R E S E A R CH A R T I C L E Urban sustainability and the subjective well-being of migrants: The role of risks, place attachment, and aspirations Lucy Szaboova1,2 | Ricardo Safra de Campos2,3 | W. Neil Adger2 | Mumuni Abu4 | Samuel Nii Ardey Codjoe4 | Maria Franco Gavonel2 | Shouvik Das5 | Tasneem Siddiqui6,7 | Mahmudol Hassan Rocky7 | Sugata Hazra5 1European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine, University of Exeter, Truro, UK 2Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK 3Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK 4Regional Institute for Population Studies, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana 5School of Oceanographic Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India 6Department of Political Science, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh 7Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh Correspondence Lucy Szaboova, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Knowledge Spa, Truro TR1 3HD, UK. Email: l.szaboova@exeter.ac.uk Funding information International Development Research Centre, Grant/Award Numbers: 107,642, 109223-002 Abstract While material conditions of migrant populations on average tend to improve over time as they become established in new destinations, individual trajectories of material and subjective well-being often diverge. Here, we analyse how social and environmental factors in the urban environment shape the subjective well-being of migrant populations. We hypothesise these factors to include (a) perceived social and environmental risk, (b) attachment to place, and (c) migrant aspirations. We analyse data from a cross-sectional survey of 2641 individual migrants in seven cities across Ghana, India, and Bangladesh. The results show that the persistence of inferior material conditions, exposure to environmental hazards, and constrained access to services and employment affect migrants' subjective well-being. Hence, social and environmental risks constitute urban precarity for migrants whose social vulnerability persist in their destination. Meeting migration-related aspirations and developing an affinity to urban destinations have the potential to mitigate negative sentiments from perceived risks. These findings have implications for future urban planning and sustainability. K E YWORD S environmental risks, migration, subjective well-being, urban sustainability 1 | INTRODUCTION The movement of people from rural settlements to urban centres represents an opportunity for transforming the lives of those involved. The economic benefits of migration to individuals and for macroeconomic development are widely observed at the national level (De Haas, 2010), and the positive financial and sociocultural impact of migration and remittances for rural areas is well established (Adger et al., 2002; Deshingkar et al., 2006; Maharjan et al., 2013). Most theoretical models of migration decision-making emphasise the role of expected gains in welfare from moving locations (Adams & Adger, 2013; Fields, 1975; Harris & Todaro, 1970; Haug, 2008; Simmons, 1985). In turn, the dominance of theories that frame mobility in terms of economic incentives naturally leads to a focus on material elements of well-being when it comes to evaluating migration outcomes. Indeed much migration research emphasises the relationship between length of residence and trajectory of income, the demographics of migration in working age adults, the role of migrant skills in economic growth, and the role of remittances in source-destination linkages (Bove & Elia, 2017; Carling, 2008; Clemens et al., 2014; De Haas, 2010). Accepted: 29 June 2021 DOI: 10.1002/psp.2505 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2021 The Authors. Population, Space and Place published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Popul Space Place. 2021;e2505. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/psp 1 of 14 https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2505 2022;28:e2505. http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1002%2Fpsp.2505&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-07-12 The focus on economic outcomes of migration, however, de-emphasizes the subjective well-being impacts of movement. When migration studies address subjective well-being, they tend to focus on the presence or absence of social networks, social and institutional forms of discrimination and formal employment, as the factors responsible for shaping subjective well-being outcomes of migrants in destination (Wang et al., 2010; Wen & Wang, 2009; Zhang, Li, Fang, & Xiong, 2009). They have often underplayed environmental risks that are core to urban sustainability and to the experience of precarious migrant lives (see Adger et al., 2020; Ayeb-Karlsson, 2021; Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2020). This study therefore seeks to expand the focus on material indicators of success, to explain how subjective well-being of migrants in destination is shaped by core aspects of social and environmental risks and insecurity, place attachment, and aspirations. These issues are explored through research with migrants in informal settlements of seven rapidly growing cities in India, Bangladesh, and Ghana. 