to an investment under uncertainty: migration (in particular across borders) is typically asso- ciated with large unrecoverable costs; in addition, future conditions in both origin and destination locations are often highly uncertain. As a result, it may be optimal to post- pone the migration decision in order to acquire more information about the economic environment. Applied to the context of climate change and migration, this framework suggests that individuals may postpone their migration response to climate change and only migrate once impacts of climate change have exceeded certain thresholds (Mense, 2018). Since such thresholds are likely much higher for international migration than for inter- nal migration, the real-options framework potentially explains some of the empirical evidence indicating that climate change-induced international migration is relatively uncommon. In this regard, the current paper relates to a large literature that employs a real-options approach to analyze investments in climate change adaptation (Ginbo et al., 2021). In addition, the current paper contributes to a growing body of researchwhich empir- ically investigates internal and internationalmigration responses to climate change, with much of the literature focusing on developing countries (for amore extensive review see, e.g., Cattaneo et al., 2019). One of the first studies to investigate the impact of changes in climatic conditions on internal migration is Barrios et al. (2006). Using cross-country panel data for Sub-Saharan Africa, the authors find that decreases in rainfall are associ- atedwith an increase in urbanization rates.More recently, using panel data for 32African countries, Henderson et al. (2017) document a positive effect of declines in moisture on urbanization rates. Baez et al. (2017a, 2017b) find a similar effect for Latin American and Caribbean countries; in particular, they show that younger individuals have a higher propensity to migrate in response to droughts, hurricanes and prolonged heat exposure. Although some other studies only observe modest effects of certain climatic factors on internal migration (e.g., Gray and Mueller, 2012; Mueller et al., 2014) for flooding in Bangladesh and Pakistan, respectively), the majority of studies find significant impacts of climate change on internal migration patterns. However, empirical evidence on climate change-induced international migration is considerably more mixed. In their seminal paper, Marchiori et al. (2012) find that temperature and precipitation anomalies affect international migration in Sub-Saharan Africa through both their impact on amenities and on wages in the agricultural sector. Cattaneo and Peri (2016), using a larger sample of 115 non-OECD countries, observe a positive relationship between average temperature and emigration rates, but only for middle-income countries. For low-income countries, on the other hand, the authors find a negative effect of average temperature on emigration rates. Drabo and Mbaye (2015) study the effect of natural disasters related to climate change on emigration rates in developing countries. They report significant positive effects of natural disasters on emi- gration, but only for individuals with high levels of education, suggesting that developing countries may experience brain drain effects due to climate change. In contrast, several other studies find no evidence that climatic factors influence inter- national migration patterns. Ruyssen and Rayp (2014), using panel data on migration flows between Sub-Saharan African countries, observe no significant impact of temper- ature anomalies on international migration. Beine and Parsons (2015) likewise find no https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 431 evidence of direct effects of climatic factors on international migration; however, their results suggest that natural disasters induce internal migration in developing countries. Gröschl and Steinwachs (2017), using decennial panel data on bilateral migration flows, also fail to find significant effects of natural disasters on international migration. Over- all, the literature suggests that changes in climatic variables are primarily associated with internal migration, in particular in developing countries, but not with international migration. In order to empirically assess the real-options framework, we follow Burda et al. (1998) and Basile and Lim (2006, 2017) and apply semiparametric regression methods developed by Hastie and Tibshirani (1986). More specifically, we estimate generalized additive models (GAMs), which provide a flexible estimation approach that allows us to identify the nonlinear relationship between climate change and international migra- tion implied by the real-options framework. To the best of our knowledge, the current paper is the first to apply these methods to the climate-migration nexus. However, our findings are generally inconsistent with the real-options framework. Instead, the results are in line with the notion of “trapped populations” raised by recent literature (e.g., Cattaneo and Peri, 2016; Beine and Parsons, 2017; Gröschl and Steinwachs, 2017; Cui and Feng, 2020): particularly in developing countries, individuals are unable to move due to liquidity constraints, which are likely aggravated by negative impacts of climate change on agricultural productivity. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a review of related literature and introduces a simple real-options framework of climate change and inter- national migration. Section 3 describes the data and variables. Sections 4 and 5 present the empirical strategy and results, respectively. Section 6 shows some robustness checks, and section 7 concludes. 2. Background 2.1 Thresholds in the climate-migration relationship While the existence of “tipping points”– that is, thresholds at which small perturbations may induce abrupt, long-term changes in the system – has been investigated in biophys- ical systems for some time (e.g., Lenton et al., 2008), more recently, a growing body of literature has begun to analyze such nonlinearities in the adaptation of social sys- tems to climate change. In this context and for the purposes of this paper, a threshold can be defined as “a situation where a significant change in collective social behaviour results” (Bardsley and Hugo, 2010: 243) because existing adaptation options to climate change are either no longer available or are perceived as insufficient to maintain valued objectives (Dow et al., 2013). One of the first attempts at conceptualizing thresholds in climate change adapta- tion is Adger et al. (2009), who discuss the social and individual factors which may limit adaptation responses. The authors argue that rather than being exogenously deter- mined, limits to adaptation are inherently endogenous and are shaped by the values, risk perceptions and organizational arrangements present within a given society. Adger et al. (2009) conclude that these factors currently hamper adaptation capacities at the social and individual level but that these limits are mutable and could to some extent be overcome. Once local adaptation measures cease to be effective, however, migration – either internally or internationally –may be undertaken as themost extreme formof adaptation to climate change. Suchmigration responses, in turn, are likely themselves characterized https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 432 Marius Braun by important thresholds and nonlinearities. Bardsley and Hugo (2010), for example., analyze thresholds in climate-relatedmigration patterns using two case studies onNepal and Thailand. They identify significant potential for nonlinear migration responses in the two countries, in particular due to increasing risk of flooding and sea level rise. The authors emphasize that more effective migration governance is necessary in order to address the fundamental changes in migration patterns that may occur as a result of climate change. Building on the work of Adger et al. (2009) and Bardsley and Hugo (2010), McLeman (2018) develops amore refined conceptualization of thresholds in the climate- migration relationship. The author argues that with increasing severity of climate change impacts, multiple thresholds occur along the adaptation process: first, households adopt some initial adaptation strategies (e.g., irrigation). If these strategies cease to be effec- tive, however, households may be required to explore other adaptation strategies (e.g., more drought-resistant crops), switch to other livelihood options entirely (e.g., off-farm employment) and ultimately migrate once local adaptation is no longer feasible. Finally, individual migration decisions may lead to large and nonlinear changes in aggregate migration patterns. McLeman (2018) notes, though, that these thresholds are highly context-specific and influenced by the social, economic and climatic factors of the human and natural systems at hand. Relating the current paper to McLeman (2018), the focus of our theoretical and empirical analysis is the threshold between local adaptation and migration. We argue that by explicitly modelling the migration decision as an option to an (at least partially) irreversible investment under uncertainty, the real-options approach is a suitable frame- work for explaining such thresholds and accounting for the relative absence of climate change-induced international migration observed empirically. Previous work has applied the real-options framework to both migration and cli- mate change adaptation decisions. One of the earliest contributions from the migration literature is Burda (1995), who uses a real-options framework to explain the low migra- tion rates from East toWest Germany after the German reunification. O’Connell (1997) extends this framework to allow for return migration. More recently, Gardner and Hendrickson (2018) develop a real-options framework to explain why even in regions where the quality of labor market conditions is declining, outmigration rates tend to remain relatively low. Regarding climate change adaptation, the real-options framework has been used to model investment decisions on flood risk control (Abadie et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018), water resources management (Erfani et al., 2018) and agriculture and livestock adaptation (Narita and Quaas, 2014; Sanderson et al., 2016). The only previous paper applying the real-options approach to environmentalmigra- tion is Mense (2018). Focusing on the issue of air pollution, the author develops a real-options framework to show that individuals may choose to wait and only migrate once environmental quality has decreased below some critical threshold. Our paper dif- fers from Mense (2018) insofar as we are primarily concerned with slow-onset climate change and thus assume that the quality of climatic conditions declines on average over time. In addition, our paper contributes to the literature by attempting to empirically verify the implications of the real-options framework. 