Abstract

Evacuations are a recognised form of displacement but have been largely overlooked in the forced migration literature. This is curious, given that many of the 33.4 million new internal displacements in 2019 were pre-emptive evacuations. This article examines the nature of evacuations in the context of disasters and climate change and suggests some reasons for the research gap. One reason may be the lack of clarity between pre-emptive evacuations, on the one hand, and arbitrary displacement, on the other – with the former often regarded as a proactive, positive means of moving people out of harm’s way. Another reason may be that many academics writing about displacement want to produce “policy-relevant research”, and if policymakers do not prioritise categories of inquiry, such as “evacuations”, then researchers may overlook them as well. In the disaster displacement context, the three-pronged typology of displacement, migration, and planned relocation – used in key instruments and policymaking processes – has also been adopted by academics. Evacuations have not featured as a standalone area of inquiry. Further conceptual and empirical analysis would help to ensure that evacuations are “seen” in their own right, and that operational responses are better tailored to protection needs.

中文翻译：

---

疏散疏散：灾难性疏散研究的盲点

摘要

疏散是一种公认​​的流离失所形式，但在强迫迁徙文献中却基本上被忽略了。鉴于2019年3340万新的内部流离失所者中有许多是先发制人的疏散，这令人感到好奇。本文考察了灾害和气候变化背景下疏散的性质，并提出了造成研究差距的一些原因。一个原因可能是，一方面是先发制人的疏散与另一方面的任意流离失所有关，而前者通常被认为是使人们摆脱伤害的积极主动的积极手段。另一个原因可能是，许多有关流离失所的学者都希望进行“与政策相关的研究”，并且如果政策制定者不优先考虑诸如“撤离”之类的调查类别，那么研究人员也可能会忽略它们。在灾难性流离失所的情况下，学者们也采用了三方面的流离失所，迁移和有计划的迁移类型（用于关键工具和决策过程）。疏散并未成为独立的调查领域。进一步的概念和实证分析将有助于确保“视线”本身就是“疏散”，并且可以更好地根据保护需求量身定制行动对策。