2 | THE SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING OF MIGRANTS IN URBAN DESTINATIONS A growing body of research shows that in some settings, migrants tend to experience an improvement in subjective domains of well-being such as life satisfaction or happiness (e.g., Lundholm & Malmberg, 2006, in Nordic countries; Melzer, 2011, in Germany; Nowok et al., 2013, in the United Kingdom). Other subjective well-being studies focus on the life satisfaction and happiness of migrants in international destinations (Hendriks et al., 2018; Khawaja et al., 2016; Stillman et al., 2015; Tegegne & Glanville, 2019; Wright, 2011), the subjective well-being of international migrants' left behind families (Ivlevs et al., 2019; Sulemana et al., 2019) and of migrant returnees (Vathi & King, 2017). Findings on these international movements paint a more mixed picture: while left behind family members generally report improved subjective well-being as a result of remittances, it is also common that such families suffer from stress and experience mental ill-health due to family separation (Hendriks et al., 2018; Ivlevs et al., 2019; Sulemana et al., 2019). In the case of international migrants, subjective well-being is closely correlated with the the presence or absence of close relation- ships and degree of integration within the host society. Although higher incomes and enhanced material well-being are often associated with positive gains in subjective well-being, these are sometimes off- set by negative social experiences such as social exclusion, isolation or loneliness (Tegegne & Glanville, 2019; Wright, 2011). Despite advances in knowledge on subjective well-being implications of inter- national migration, there is limited knowledge on these dimensions for internal migrants to rapidly growing cities, often dominated by low- skilled and low-income groups. Emerging research that explores the subjective well-being of migrant populations in their urban destinations (Akay et al., 2012; Chen, 2013; Chen et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2013; de Jong et al., 2002; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010, 2012) shows divergence between trajectories of material and subjective elements of well- being, which may prevail even following long-term residence in the destination (Chen et al., 2019; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2012). This phenomenon is often termed the “miserable migrant” effect (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010; Stillman et al., 2015). The prevalence of the misera- ble migrant effect among rural to urban migrants is explained by migrants' precarious material conditions, negative social experiences, and the social costs of migration, as well as rising aspirations at desti- nation. Despite having higher incomes in cities, migrants often report lowered levels of subjective well-being (Chen et al., 2019; Mulcahy & Kollamparambil, 2016; Yu et al., 2019). This partly occurs because migrants evaluate their material circumstances not in absolute terms but relative to the status of native urban residents who become their new social reference group (Mulcahy & Kollamparambil, 2016; Yu et al., 2019). The experiential aspect of increased incomes in destinations is further moderated by migrants' expectations and the cost of living in cities, which cause dissatisfaction with the rate of material gains (Chen et al., 2019; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2008, 2010; Yu et al., 2019). Indeed, higher incomes do not necessarily translate into improved material outcomes for migrants who are concentrated in marginalised informal settlements where they lack access to decent housing and basic services such as water and sanitation (Owusu et al., 2008; Siddiqui et al., 2021). In addition to material conditions, weak social capital in destination and systemic forms of exclusion from labour markets and social protection have also been shown to result in unmet or frustrated aspirations and lowered subjective well-being for migrants (Li & Rose, 2017; Wang et al., 2010; Wen & Wang, 2009; Zhang, Li, Fang, & Xiong, 2009). Despite growing evidence that migrant populations are dispropor- tionately exposed to environmental and other risks and hazards in destination (Adger et al., 2021), little research examines the role of such social and environmental factors in shaping the subjective well- being of migrants. Where environmental factors are considered in subjective well-being studies, these are usually limited to neighbourhood amenities and cleanliness (Liu et al., 2017, in Guangzhou, China), residential living environment, housing and sense of security (Dang et al., 2019, in Beijing, China). The link between exposure to environmental risks and hazards and migrant subjective well-being has only been analysed in a handful of recent studies (Adger et al., 2020, 2021; Siddiqui et al., 2021). A further limitation of existing research on the subjective well- being of rural-to-urban migrants lies in the geographic bias of studies. With a few exceptions, the majority of this work is situated in China and is specific to the particularities of China's houkou residential regis- tration system, which defines the citizenship rights that rural–urban migrants can enjoy in cities, creates exclusionary practices, and enables a culture of discrimination (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010). Less empirical evidence and insight is available from other developing and rapidly urbanizing settings (for some exceptions, see Chen et al., 2019; de Jong et al., 2002; Mulcahy & Kollamparambil, 2016). This paper therefore focuses on the subjective well-being of internal migrants by presenting findings from survey data collected in 2 of 14 SZABOOVA ET AL. 