2.2 Theoretical framework Based on recent work by Gardner and Hendrickson (2018) and Mense (2018), in this section we present a specific application of the real-options framework that illustrates https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 433 why it may be optimal for individuals to postpone their migration response to the impacts of climate change in the face of uncertainty. Consider a representative house- hold who chooses whether to stay in their home country or migrate abroad. The quality of climatic conditions c(t) with c(0) = c0 evolves according to a geometric Brownian motion (GBM): dc = c (μdt + σdz) , (1) where μ < 0 is a drift parameter capturing the long-term trend of the GBM, σ is the standard deviation per unit of time and dz is the increment of a Wiener process of the form z(t) = ε(t) √ dt with ε(t) ∼ N (0, 1). Eqn (1) implies that c changes gradually over time without discrete “jumps”, which may apply quite well to a range of slow-onset climatic events such as temperature increase, drought and sea level rise (Mense, 2018; Cattaneo et al., 2019). The GBM is characterized by a negative long-term trend (indi- cated by μ < 0) while there is uncertainty as to how c evolves in the short term, i.e., although climatic conditions are deteriorating on average over time, there is a positive probability that they will improve in the next period (Gardner and Hendrickson, 2018). We assume that the household obtains a perpetual constant dividendw if they choose to emigrate. w could be thought of as an exogenous outside opportunity, reflecting the idea that households may lack accurate information about the prospective destination country (Burda, 1995). Migration is also associated with a fixed upfront cost M > 0, which encompasses both monetary and psychological cost. The household’s Bellman equation can be expressed as rV(c) = c + 1 dt E[dV], (2) where r is the real interest rate (Dixit and Pindyck, 1994: 101–105). If we apply Ito’s Lemma, substitute the right-hand side of equation (1 ) and take expectations, we obtain the following second-order partial differential equation: 1 2 σ 2c2V �� (c) + μcV � (c) − rV(c) + c = 0. (3) The solution of this differential equation is given by V(c) = A1cγ1 + A2cγ2 + Vp(c), (4) with A1cγ1 and A2cγ2 as homogenous solutions and Vp(c) as the particular solution. A1 and A2 are constants, and γ1 and γ2 are the solutions of the characteristic equation (σ 2/2)γ 2 + (μ − σ 2/2)γ − r = 0: γ1 = 1 σ 2 ⎡ ⎣− � μ − σ 2 2 � − �� μ − σ 2 2 �2 + 2σ 2r ⎤ ⎦ < 0 γ2 = 1 σ 2 ⎡ ⎣− � μ − σ 2 2 � + �� μ − σ 2 2 �2 + 2σ 2r ⎤ ⎦ > 0. (5) The first two terms in equation (4) represent the option value of migrating abroad, whereas Vp(c) represents the value of staying in the home country. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 434 Marius Braun Following Gardner andHendrickson (2018), we impose two boundary conditions on this solution in order to solve the model. The first condition requires that the option value of migrating be reduced to zero as c tends to infinity, i.e., there is no incentive to migrate if the quality of climatic conditions is sufficiently high: lim c→∞ V(c) − Vp(c) = 0. (6) Since γ2 is positive, equation (6) implies that A2 = 0. The second condition, also known as the “value-matching” condition, then requires that the value function V(c) be equal to the present value associated with migrating abroad w/r less the cost of migrationM: V(c∗) = A1c∗γ1 + Vp(c∗) = w r − M ⇐⇒ A1 = � c∗ �−γ1 w r − M − Vp(c∗) � , (7) where c∗ denotes the quality of climatic conditions at which it is optimal to migrate. Put differently, this condition implies that migration is optimal when the household is indifferent between migrating and staying. Substituting A1 back into equation (4), we obtain V(c) = � c c∗ �γ1 w r − M − Vp(c∗) � + Vp(c). (8) Choosing a lower value of c∗, which implies that the household will on average have to wait longer before migrating, lowers the value of Vp(c∗), thus increasing the present value of the net benefit of migration V(c). On the other hand, a lower c∗ increases the stochastic discount factor (c/c∗)γ1 , thus reducingV(c). The household therefore chooses c∗ so as to maximize V(c). The first-order condition is given by − γ1 w r − M − Vp(c∗) � = c∗V � p(c ∗). (9) As previously noted, the particular solution represents the present discounted value of staying in the home country, i.e., Vp(c) = c r − μ . (10) c∗ is thus given by c∗ = � γ1 γ1 − 1 � (r − μ) w r − M � . (11) The model provides two clear predictions: first, migration will only occur once the qual- ity of climatic conditions falls below c∗, that is, once adverse impacts of climate change have exceeded certain thresholds. Second, c∗ negatively depends on migration costsM. This implies that the higher the cost of migration, the lower the quality of climatic con- ditions the household is willing to endure before migrating. The intuition behind this prediction is the following (Mense, 2018; Ginbo et al., 2021): because migration is costly and to a certain extent irreversible and information about climatic conditions is revealed gradually, it is valuable to postpone the migration decision; this incentive is greater the https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 435 higher the costs of migration are. However, once climatic conditions deteriorate past a critical level, the household will no longer be better off waiting andwill choose tomigrate instead. A number of limitations of themodel should be noted. First, as mentioned above, due to the nature of the GBM, the model only applies to gradual changes in climatic condi- tions and may thus not be suited to capture the effects of fast-onset climatic events such as storms, flooding or extremeheat on internationalmigration. Such eventsmay bemod- eled more appropriately using Poisson processes (as done, e.g., by Abadie et al. (2017)). Incorporating this type of process would present an interesting extension of the model; in the current paper, however, we will instead focus on slow-onset climatic events such as drought and temperature increase and leave these considerations for future research. Second, the fact that climate-induced international migration appears to be relatively uncommon may also be consistent with a number of alternative explanations. In par- ticular, as noted by Cattaneo and Peri (2016), this result may be generated by liquidity constraints faced by households in their countries of origin, i.e., households may simply lack the resources to finance the costs of migration. For now, the available data does not allow us to determine the exact mechanism behind a potential threshold effect. How- ever, if households do make their migration decisions according to an option value of waiting rule, we should observe the corresponding threshold to be lower in low-income countries than in middle-income countries since liquidity constraints are likely more relevant in the former. Similarly, equation (11) implies that c∗ is greater the lower the costs of migration, and thus we should expect the threshold level of quality of climatic conditions to be higher for migration to close destinations than to more distant ones. 3. Data Data on bilateral international migration flows is taken from Abel and Sander (2014). Based on international migrant stock tables published by the United Nations’ Depart- ment of Economic and Social Affairs (United Nations, 2013), the dataset provides information on bilateral migration flows between 196 countries over five-year intervals from 1990 to 2010. The dataset thus allows us to include middle- and low-income coun- tries as both origins and destinations, which is an advantage over other datasets such as Ortega and Peri (2013), Vezzoli et al. (2014) and Wesselbaum and Aburn (2019) which only include OECD countries as destinations. Information on GDP per capita is obtained from theWorld Development Indicators (World Bank, 2021), PennWorld Tables (Feenstra et al., 2015) and theWorld Economic OutlookDatabase (InternationalMonetary Fund, 2021). The data on country population is taken from theWorldDevelopment Indicators (World Bank, 2021). Drawing from the migration data, we compute bilateral migration rates as the ratio between the migration flow from origin country i to destination country j during five-year period t and the population of i at the beginning of t. Figure A1 in the online appendix shows the kernel density estimation for bilateralmigration rates, which reveals that the distribution of this variable is heavily right-skewed. Following Cattaneo and Peri (2016) and Beine and Parsons (2017), we only include non-OECD countries as countries of origin and distinguish betweenmiddle-income and low-income countries, where low-income countries are defined as those countries in the bottom quartile of the distribution of (purchasing power parity-adjusted) GDP per capita in the year 1990. The resulting final sample includes 138 countries of origin, 34 of which are classified as low-income countries according to the above definition, while https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 436 Marius Braun the remaining 104 are classified as middle-income countries (see the lists of low- and middle-income countries in the online appendix). Data on monthly mean temperature and precipitation is taken from version 4.05 of the gridded climate dataset created by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (Harris et al., 2020). The original data are gridded to a 0.5◦ latitude by 0.5◦ longitude grid and are then aggregated to area-weighted country-level averages. As argued by Beine and Parsons (2015, 2017), using absolute levels of temperature and pre- cipitation is not appropriate because these variables would not adequately capture how individuals respond to deviations from standard climatic conditions. We follow their suggested approach and instead calculate standardized anomalies of temperature and precipitation as deviations from the respective long-run mean, divided by the respective long-run standard deviation. However, in order to identify thresholds in the climate-migration relationship at a more granular level and also account for seasonal volatility, we first compute standard- ized monthly anomalies of temperature and precipitation and then take the average of these over the five-year periods, i.e., Ci,t = 1 60 5� k=1 12� m=1 Clevel,i,t,k,m − μLR i,m(Clevel) σ LR i,m(Clevel) , (12) where Clevel,i,t,k,m is the level of temperature or precipitation in origin country i in five- year period t, year k andmonthm.