Editorial: Receiving communities and climate destinations

Research on climate mobility is advancing rapidly, yet much of the current research focuses on places of origin, addressing questions related to how climate impacts or natural hazards influence decisions to migrate from or stay in a geographic location (Adams, 2016; Black et al., 2011; Mallick et al., 2022, 2025; McLeman, 2018, 2011). Less attention has been given to questions related to where people will go when they are displaced or relocate (Findlay, 2011; Marandi and Main, 2021; Rosengärtner et al., 2023; Teicher and Marchman, 2023). Human migration will have serious implications for infrastructure needs, resources in chosen destinations, and the wellbeing of both movers and original residents (Best et al., 2025; Hasan et al., 2026; Junod et al., 2023; Marandi and Main, 2021). There is a notable gap in research on the destinations that receive climate-driven migrants. This Frontiers in Climate Mobility Research Topic seeks to help fill that gap by inviting studies that deepen our understanding of climate-migrant receiving communities and destinations. We welcomed a wide range of quantitative, qualitative, and conceptual submissions across disciplines, and received an impressively diverse set of methods, geographic perspectives, and academic approaches.

Inclusive receiving communities: a multi-scalar challenge

The papers received as part of this Research Topic highlight the complexity of issues for receiving communities, which involve questions of infrastructure, access, representation, and planning across scales (Figure 1).

One of the primary challenges in researching and planning for climate-migrant receiving communities is that it is difficult to predict where and when climate migrants will move (Best et al., 2025; Till et al., 2018). In this Research Topic, O'Neill et al. address the challenge of prediction using an agent-based model combined with future climate data to estimate as many as 22 million internal migrants in Bangladesh by 2050, primarily moving from the center of the country to other regions in the center and southeast. By identifying potential destination locations and magnitudes of migrant flows, this work could provide support for ongoing country-level efforts to plan for climate migrants in Bangladesh

and other contexts where high levels of internal climate migration are expected (Hasan et al., 2026; Khan et al., 2021).

Rather than asking where climate migrants are likely to go, Cilali et al., instead ask where climate migrants should go to prioritize fairness and social integration in destinations. To do so, they use an optimization model to quantify the optimal number of migrants that should relocate from origins to specific destinations based on multiple fairness constraints including minimizing cultural distance and required financial support. Such an approach could be especially useful to support the emerging literature on managed retreat and community-level planned relocation away from high risk areas by supporting such communities in choosing desirable destinations (Ajibade et al., 2020, 2022; Hino et al., 2017; Siders, 2019). However, as Best et al. emphasize, migration should not be reduced to just origin and destination but should be considered as a process that includes movement across space and time. Additional modeling and logistical challenges exist, as more work is needed to also understand the migration paths that people will, or should, take (Hugo, 2011). Best et al. emphasize the need to plan for and provide infrastructure and services across stages of movement, with an emphasis on local context and human rights (Atapattu, 2020; Chacon-Hurtado et al., 2024).

Embedded in the question of where climate migrants will or should go, there are of course many considerations about migrants' needs and experiences in the destination, ability, and willingness of destinations to receive those migrants, and implications for existing residents (Marandi and Main, 2021; Rosengärtner et al., 2023). Grappling with this complexity, Enriquez proposes a framework for assessing local governments' preparedness and willingness to accept incoming populations. The framework highlights interrelationships between government, market, and community actors in shaping welcoming receiving communities. Because capacity and preparedness will shape a community's willingness to accept climate migrants, local governments should undertake absorptive capacity assessments to understand their ability to accept new residents in terms of infrastructure capacity, social services, education, employment opportunities, and other support that new residents will require, all while balancing the needs of existing residents (Judelsohn et al., 2024; Walelign and Lujala, 2022).

In addition to physical infrastructure, social integration will be critical in receiving communities. Lognon et al. use the example of a community gardening project co-developed with newcoming youth of color in Calgary, Canada to present an anti-racist approach to helping incoming groups build relationships with the natural environment and strengthen ties to their new communities. Here, the goal of social integration is not assimilation, but rather to support newcomers in “home-making” and connecting to place (Hondagneu-Sotelo, 2017). Such approaches, based on empowering and centering the voices of new residents, can help tackle structural barriers to inclusion (Espinoza et al., 2020; Hasan et al., 2026). Beyond the individual level, governance responses across scales will also be necessary for supporting social integration for incoming climate migrants at the local level. Using the case of Ghana, Frimpong Nyarko et al. highlight critical gaps in existing international and regional governance frameworks that inhibit implementation and success at the local level. They highlight the need for more participatory, less performative climate-adaptation governance and legal frameworks that translates to context-specific and impactful action to support migrants while continuing to uphold human rights and individual agency (Roland, 2023). As Enriquez also notes, multiple levels of support are likely needed to achieve this goal.

Future directions

Researchers, in partnership with policymakers, planners, and communities, can continue to provide evidence to support inclusive, resilient receiving communities. As research on receiving communities expands, more attention should also be given to where climate migrants settle within destinations. Are migrants moving to high risk areas where they may be trading one kind of hazard exposure for another (Guadagno and Yonetani, 2023)? Do newcomers experience multiple displacements within destination cities? Relatedly, research should consider how climate migration could contribute to indirect displacement of original residents via climate gentrification, and explore solutions to prevent these outcomes (Best and Jouzi, 2022; Keenan et al., 2018; Stoler et al., 2025). Longitudinal data will be necessary to address these questions.

Critically, future research should prioritize justice and center on the lived experience of affected communities. Research must consider impacts on individuals and households who may remain behind, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in areas with high climate risk while others move away (Ahsan et al., 2026; Mallick and Schanze, 2020; Siders et al., 2019). In all of these efforts, researchers should avoid treating groups as monoliths but recognize that experiences will be shaped by multiple, intersectional aspects of identity (Cundill et al., 2021; Kuran et al., 2020; McKinzie, 2017). The study of climate-induced migration brings together social science with infrastructure engineering, urban planning, natural hazard risk and risk science to understand how communities are affected and can become more prepared.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: Alex de Sherbinin, Columbia University, United States