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense seven cities across three countries in South Asia and Africa. We hypothesize that migrants' well-being is shaped by perceived social and environmental factors in destination. We explore the role of three determinants in shaping variations in the subjective well-being of migrant populations in urban destinations: (a) perceived social and environmental risk, (b) attachment to place, and (c) aspirations. 2.1 | Social and environmental risks Downside risks associated with migration include discrimination, fear of crime, and insecure housing tenure (UN-Habitat, 2007). In addition, many low-skilled migrant populations cluster in areas of cities that have high density housing, are exposed to high levels of pollution, risks to public health, or environmental hazards (Adamo, 2010; McMichael et al., 2012). These accumulated risks represent major challenges to both material circumstances and subjective elements of well-being. Migrants often perceive social and environmental risks to be intertwined: Ajibade and McBean (2014) showed how poor migrants' housing and tenure insecurity lead directly to exposure to water-related sanitation risks in Nigerian cities. These interactions are confirmed by testimonies and perceptions of poor migrants in Khulna and Dhaka in Bangladesh (Banks et al., 2011; Siddiqui et al., 2021). Social and environmental risks for migrants in urban destinations, especially in rapidly urbanising cities, have been shown to directly affect health and well-being (McMichael et al., 2012). Mortality risks among rural–urban migrant populations potentially rise due to increased incidence of chronic diseases, attributed to changes in diet, behaviour, and lack of access to public space for recreation, or preventive health services (Montgomery et al., 2003). Migrant populations cluster in areas of cities prone to flooding, high-levels of air pollution, and landslides, with significant impacts on health (Foresight, 2011). Additionally, migrants also face social risks, including various forms of discrimination within the host society (Cheng et al., 2013; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2012; Stillman et al., 2015; Zhang, Li, & Fang, 2009). Discrimination can affect well-being due to diminished access to economic opportunities and services and has been shown to impact migrants' subjective well-being (Chen, 2013). 2.2 | Attachment to place People have emotional bonds to places that embody the collection of meanings, values, and feelings associated with a locality (Adams et al., 2013; Agyeman, 2004; Tuan, 1977). Place attachment is multi- dimensional at the intersection of people (groups and individuals), social and physical places, and psychological processes of affect, cog- nition, and behaviour (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). The distribution of place attachment is most frequently explained as a function of resi- dence time (Hay, 1998; Lewicka, 2008). However, findings on place relations among mobile groups, such as tourists, second-home owners, and migrants, suggest that place attachment can also develop independently from length of residence (Gustafson, 2001; Williams & Kaltenborn, 1999) and people perceive a sense of affinity to multiple places (Di Masso et al., 2019; Gustafson, 2001). Thus, new insights recognize place attachment in relation to increased mobility, environ- mental change, growth and urbanization, and embrace the idea that place constructs are dynamic, adaptive, and evolving (Di Masso et al., 2019). However, there is limited evidence on place attachment in the context of low-income migration and mobility. Qian et al. (2011) show in Guangzhou in China that migrants' place attachment in the destina- tion is ultimately constrained by their perceived social capital and emotional investment in the origin. Njwambe et al. (2019) observed a similar behaviour among circular migrants in Cape Town in South Africa, who, in their interviews, reported that they could never develop a sense of belonging in the city. Migrants from the municipal- ity of Mnquma, located along the coastal region of the Eastern Cape, viewed Cape Town only as a place to earn a living. Research in Dhaka, Bangladesh, also revealed that rural–urban migrants maintained a strong desire and longing to return home (Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2020). Therefore, migrants' relationship to their destination might be one of place dependence, derived from the functional characteristics of place, rather than a deep emotional bond (Qian et al., 2011). Scannell and Gifford (2010) argues that such dependence on the physical characteristics, resources, and amenities associated with a place is not contrary to place attachment, but rather it is part of its three dimensions (place, person and process). They further highlight the role of amenity-based place attachment for survival and security, as well as for the attainment of goals and aspirations (Scannell & Gifford, 2010), which are pertinent considerations for low-income migrants and could potentially offset some of the risks linked to migration. Research across eight cities in China found that access to public services was positively associated with migrants' propensity to develop a sense of belonging to their new urban residences (Huang et al., 2020). 