μLR i,m(Clevel) is the 1901–1970 mean of temperature or precipitation of origin country i for monthm, and σ LR i,m(Clevel) is the 1901–1970 standard deviation of temperature or precipitation of origin country i for monthm. As an alterna- tive measure of climatic anomalies, used as a robustness check, we followNawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava (2017) and Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava (2017) and calculate the share of months of five-year period t in which mean temperature was more than one standard deviation above and mean precipitation was more than one standard deviation below the 1901–1970 mean. Figure A2 in the online appendix presents kernel density estimations for the stan- dardized temperature and precipitation anomalies. Most notably, figures A2a and A2c indicate that temperature anomalies are not centered around zero in both low- and middle-income countries, and few countries experienced negative temperature anoma- lies in either sample. Moreover, the distributions of temperature anomalies in low- income countries and precipitation anomalies in middle-income countries appear to be characterized by some extreme positive and negative outliers, respectively. This find- ing is corroborated by respective excess kurtosis values of 0.38 and 1.14, suggesting that extreme anomalies occur more frequently than would be predicted by an otherwise equivalent normal distribution. Across the sample period, five low-income countries experienced extreme positive temperature anomalies of more than two standard deviations above the low-income samplemean,1 while three countries experienced extreme negative precipitation anoma- lies of less than two standard deviations below the sample mean.2 These observations correspond to 5.88 and 2.21 per cent of the low-income sample, respectively. Like- wise, among middle-income countries, extreme positive temperature anomalies were 1They are Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda. 2They are Guinea, Liberia and Sudan. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 437 Table 1. Summary statistics. Countries included in the sample Non-OECD middle-income countries Non-OECD low-income countries Welch t-test Variable Obs Mean Std. dev. Obs Mean Std. dev. (p-value) Bilateral migration rate (%) 81120 0.0129 0.1595 26520 0.0099 0.1813 0.0165 Temperature anomaly 416 1.0893 0.7073 136 1.0658 0.6569 0.0000 Precipitation anomaly 416 −0.0086 0.2611 136 −0.1198 0.2040 0.0000 Five-year period share of heat months 416 0.3148 0.1180 136 0.2983 0.1439 0.0000 Five-year period share of drought months 416 0.1764 0.1995 136 0.1879 0.2088 0.0000 GDP per capita 416 11201.76 15554.52 132 1860.45 2354.91 0.0000 Migration rate to neighboring countries (%) 1080 0.1351 0.5138 472 0.2479 1.1107 Migration rate to non-neighboring countries (%) 80040 0.0112 0.1484 26048 0.0056 0.1006 Migration rate to OECD countries (%) 13312 0.0217 0.1551 4352 0.0086 0.1022 Migration rate to non-OECD countries (%) 67808 0.0111 0.1603 22168 0.0101 0.1931 experienced by eight countries,3 and eight countries experienced extreme negative pre- cipitation anomalies,4 corresponding to 3.13 and 1.92 per cent of the middle-income sample, respectively. We conduct robustness checks in section 6 in order to assess whether these outliers may affect the estimation results. Table 1 presents summary statistics.We observe thatmiddle-income countries have a higher average emigration rate than low-income countries. Consistent with previous lit- erature (e.g., Oezden et al., 2011), the majority of migration from non-OECD countries can be attributed to migration flows to other non-OECD countries, which account for 76.4 per cent of themigration flow volume between 1990 and 2010. In addition, although migration flows between neighboring countries comprise only 1.4 per cent of observa- tions in the sample, they account for 28.8 per cent of the migration flow volume.5 This pattern is also reflected in the average migration rates to neighboring countries, which are an order of magnitude larger than migration rates to non-neighboring countries. 3They are Barbados, Costa Rica, Grenada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Samoa. 4They are Botswana, Brunei, Mauritania, Mauritius, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Vanuatu. 5Information on geographic contiguity is obtained from version 3.2 of the Direct Contiguity dataset (Stinnett et al., 2002). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 438 Marius Braun 4. Empirical strategy To identify the nonlinear effects of climate on international migration implied by the real-options framework, we follow Burda et al. (1998) and Basile and Lim (2006, 2017) and estimate generalized additive models (GAMs). First developed by Hastie and Tibshirani (1986), GAMs are an extension of generalized linear models (GLMs) and provide a flexible empirical framework that is particularly well-suited for estimating nonlinear relationships. Unlike GLMs, in a GAM the explanatory variables are speci- fied in terms of smooth nonparametric functions, thus requiring no restrictive a priori assumptions about any parametric functional form (Abe, 1999; Ferrini and Fezzi, 2012). Instead, the degree of nonlinearity is determined directly from the data using an auto- mated smoothing selection criterion. Despite their flexibility, however, GAMs retain the interpretability of GLMs, and results can be interpreted in a straightforward manner using graphical representations of the estimated relationships. Like GLMs, GAMs require the specification of the distribution of the response vari- able. In our specific case, online appendix figure A1 indicates a heavily right-skewed distribution of bilateral migration rates, and thus we choose to follow Basile and Lim (2017) and estimate a GAM with Gamma distribution: g(E(yijt)) = log(E(yijt)) = β0 + s1(Tit) + s2(Pit) + φi + φj + φt , (13) where yijt is the bilateral migration rate from origin country i to destination country j in five-year period t and is assumed to follow a Gamma distribution. To deal with the issue of zero observations in the bilateral migration rates, we apply a common solu- tion used in the literature (e.g., Ortega and Peri, 2013; Cai et al., 2016; Grimes and Wesselbaum, 2019) and add one to allmigration flows before computingmigration rates. g(E(yijt)) = log(E(yijt)) is the canonical log-link function, which relates the expected value of yijt to the explanatory variables. s1(Tit) and s2(Pit) are unknown smooth func- tions of the temperature and precipitation anomaly in origin country i in five-year period t, respectively, which are estimated using penalized cubic regression splines (Wood, 2017). As suggested byWood (2011), smoothing parameters for the estimated functions ŝ1(Tit) and ŝ2(Pit) are selected using the restrictedmaximum likelihood (REML)method, which is implemented in the R packagemgcv (Wood, 2001). φi and φj are sets of origin and destination country fixed effects, respectively, in order to control for unobserved heterogeneity at the origin and destination country level, and φt is a set of time fixed effects. Following recent literature (Dell et al., 2014; Cattaneo and Peri, 2016; Beine and Parsons, 2017; Cattaneo and Bosetti, 2017), we choose a parsimonious specification that includes fixed effects but no additional control variables such as GDP per capita, pop- ulation, quality of institutions or probability of conflicts. As argued by these authors, those variables are likely themselves affected by changes in climatic conditions, and thus including them in the regression may result in an over-controlling problem, leading to biased estimates of the effects of climate on migration. 5. Results 5.1 Main results Table 2 presents our main results. As a baseline exercise, we estimate a semiparametric GAM using our total sample before separately conducting estimations for low-income and middle-income countries. In each case, temperature and precipitation anomalies https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 439 Table 2. Climate change and international migration: main results. (1) (2) (3) Total sample Low-income countries Middle-income countries Smooth terms edf edf edf s(T) 8.783 8.442 8.763 (0.007) (0.000) (0.001) s(P) 7.170 8.914 8.517 (0.114) (0.000) (0.001) REML score −755939.7 −211053.8 −554627.1 AIC −1512263 −422162.5 −1109584 N 107640 26520 81120 Pseudo-R2 0.377 0.544 0.416 Note: Time period: 1990–2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five- year period t. s(T) and s(P) are smoothnon-parametric functions of temperature andprecipitation anomalies, respectively. Approximate p-values in parentheses. edf : effective degrees of freedom, REML: restrictedmaximum likelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. enter via nonparametric smooth functions. Column 1 reports the effective degrees of freedom (edf ) of the estimated smooth functions for the total sample, while columns 2 and 3 report the edf for low- andmiddle-income countries, respectively. The edf indicate the degree of nonlinearity or “wiggliness” of the function, with an edf of 1 corresponding to a linear relationship. However, the edf provide no information about the significance or magnitude of the estimated relationship, as smooth terms with high edf may not be statistically significant or vice versa. Instead, the estimation results are best under- stood by examining visual representations of s(T) and s (P). All models include origin, destination and time fixed effects. For the total sample we find a significant and nonlinear effect of temperature anomalies but no significant effect of precipitation anomalies. When estimating GAMs separately for middle- and low-income countries, however, the effect of precipitation anomalies turns significant in both samples. These results are corroborated by χ2 dif- ference tests comparing the GAMs with corresponding GLMs: for both the total sample and low-income and middle-income countries, the χ2 difference tests indicate that the GAM fits the data better than a linear specification. Figure 1 shows the estimated effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on the log of bilateral migration rates with 95 per cent Bayesian confidence intervals (Marra and Wood, 2012). For the total sample, Fig. 1(a) suggests a flat relationship between temperature anomalies and international migration for much of the data range. Regarding precipitation anomalies, we find an S-shaped relationship with slightly pos- itive and negative effects at the upper and lower ends of the data range, respectively, but the relationship is not statistically significant. Estimated relationships for middle- income countries in figures 1(e) and 1(f) appear similar to those found for the total sample, with negative effects of precipitation anomalies below −0.5 being somewhat more pronounced than in the total sample. In contrast, figures 1(c) and 1(d) show rather different relationships for low-income countries:We observe a positive effect of temper- ature anomalies between 0.2 and 1.5 on migration, which then becomes negative for the remaining range of data. Figure 1(d), on the other hand, shows no clear relationship between precipitation anomalies and international migration for low-income countries. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 440 Marius Braun Figure 1. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration. (a) Temperature, total sample, (b) Precipitation, total sample, (c) Temperature, low-income countries, (d) Precipitation, low-income countries, (e) Temperature, middle-income countries, (f) Precipitation, middle-income countries. Overall, the findings are not in line with the threshold effect suggested by the real- options framework, which would be verified empirically if the model estimated a flat relationship for low levels of climatic anomalies and a positive relationship past certain thresholds (Basile and Lim, 2017). Instead, the observed negative effect of temperature anomalies on migration in low-income countries is consistent with the role of liquid- ity constraints as emphasized by recent literature (e.g., Cattaneo and Peri, 2016; Beine and Parsons, 2017; Gröschl and Steinwachs, 2017; Cui and Feng, 2020): Increases in average temperature increase households’ incentives to emigrate; past a certain thresh- old, however, tightening liquidity constraints due to worsening agricultural productivity dominate, as households are less able to afford the cost of migration, resulting in a neg- ative effect on migration. The findings thus suggest that rather than employing a “wait and see” strategy, households in these countries may become “trapped” in place due to the adverse impacts of climate change. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 441 5.2 Migration to neighboring countries In the previous subsection, we demonstrated nonlinear relationships between tempera- ture and precipitation anomalies and international migration that cannot be explained by the real-options framework but are in part consistent with the existence of liquidity constraints. However, such constraints should matter to a lesser extent for migration to nearby destinations (Beine and Parsons, 2017), and thus the real-options framework potentially does a better job at explaining migration to those destinations. Therefore, in this subsection we follow Beine and Parsons (2017) and interact our measures of cli- matic anomalies with a dummy variable indicating whether the origin and destination countries are contiguous (i.e., share a common border) or not, resulting in the following model: g(E(yijt)) = log(E(yijt)) = β0 + s1(Tit) + s1(CijTit) + s2(Pit) + s2(CijPit) + φi + φj + φt , (14) where Cij is equal to one if i and j are contiguous and zero otherwise. The results are reported in online appendix table A1. For low-income countries, we find significant effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration to non- neighboring countries and a significant effect of temperature anomalies on migration to neighboring countries. Again, edf of about 8.7 and 8.9 for the respective smooth functions of temperature and precipitation anomalies indicate that the relationships are highly nonlinear. As for the interaction term between temperature anomalies and con- tiguity, on the other hand, an edf of close to 1 suggests a linear effect of temperature anomalies onmigration to neighboring countries. Formiddle-income countries, we only find significant effects on migration to nonneighboring countries but not on migration to neighboring countries. Compared to the main results, pseudo-R2 values for models (1) and (2) increase from 0.544 to 0.61 and from 0.416 to 0.496, respectively, suggesting that including interaction terms for contiguity increases the explanatory power of the GAM for both low- and middle-income countries. Figures A3 and A4 in the online appendix plot the estimated effects for low- and middle-income countries, respectively. While the relationship between temperature anomalies and migration to nonneighboring countries shown in figure A3a appears similar to the one estimated in ourmain results –withmigration decreasingwith temper- ature anomalies greater than 1.5 – we observe a linear and negative effect onmigration to neighboring countries (see figure A3b). This finding suggests that temperature anoma- lies constrain migration to both types of destinations, which is in contrast to Cattaneo and Peri (2016) who find that increases in temperature constrain migration from poor countries to distant destinations but not to close ones. Furthermore, similar to our main results, there is no clear relationship between precipitation anomalies and migration from low-income countries to both types of destinations (shown in figuresA3c andA3d). Likewise, for middle-income countries the GAM estimates flat relationships between climatic anomalies and migration to both neighboring and nonneighboring countries (shown in figure A4). 5.3 Migration to OECD countries The results presented in the previous subsection suggest that even formigration to neigh- boring countries, for which liquidity constraints should be less binding, the real-options framework does not explain migratory responses to climate change. In this subsection, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 442 Marius Braun we further investigate specific emigration patterns by differentiating between emigra- tion to OECD and non-OECD destination countries. Analogous to equation (14), we estimate the following model: g(E(yijt)) = log(E(yijt)) = β0 + s1(Tit) + s1(OECDjTit) + s2(Pit) + s2(OECDjPit) + φi + φj + φt , (15) where OECDj is a dummy variable that equals one if destination j is an OECD country and zero otherwise. Online appendix table A2 presents the regression results. For low-income countries, relationships between climatic anomalies and migration show differing degrees of non- linearity forOECD and non-OECDdestination countries: while edf of 8.4 and 8.9 for the respective smooth terms of temperature and precipitation anomalies are comparable to those found in the main results in table 2, edf for the corresponding OECD interaction terms are somewhat lower at 6.6 and 7.4, with the latter not being statistically significant. In contrast, all smooth terms for middle-income countries are statistically significant with edf between 8.4 and 8.9. Figures A5 and A6 in the online appendix plot the estimated effects of climatic anomalies on migration to OECD and non-OECD destination countries for low- and middle-income countries, respectively. For low-income countries, the relationships between temperature and precipitation anomalies and migration to non-OECD coun- tries in figures A5a and A5c, respectively, closely resemble the effects found in our main results (see figures 1(c) and 1(d)). This suggests that climate change-induced international migration from low-income countries occurs primarily to other low- and middle-income countries, which is consistent with recent literature (e.g., Hoffmann et al., 2020). Figure A5b shows a similarly hump-shaped relationship between temper- ature anomalies and migration to OECD countries, although the negative effect of high levels of temperature anomalies is considerably less pronounced than in figure A5a. A possible interpretation of this difference is that migration from low-income countries to OECD countries in response to climate change is primarily undertaken by high-skilled individuals (Drabo andMbaye, 2015; Kaczan andOrgill-Meyer, 2020) who are likely less affected by declines in agricultural income due to increasing temperatures. Likewise, for middle-income countries the relationships between climatic anoma- lies and migration to non-OECD destination countries shown in figures A6a and A6c are similar to those estimated in our main results (see figures 1(e) and 1(f)). Interest- ingly, we find a pronounced negative effect of shortages in precipitation on migration to OECD countries (see figure A6d). This finding is in contrast to Cattaneo and Peri (2016)who find no effect of precipitation onmigration frommiddle-income countries to OECD countries. Overall, the results again are inconsistent with the migration patterns predicted by the real-options framework. 