This perspective piece makes a case for a more rigorous treatment of managed retreat as a politically, legally, and economically distinct type of relocation that is separate from climate migration. We argue that the use of both concepts interchangeably obfuscates the problems around climate-induced mobilities and contributes to the inconsistencies in policy, plans, and actions taken by governments and organizations tasked with addressing them. This call for a disentanglement is not solely an academic exercise aimed at conceptual clarity, but an effort targeted at incentivizing researchers, practitioners, journalists, and advocates working on both issues to better serve their constituencies through alliance formation, resource mobilization, and the establishment of institutional pathways to climate justice. We offer a critical understanding of the distinctions between climate migration and managed retreat grounded in six orienting propositions. They include differential: causal mechanisms, legal protections, rights regimes and funding structures, discursive effects, implications for land use, and exposure to risks. We provide empirical examples from existing literature to contextualize our propositions while calling for a transformative justice approach to addressing both issues.

这篇观点文章提出了更严格地将管理撤退视为政治、法律和经济上与气候迁移不同的搬迁类型的案例。我们认为，这两个概念的交替使用混淆了围绕气候引起的流动性的问题，并导致负责解决这些问题的政府和组织在政策、计划和行动方面的不一致。这种解开纠缠的呼吁不仅是一项旨在澄清概念的学术活动，而且是一项旨在激励研究人员、从业者、记者和倡导者在这两个问题上工作的努力，以通过联盟形成、资源动员和建立气候正义的体制途径。我们基于六个定位命题，对气候迁移和有管理的撤退之间的区别提供了批判性的理解。它们包括差异化：因果机制、法律保护、权利制度和资金结构、话语效应、对土地使用的影响以及风险敞口。我们提供了现有文献中的实证示例，以将我们的主张置于背景中，同时呼吁采用变革性的正义方法来解决这两个问题。