6. Robustness checks For our empirical analysis we followed Cattaneo and Peri (2016) and Beine and Parsons (2017) in defining countries in the bottom quartile of the GDP per capita distribution as “low-income countries”. Nevertheless, this delineation inevitably involves some arbi- trariness since there is no clear definition of what a low-income country is, and thus a https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 443 potential concern is that varying the threshold between low- and middle-income coun- tries may yield differing results. To address this concern, we repeat our analysis using the 20th and 30th percentile of the GDP per capita distribution as alternative thresholds. The results are presented in online appendix table A3. For both alternative thresholds, the edf estimated by the GAM are of similar magnitude compared to the main results, and effects remain statistically significant. Turning to the plots of the estimated effects in online appendix figures A7 and A8, we find very similar relationships compared to the main results when using the 30th percentile of the income distribution as the threshold between low- and middle-income countries. The relationships estimated using the 20th percentile threshold are generally similar to the main results as well. Another potential concern is that the results may be affected by the choice of the smoothing parameter selectionmethod.While likelihood-basedmethods such as REML tend to exhibit faster convergence of smoothing parameters to their optimal values than prediction error-based methods such as generalized cross validation (GCV) (Wood, 2011), they have also been shown to have a tendency to undersmooth, i.e., to choose a too complex model (Wahba, 1985; Kauermann, 2005). Therefore, we reestimate equation (13) using GCV rather than REML. As shown in online appendix table A4 and figure A9, the results are very similar to our main findings. Additional robustness checks are presented in the online appendix. In table A5 and figureA10, we test whether the negative effect of temperature anomalies on international migration in low-income countries is in fact driven by declines in agricultural productiv- ity. For this purpose, we follow Cai et al. (2016: 149–150) and Cattaneo and Peri (2016: 134–135) and interact our measures of climatic anomalies with a factor variable indicat- ing origin countries’ quartile in the distribution of agricultural value added as a share of GDP. As shown in figure A10, we observe a negative effect of high positive temperature anomalies for all but the least agriculturally dependent countries. In fact, the results sug- gest that the higher the level of agricultural dependence, the lower the threshold beyond which the relationship becomes negative. This effect is particularly pronounced for the most agriculturally dependent countries (shown in figure A10 g), which exhibit a nega- tive effect of temperature anomalies on migration across much of the data range. While these findings do not definitively prove that our results are driven by the existence of liq- uidity constraints, they do provide corroborative evidence of the transmission channel of agricultural productivity postulated by Cattaneo and Peri (2016). Furthermore, to address potential concerns over omitted variable bias regarding our parsimonious main specification, in table A6 we include a number of control variables identified as important determinants of international migration in the literature (e.g., Ortega and Peri, 2013; Beine and Parsons, 2015). More specifically, we control for the log of the ratio of GDP per capita in origin and destination countries, whether origin- destination pairs share a common language, log distance between origin-destination pairs and the number of years per five-year period in which origin countries experienced civil war.6 Parametric estimates for the control variables are statistically significant and have the expected signs, and edf of smooth terms are similar in magnitude to the main results. Turning to the estimated relationships between climatic anomalies and interna- tional migration shown in figure A11, including the control variables appears to smooth 6Data on distance and common language are obtained from the CEPII Geographic and Bilateral Distance Database (Mayer and Zignago, 2011), and data on civil wars is taken from the Intra-State War Data (v5.1) of the Correlates of War project (Sarkees and Wayman, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 444 Marius Braun out some of the “wiggliness” present in the relationships in figure 1. Even so, we con- tinue to observe a strong negative effect of high temperature anomalies on international migration for low-income countries. Next, in table A7 and figure A12, we follow Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava (2017) and Nawrotzki and Bakhtsiyarava (2017) and use five-year period shares of heat and drought months as alternative measures of climatic anomalies (see section 2). Again, edf of smooth terms are similar inmagnitude to ourmain results, and effects remain statisti- cally significant. For low-income countries, we find a hump-shaped relationship between heatmonth shares and internationalmigration similar to figure 1(c). Formiddle-income countries, figure A12c suggests a slightly positive effect of high shares of heat months on international migration, but confidence intervals are quite large for this part of the sample. Finally, to assess whether the results are driven by extreme outliers, we exclude observations with temperature anomalies more than two standard deviations above or precipitation anomalies more than two standard deviations below the respective sam- ple mean. The results are presented in table A8 and figure A13. Compared to the main results, excluding outliers moderates the estimated relationships to an extent. Most notably, the negative effect of negative precipitation anomalies observed in figure 1(f) disappears. However, the remaining relationships are qualitatively similar to the main results. 7. Conclusions The potential impact of climate change on international migration patterns has recently received considerable attention in both the public and academic debate. Yet, much of the empirical literature fails to find increases in international migration due to climate change. In light of this evidence, the current paper theoretically and empirically inves- tigates why climate change-induced international migration appears to be relatively uncommon. Drawing on recent contributions by Gardner and Hendrickson (2018) and Mense (2018), the current paper presents an application of the real-options framework in which individuals may decide to postpone their migration response to climate change due to the fixed cost of migration as well as the option value of waiting. This framework implies that individuals choose a threshold level of quality of climatic conditions and migrate only once climatic conditions have deteriorated past this critical point. We test this prediction empirically by estimating generalized additive models, which allow us to assess the threshold effects suggested by this theoretical framework. For low-income countries, we find a robust hump-shaped relationship between temperature anomalies and migration rates; this effect appears to be primarily driven by migration to other low- and middle-income countries. For middle-income countries, on the other hand, no robust effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration rates can be observed. We generally find no evidence of the threshold effects suggested by the real-options framework. Rather, consistent with recent literature (e.g., Cattaneo and Peri, 2016; Beine and Parsons, 2017; Gröschl and Steinwachs, 2017; Cui and Feng, 2020), the findings suggest that in low-income countries, individuals’ migration response is hampered by the existence of liquidity constraints. These are likely to become more binding due to climate change-induced decreases in agricultural productivity. A key implication of our findings is that instead of attempting to deter migration from areas increasingly affected by the impacts of climate change, policymakers should https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 445 focus on both fostering migration and assisting “trapped” populations by facilitating alternative adaptation strategies. Such strategies may include shifting planting dates and planting crop varieties with differentmaturation periods (McCord et al., 2018), investing in irrigation systems (Benonnier et al., 2019) as well as cash transfer and social protection programs (Chort and Rupelle, 2017; Mueller et al., 2020). Finally, a number of potential directions for future research emerge from our results. First, it should be noted that the aggregate nature of our analysis likely masks some con- siderable heterogeneity in local thresholds of climate-related migration. As pointed out byAdger et al. (2009) andMcLeman (2018), such thresholdsmay be highly dependent on the social, economic and climatic context, and the measures of climatic anomalies used in this paper may only imperfectly capture the effects of climate change on local living conditions. Future research should thus consider applying the real-options framework to local and regional migration patterns as well as other aspects of the climate-migration relationship. This may include, for example, the impacts of fast-onset events such as flooding, storms and wildfire as well as the prevalence of infectious diseases (Marchiori et al., 2012). Second, the current paper demonstrates how semiparametric estimation methods can be applied to assess nonlinearities in the relationship between climate and international migration. This methodology could be easily utilized by future research to investigate other determinants of international migration patterns. Supplementary material. The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1355770X23000013. Conflict of interest. The author declares none. References Abadie LM, Sainz deMurieta E and Galarraga I (2017) Investing in adaptation: flood risk and real option application to Bilbao. Environmental Modelling and Software 95, 76–89. Abe M (1999) A generalized additive model for discrete-choice data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 17, 271–284. Abel GJ and Sander N (2014) Quantifying global international migration flows. Science 343, 1520–1522. AdgerWN, Dessai S, GouldenM, HulmeM, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Naess LO,Wolf J andWreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?. Climatic Change 93, 335–354. AnamM, Chiang S-H andHua L (2008) Uncertainty and international migration: an option cum portfolio model. Journal of Labor Research 29, 236–250. Baez J, Caruso G, Mueller V and Niu C (2017a) Droughts augment youth migration in Northern Latin America and the Caribbean. Climatic Change 140, 423–435. Baez J, Caruso G, Mueller V and Niu C (2017b) Heat exposure and youth migration in Central America and the Caribbean. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 107, 446–450. Bardsley DK andHugo GJ (2010) Migration and climate change: examining thresholds of change to guide effective adaptation decision-making. Population and Environment 32, 238–262. Barrios S, Bertinelli L and Strobl E (2006) Climatic change and rural-urban migration: the case of Sub- Saharan Africa. Journal of Urban Economics 60, 357–371. Basile R and Lim J (2006) Wages differentials and interregional migration in the U.S.: an empirical test of the option value of waiting theory. Paper presented at the 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, 30 August-3 September 2006, European Regional Science Association (ERSA), Louvain-la- Neuve. Basile R and Lim J (2017) Nonlinearities in interregional migration behavior: evidence from the United States. International Regional Science Review 40, 563–589. Beine M, Noy I and Parsons C (2021) Climate change, migration and voice. Climatic Change 167, 8. doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03157-2 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 446 Marius Braun Beine M and Parsons C (2015) Climatic factors as determinants of international migration. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 117, 723–767. Beine M and Parsons C (2017) Climatic factors as determinants of international migration: redux. CESifo Economic Studies 63, 386–402. Benonnier T,Millock K andTaraz V (2019) Climate change, migration and irrigation.Working Paper No. 2019-21, Paris School of Economics, Paris. Bertoli S, Docquier F, Rapoport H and Ruyssen I (2020) Weather shocks and migration intentions in Western Africa: insights from a multilevel analysis. Working Paper No. 8064, Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich. Burda MC (1995) Migration and the option value of waiting. The Economic and Social Review 27, 1–19. Burda MC, Härdle W, Müller M and Werwatz A (1998) Semiparametric analysis of German East-West migration intentions: facts and theory. Journal of Applied Econometrics 13, 525–541. Burzynski M, Deuster C, Docquier F and de Melo J (2019) Climate change, inequality, and human migration. Discussion Paper No. 12623, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn. Cai R, Feng S, Oppenheimer M and Pytlikova M (2016) Climate variability and international migration: the importance of the agricultural linkage. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 79, 135–151. Cattaneo C, Beine M, Fröhlich CJ, Kniveton D, Martinez-Zarzoso I, Mastrorillo M, Millock K, Piguet E and Schraven B (2019) Human migration in the era of climate change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13, 189–206. Cattaneo C and Bosetti V (2017) Climate-induced international migration and conflict. CESifo Economic Studies 63, 500–528. Cattaneo C and Peri G (2016) The migration response to increasing temperatures. Journal of Development Economics 122, 127–146. Chort I and de la Rupelle M (2017) Managing the impact of climate change on migration: evidence from Mexico. Discussion Paper No. 78, Global Labor Organization (GLO), Maastricht. Cui X and Feng S (2020) Climate change and migration. In Zimmermann KF (ed). Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Cham: Springer. Dell M, Jones BF and Olken BA (2014) What do we learn from the weather? The new climate-economy literature. Journal of Economic Literature 52, 740–798. Dixit AK (1992) Investment and hysteresis. Journal of Economic Perspectives 6, 107–132. Dixit AK and Pindyck RS (1994) Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DowK, Berkhout F, Preston BL, Klein RJT,Midgley G and ShawMR (2013) Limits to adaptation.Nature Climate Change 3, 305–307. Drabo A and Mbaye LM (2015) Natural disasters, migration and education: an empirical analysis in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 20, 767–796. Erfani T, Pachos K and Harou JJ (2018) Real-options water supply planning: multistage scenario trees for adaptive and flexible capacity expansion under probabilistic climate change uncertainty.Water Resources Research 54, 5069–5087. Feenstra RC, Inklaar R and Timmer MP (2015) The next generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review 105, 3150–3182. Ferrini S and Fezzi C (2012) Generalized additive models for nonmarket valuation via revealed or stated preference methods. Land Economics 88, 782–802. Gardner J and Hendrickson JR (2018) If I leave here tomorrow: an option view of migration when labor market quality declines. Southern Economic Journal 84, 786–814. Ginbo T, Di Corato L and Hoffmann R (2021) Investing in climate change adaptation and mitigation: a methodological review of real-options studies. Ambio 50, 229–241. Gray C and Mueller V (2012) Natural disasters and population mobility in Bangladesh. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 6000–6005. Grimes A andWesselbaum D (2019) Moving towards happiness?. International Migration 57, 20–40. Gröschl J and Steinwachs T (2017) Do natural hazards cause international migration?. CESifo Economic Studies 63, 445–480. Harris I,OsbornTJ, JonesP andListerD (2020)Version 4 of theCRUTSmonthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Scientific Data 7, 109. doi:10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3 Hastie T and Tibshirani R (1986) Generalized additive models. Statistical Science 1, 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press Environment and Development Economics 447 Henderson JV, StoreygardA andDeichmannU (2017)Has climate change driven urbanization in Africa?. Journal of Development Economics 124, 60–82. Hoffmann R, Dimitrova A, Muttarak R, Cuaresma JC and Peisker J (2020) A meta-analysis of country- level studies on environmental change and migration. Nature Climate Change 10, 904–912. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vul- nerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, and White LL (eds). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. International Monetary Fund (2021)World Economic Outlook Database, April 2021 edition. Available at https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/April. Kaczan DJ and Orgill-Meyer J (2020) The impact of climate change on migration: a synthesis of recent empirical insights. Climatic Change 158, 281–300. Kauermann G (2005) A note on smoothing parameter selection for penalized spline smoothing. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 127, 53–69. KimM-J, Nicholls RJ, Preston JM and de Almeida GAM (2018) An assessment of the optimum timing of coastal flood adaptation given sea-level rise using real options analysis. Journal of Flood RiskManagement 12, e12494. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12494 Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E and Schellnhuber HJ (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 1786–1793. Marchiori L, Maystadt J-F and Schumacher I (2012) The impact of weather anomalies on migration in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63, 355–374. Marra G andWood SN (2012) Coverage properties of confidence intervals for generalized additive model components. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 39, 53–74. Mayer T andZignago S (2011)Notes onCEPII’s distancesmeasures: the GeoDist database. CEPIIWorking Paper No. 2011–25, Centre d’Etudes Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII), Paris. McCord P, Waldman K, Baldwin E, Dell’Angelo J and Evans T (2018) Assessing multi-level drivers of adaptation to climate variability and water insecurity in smallholder irrigation systems. World Development 108, 296–308. McLeman R (2018) Thresholds in climate migration. Population and Environment 39, 319–338. Mense A (2018) A real options approach to amenity valuation: the role of uncertainty and risk aversion. Journal of Regional Science 58, 315–329. Millock K (2015) Migration and environment. Annual Review of Resource Economics 7, 35–60. Moretto M and Vergalli S (2008) Migration dynamics. Journal of Economics 93, 223–265. Mueller V, Gray C,Handa S and SeidenfeldD (2020) Do social protection programs foster short-term and long-term migration adaptation strategies?. Environment and Development Economics 25, 135–158. Mueller V, Gray C andKosec K (2014) Heat stress increases long-term humanmigration in rural Pakistan. Nature Climate Change 4, 182–185. Myers N (2005) Environmental refugees: an emergent security issue. Paper presented at the 13th Economic Forum, 23–27 May 2005, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Prague. Narita D and Quaas M (2014) Adaptation to climate change and climate variability: do it now or wait and see?. Climate Change Economics 5, 1450013. doi:10.1142/S2010007814500134 Nawrotzki RJ, DeWaard J, BakhtsiyaravaM andHa JT (2017) Climate shocks and rural-urban migration in Mexico: exploring nonlinearities and thresholds. Climatic Change 40, 243–258. Nawrotzki RJ and Bakhtsiyarava M (2017) International climate migration: evidence for the cli- mate inhibitor mechanism and the agricultural pathway. Population, Space and Place 23, e2033. doi:10.1002/psp.2033 O’Connell PGJ (1997) Migration under uncertainty: “try your luck”or “wait and see”. Journal of Regional Science 37, 331–347. Oezden C, Parsons CR, Schiff M andWalmsley TL (2011)Where on earth is everybody? The evolution of global bilateral migration 1960–2000.World Bank Economic Review 25, 12–56. Ortega F and Peri G (2013) The effect of income and immigration policies on international migration. Migration Studies 1, 47–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press 448 Marius Braun Ruyssen I and Rayp G (2014) Determinants of intra-regional migration in Sub-Saharan Africa 1980–2000. Journal of Development Studies 50, 426–443. Sanderson T, Hertzler G, Capon T and Hayman P (2016) A real options analysis of Australian wheat production under climate change. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 60, 79–96. Sarkees MR andWayman F (2010) Resort to War: 1816-2007. Washington, DC: CQ Press. SternN (2006)The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK,NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Stinnett DM, Tir J, Schafer P, Diehl PF and Gochman C (2002) The correlates of war project direct contiguity data, version 3. Conflict Management and Peace Science 19, 59–67. United Nations (2013) Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision–Migrants by Destination and Origin. New York, NY: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Vezzoli S, Villares-VarelaM and deHaasH (2014) Uncovering international migration flow data: insights from the DEMIG databases. Working Paper No. 88, International Migration Institute (IMI), Oxford. WahbaG (1985) A comparison of GCV and GML for choosing the smoothing parameter in the generalized spline smoothing problem. The Annals of Statistics 13, 1378–1402. Wesselbaum D and Aburn A (2019) Gone with the wind: international migration. Global and Planetary Change 178, 96–109. Wood SN (2001) mgcv: GAMs and generalized ridge regression for R. R News 1, 20–25. Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semi- parametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 73, 3–36. Wood SN (2017)Generalized AdditiveModels: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman andHall. World Bank (2021) World Development Indicators. Available at https://databank.worldbank.org/source/ world-development-indicators. Cite this article: Braun M (2023). A real-options analysis of climate change and international migration. Environment and Development Economics 28, 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X23000013 Published online by Cambridge University Press A real-options analysis of climate change and international migration Marius Braun Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany 1 ONLINE APPENDIX Email: marius.braun-2@wirtschaft.uni-giessen.de Table A1. Specific emigration patterns: contiguity (1) (2) Low-income countries Middle-income countries Smooth terms edf edf s(T) 8.681*** 8.727** (0.000) (0.020) s(T*contiguity) 1.085*** 6.652 (0.002) (0.892) s(P) 8.860*** 8.328*** (0.000) (0.003) s(P*contiguity) 6.681 6.560 (0.288) (0.904) REML score -213916.7 -563102.4 AIC -427922.9 -1126591 N 26520 81120 Pseudo-R2 0.61 0.496 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five-year period t . s(T) and s(P) are smooth non-parametric functions of temperature and precipita- tion anomalies, respectively. Approximate p-values in parentheses. edf : effective degrees of freedom, REML: restricted maximum l ikelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 2 Table A2. Specific emigration patterns: OECD destination countries (1) (2) Low-income countries Middle-income countries Smooth terms edf edf s(T) 8.383*** 8.849*** (0.000) (0.000) s(T*OECD destination) 6.590*** 8.752*** (0.007) (0.000) s(P) 8.911*** 8.755*** (0.000) (0.001) s(P*OECD destination) 7.368 8.467*** (0.327) (0.000) REML score -211100.2 -555241 AIC -422273.9 -1110878 N 26520 81120 Pseudo-R2 0.546 0.422 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five-year p eriod t . s (T) a nd s (P) a re smooth non-parametric functions of temperature and precipitation anomalies, respectively. Approximate p-values in parentheses. edf : effective d egrees o f f reedom, REML: restricted maximum likelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 3 Table A3. Robustness checks: alternative definitions of low-income country Bottom 20 % Bottom 30 % (1) (2) (3) (4) Low-income countries Middle-income countries Low-income countries Middle-income countries Smooth terms edf edf edf edf s(T) 8.370*** 8.846*** 8.688*** 8.540*** (0.000) (0.003) (0.000) (0.005) s(P) 8.895*** 8.160* 8.836*** 8.789*** (0.000) (0.054) (0.000) (0.000) REML score -170233.6 -593466.5 -249564.1 -518850.3 AIC -340471.2 -1187273 -499236.2 -1038020 N 21060 86580 31980 75660 Pseudo-R2 0.563 0.400 0.538 0.438 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five- year period t. s(T) and s(P) are smooth non-parametric functions of temperature and precipitation anomalies, respectively. Approximate p-values in parentheses. edf : effective d egrees o f f reedom, REML: r estricted maximum l ikelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 4 Table A4. Robustness checks: smoothing parameter selection using GCV (1) (2) Low-income countries Middle-income countries Smooth terms edf edf s(T) 8.712*** 8.889*** (0.000) (0.001) s(P) 8.985*** 8.704*** (0.000) (0.001) GCV score 5.492 6.033 AIC -381587.4 -890441.9 N 26520 81120 Pseudo-R2 0.544 0.416 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five-year p eriod t . s(T) and s(P) are smooth non-parametric functions of temperature and pre- cipitation anomalies, respectively. Approximate p-values in parentheses. edf : effective degrees of freedom, GCV: generalized cross validation, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 5 Table A5. Robustness checks: interacting climatic anomalies with quartiles of agricultural value added as a share of GDP Total sample Smooth terms edf s(T*Q1) 8.597 (0.159) s(T*Q2) 8.791*** (0.000) s(T*Q3) 8.905*** (0.000) s(T*Q4) 8.382*** (0.001) s(P*Q1) 8.630 (0.158) s(P*Q2) 8.814*** (0.000) s(P*Q3) 8.907*** (0.000) s(P*Q4) 7.917*** (0.000) REML score -705633.1 AIC -1411848 N 99060 Pseudo-R2 0.395 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five-year period t. s(T) and s(P) are smooth non-parametric functions of temperature and precipitation anomalies, respectively. Approxi- mate p-values in parentheses. edf : effective degrees o f freedom, REML: restricted maximum likelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 6 Table A6. Robustness checks: including control variables (1) (2) Low-income countries Middle-income countries Parametric terms Estimate Estimate ln(GDP per capita ratio) -0.040 0.156*** (0.062) (0.043) Common language 0.828*** 1.041*** (0.078) (0.048) ln(Distance) -3.028*** -1.960*** (0.041) (0.021) Civil war 0.072*** 0.171*** (0.028) (0.025) Smooth terms edf edf s(T) 8.438*** 6.697** (0.000) (0.039) s(P) 8.589** 8.558*** (0.023) (0.002) REML score -191498.8 -519325.9 AIC -383137.8 -1039129 N 23331 72114 Pseudo-R2 0.709 0.691 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five-year period t . s(T) and s(P) are smooth non- parametric functions of temperature and precipitation anomalies, respectively. For parametric estimates, standard errors are reported in parentheses, while for smooth terms approximate p-values are reported in parentheses. edf : effective d egrees of freedom, REML: restricted maximum likelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 7 Table A7. Robustness checks: using five-year period shares of heat and drought months (1) (2) Low-income countries Middle-income countries Smooth terms edf edf s(Heat month share) 8.608*** 8.812*** (0.000) (0.000) s(Drought month share) 8.884*** 7.702* (0.000) (0.069) REML score -211233.9 -554707.2 AIC -422517.6 -1109729 N 26520 81120 Pseudo-R2 0.548 0.416 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five-year p eriod t . s (Heat month s hare) and s(Drought month share) are smooth non-parametric functions of five-year period heat and drought month shares, respectively. Approximate p-values in parenthe- ses. edf : effective degrees of freedom, REML: restricted maximum l ikelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 8 Table A8. Robustness checks: excluding extreme outliers (1) (2) Smooth terms Low-income countries Middle-income countries edf edf s(T) 8.647*** 8.750** (0.000) (0.012) s(P) 8.770*** 8.802*** (0.000) (0.001) REML score -192912.9 -531276.5 AIC -385852.6 -1062869 N 24375 77025 Pseudo-R2 0.537 0.42 Note: Time period: 1990-2010. The dependent variable is the bilateral migration rate from country i to country j in five-year p eriod t . s(T) and s(P) are smooth non-parametric functions of temperature and pre- cipitation anomalies, respectively. Approximate p-values in parentheses. edf : effective degrees of freedom, REML: restricted maximum likelihood, AIC: Akaike information criterion. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01. 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 N = 93851 Bandwidth = 0.07657 D e n si ty Figure A1. Kernel density estimation of bilateral migration rates. Only for the purpose of the kernel density estimation, we have scaled bilateral migration rates by a factor of 106 and excluded observations greater than 10. 10 0 1 2 3 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 N = 26520 Bandwidth = 0.06363 D e n s ity (a) Temperature, low-income countries −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 N = 26520 Bandwidth = 0.02394 D e n s ity (b) Precipitation, low-income countries 0 1 2 3 0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 N = 81120 Bandwidth = 0.06638 D e n si ty (c) Temperature, middle-income countries −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 N = 81120 Bandwidth = 0.02389 D e n si ty (d) Precipitation, middle-income countries Figure A2. Kernel density estimations of temperature and precipitation anomalies for low- and middle-income countries. 11 (a) Temperature and migration to nonneighbor- ing countries (b) Temperature and migration to neighboring countries (c) Precipitation and migration to nonneighbor- ing countries (d) Precipitation and migration to neighboring countries Figure A3. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration from low-income countries to neighboring and nonneighboring countries. 12 (a) Temperature and migration to nonneighbor- ing countries (b) Temperature and migration to neighboring countries (c) Precipitation and migration to nonneighbor- ing countries (d) Precipitation and migration to neighboring countries Figure A4. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration from middle-income countries to neighboring and nonneighboring countries. 13 (a) Temperature and migration to non-OECD countries (b) Temperature and migration to OECD coun- tries (c) Precipitation and migration to non-OECD countries (d) Precipitation and migration to OECD coun- tries Figure A5. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration from low-income countries to OECD and non-OECD countries. 14 (a) Temperature and migration to non-OECD countries (b) Temperature and migration to OECD coun- tries (c) Precipitation and migration to non-OECD countries (d) Precipitation and migration to OECD coun- tries Figure A6. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration from middle-income countries to OECD and non-OECD countries. 15 (a) Temperature, low-income countries (b) Precipitation, low-income countries (c) Temperature, middle-income countries (d) Precipitation, middle-income countries Figure A7. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration: defin-ing the bottom 20% of the income distribution as low-income countries. 16 (a) Temperature, low-income countries (b) Precipitation, low-income countries (c) Temperature, middle-income countries (d) Precipitation, middle-income countries Figure A8. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration: defin- ing the bottom 30% of the income distribution as low-income countries. 17 (a) Temperature, low-income countries (b) Precipitation, low-income countries (c) Temperature, middle-income countries (d) Precipitation, middle-income countries Figure A9. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration: smoothing parameter selection using GCV. 18 (a) Temperature, quartile 1 (b) Precipitation, quartile 1 (c) Temperature, quartile 2 (d) Precipitation, quartile 2 (e) Temperature, quartile 3 (f) Precipitation, quartile 3 (g) Temperature, quartile 4 (h) Precipitation, quartile 4 Figure A10. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration: interacting climatic anomalies with quartiles of agricultural value added as a share of GDP. 19 (a) Temperature, low-income countries (b) Precipitation, low-income countries (c) Temperature, middle-income countries (d) Precipitation, middle-income countries Figure A11. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration: including control variables. 20 (a) Heat month share, low-income countries (b) Drought month share, low-income countries (c) Heat month share, middle-income countries (d) Drought month share, middle-income coun- tries Figure A12. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration: using five-year period shares of heat and drought months. 21 (a) Temperature, low-income countries (b) Precipitation, low-income countries (c) Temperature, middle-income countries (d) Precipitation, middle-income countries Figure A13. Nonlinear effects of temperature and precipitation anomalies on migration: excluding extreme outliers. 22 List of low-income countries Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen List of middle-income countries Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea Bis- sau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macao, Mace- donia, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montene- gro, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New-Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Republic of Congo, Romania, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Ko- rea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe 23 47 Chapter 3 Climate-Related Natural Disasters and Regional Migration in Europe: A Spatial Econometric Analysis Reference for this Paper: Braun, M. and J. Görts (2025), Climate-Related Natural Disasters and Regional Mi- gration in Europe: A Spatial Econometric Analysis, Working Paper. Conferences with Review Process: • 62nd Annual Congress of the European Regional Science Association, August 28, August – September 1, 2023, Alicante, Spain • 29th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, July 1 – 4, 2024, Leuven, Belgium Climate-Related Natural Disasters and Regional Migration in Europe: A Spatial Econometric Analysis Marius Braun∗ Jarom Görts† April 2025 Abstract In recent decades, the European Union has experienced an increase in the frequency of climate-related natural disasters. While a large body of literature analyzing the impact of natural disasters on migration patterns in the U.S. and other areas has emerged, little research has been conducted for the European Union. In this paper, we attempt to close this gap in the literature and investigate the impact of climate-related disasters on NUTS-2 region-level migration for the period 2000-2019. Employing spatial econo- metric methods, we find that experiencing a severe disaster leads to an increase in net out-migration of 0.9 individuals per 1000 inhabitants, followed by an increase in net in- migration of 0.6 individuals per 1000 inhabitants two years later. When using spatial Durbin models, we observe a negative spatial spillover effect of severe disasters on net migration, suggesting that neighboring regions may also be affected by the disasters, which may induce individuals in those regions to out-migrate. For less severe disaster events, we find no conclusive evidence that disasters are driving regional migration. Keywords: climate change, migration, natural disasters, spatial econometrics JEL Classification: F22, R11, R23, Q54 ∗Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Licher Strasse 66, 35394 Giessen, Germany. Email: marius.braun-2@wi.jlug.de †Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Licher Strasse 66, 35394 Giessen, Germany. Email: jarom.f.goerts@wi.jlug.de 1 Introduction The past decades have witnessed a significant increase in the frequency and severity of natural disasters attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Bednar-Friedl et al. 2022). Thus, regions around the world have experienced intensifying impacts of extreme weather events, such as storms, extreme heat, wildfires, floods, and droughts. When regions are struck by such events one potentially important adaptation strategy is to migrate away from the affected area. Recently, a large body of literature analyzing the migration responses to slow- and fast- onset climatic events has emerged (for a review see, e.g., Cattaneo et al. 2019). This research has led to some considerable improvements in our understanding of the interaction between climatic factors and internal as well as international population movements. However, the literature has thus far predominantly focused on impacts in developing countries, which is typically justified on the basis that these countries are particularly vulnerable to adverse ef- fects of climate change and have lower adaptation capacities compared to developed countries (Hunter 2018; Piguet, Kaenzig, and Guélat 2018). With respect to developed countries, some research exists, predominantly analyzing the same climate change-migration nexus for the U.S. (e.g., Eyer et al. 2018; Fan, Klaiber, and Fisher-Vanden 2016; Fan, Fisher-Vanden, and Klaiber 2018; Boustan, Kahn, Rhode, and Yanguas 2020). The general finding of this research is that climate-related natural disasters have a significant impact on regional migration. However, empirical evidence in this regard remains relatively scant. In particular, virtually no research exists on climate change-induced internal migration in Europe (Hunter 2018), although the number of natural disasters has substantially increased over the last decades (see Figure 1). Considering this development and the findings for the U.S., a better understanding of the climate change-migration nexus in Europe seems highly relevant. Therefore, this paper aims to provide a first assessment of impacts of natural disasters on migration patterns in the European Union for the period 2000-2019. To do so, we combine 1 data on natural disasters with data on net migration at the NUTS-2 region-level. Using spa- tial panel data models, we observe that experiencing a severe disaster leads to an increase in net out-migration of 0.9 individuals per 1000 inhabitants, followed by an increase in net in-migration of 0.6 individuals per 1000 inhabitants two years later. We also find a negative spatial spillover effect of severe disasters on net migration, suggesting that neighboring re- gions may also be affected by the disasters, which may induce individuals in those regions to out-migrate. For less severe disaster events, we find no conclusive evidence that disasters are driving regional migration. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a brief review of previous literature. Section 3 discusses our data and empirical strategy. Section 4 presents our results, while Section 5 provides robustness checks. Section 6 concludes. 0 20 40 60 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 Year D is a st e r co u n t Figure 1: Annual disaster counts in the geographical area of the European Union, 1900-2019 2 2 Literature Review Our paper contributes to two strands in the literature on climate change and migration. First, we contribute to an emerging body of literature investigating impact of climate change on migration patterns in developed countries. Second, our paper relates to previous work applying spatial econometric methods to analyze the relationship between climate change and migration. Regarding the first strand of literature, existing work has primarily focused on the U.S. This literature builds on earlier work that emphasizes the role of environmental amenities to explain the migration patterns that have led to the higher population density in coastal areas that can be observed at the beginning of the 21st century (Rappaport and Sachs 2003; Partridge 2010). Interestingly, this literature finds that these high-amenity coastal areas are the same regions that are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate-related natural disasters. Fan, Klaiber, and Fisher-Vanden (2016) use a residential sorting model to analyze the effect of extreme weather on interregional brain drain in the U.S. They find that high- skilled individuals are more likely to leave regions experiencing extreme weather events. In another paper, Fan, Fisher-Vanden, and Klaiber (2018) combine a residential sorting model with a computable general equilibrium model to investigate climate-related regional migration in the U.S. while taking into account wage and housing price feedbacks. They find that the magnitude of climate-related migration is reduced when wages and housing prices are endogenized. Nevertheless, the Midwestern and Southern are projected to experience significant out-migration due to climate change, whereas the Northeastern and Western regions as well as California may experience in-migration. These findings support the notion of amenity-based migration. Eyer et al. (2018) assess which destinations attracted individuals relocating out of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Using a gravity model, they find that out-migration occurred to nearby urban regions despite them being at a higher risk of being 3 struck by future hurricanes. The paper most closely related to ours is Boustan, Kahn, Rhode, and Yanguas (2020). The authors combine Census data from 1920 to 2010 with county-level disaster data to investigate the impact of climate-related natural disasters on migration. They find that severe disasters induce net out-migration. Additionally, the magnitude of the migration response to disasters has increased over time. One of the most recent papers related to ours is Winkler and Rouleau (2021), who analyze the relationship between wildfire and extreme heat and regional migration in the U.S. for the period 1990- 2015. Their main finding is that wildfire and extreme heat reduce in-migration and increase out-migration. These effects are particularly pronounced in counties rich in environmental amenities, suggesting a gradual shift towards environmental disamenities due to climate change. The second strand of literature builds on methods developed in the spatial econometrics literature (e.g., Burridge 1980; J. P. LeSage and R. K. Pace 2014).1 For instance, Saldaña- Zorrilla and Sandberg (2009) employ spatial error and spatial Durbin models to analyze the effect of climate-related disasters on regional migration in Mexico during the 1990s. Ruyssen an