2.3 | Aspirations Aspirations, or the emotional constructs that represent what the future might or should look like (Boccagni, 2017), have been central to migration research, and migration is often viewed as an outcome of the interaction between people's aspiration to move and their ability to do so (Carling, 2002; Carling & Schewel, 2018). Migration is viewed as an alternative way of inclusion and livelihood diversification among the rural poor in developing countries, which affects their economic, educational, and personal aspirations (Azaola, 2012; Koo, 2012; Lobnibe, 2008). A diverse body of research has explored the factors that shape the formation of migration aspirations, as well as their con- version into actual migration (Aslany et al., 2021). The relationship between aspirations and migration is, however, not one directional or linear, as migration also shapes the evolution of aspirations. Research with Chinese migrants in New Zealand, for example, highlights the multitemporal nature of aspirations, which are subject to change, transformation, and disruption during and after migration (Wang & SZABOOVA ET AL. 3 of 14 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense Collins, 2020). Indeed, aspirations associated with migration for educational or professional purposes, defined as idealised visions of social mobility, have been shown to evolve over time due to changes in external circumstances as well as due to migrant's own life and work conditions (Jacobs et al., 1991; MacKenzie & Forde, 2009). Hence, aspirations mediate well-being because of the invariable reconfiguration of aspirational trajectories with time: aspirations are met, delayed, and curtailed over time following individual achieve- ments at destination. Evolving aspirations have also been linked to the persistence of low subjective well-being among migrants. Migrants' aspirations and expectations change towards their new urban futures and the relative aspects of material well-being over time (Akay et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2019; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010, 2012; Mulcahy & Kollamparambil, 2016). Although most migrants are materially better off in their destinations, reflected for instance in increased consump- tion levels (Chen et al., 2019), they perceive themselves to be rela- tively worse-off compared with their new reference point (Akay et al., 2012; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010), as they move from poorer to wealthier areas where both the standards and costs of living are higher (Banks et al., 2011; Ravallion et al., 2007). Migrants' aspirations adapt to their new context and continue to increase at a faster rate than their incomes (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010, 2012). 3 | METHODS AND CONTEXT 3.1 | Geographic context and sample characteristics The study examines the subjective well-being of migrants in seven rapidly growing cities in South Asia and West Africa with high proportions of low-skilled migrants in informal urban settlements. The seven cities in Ghana, India, and Bangladesh (Figure 1) were selected as examples of large-scale movement of predominantly low-skilled rural populations to urban centres experiencing fast growth. The direction of these migration flows continue to be towards capital cities, but in recent decades, migrants have also settled in peri-urban areas due to low-cost housing and increasing demand for labour in large urban centres such as Dhaka, Accra, and Kolkata (Awumbila et al., 2014; Hossain, 2013; Safra de Campos et al., 2020). F IGURE 1 Map of study sites 4 of 14 SZABOOVA ET AL. 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense A large share of migrants to these cities originate from rural and coastal areas subject to multiple change processes (e.g., demographic, economic, and climatic) and are characterised by high levels of social vulnerability, manifest in low socio-economic status, and low education and skill levels (Das et al., 2021). Informal urban settlements are important places of destination for low-skilled rural migrants who hope to find new opportunities. At the same time, these settlements also present an array of social and environmental risks and hazards for migrant populations as well as represent a challenge for urban governance and sustainability. Therefore, conducting the study with migrants in informal settlements was considered appropriate for exploring how social and environmental risks shape migrants' subjective well-being outcomes in city destinations. Table 1 provides an overview of population and migration trends for each of the seven cities and highlights the concentration of migrant populations in informal settlements. A new dataset based on 2641 respondents of a cross-sectional survey of migrants of different lengths of residence in these cities was generated specifically for this study and includes information on aspects of material and subjective well-being, perceived risks, place attachment, and aspirations at destination. The questionnaire was designed to minimise issues associated with response bias. The order of the questions and response options may influence the likelihood of respondents to select certain sets of answers. To counter this, questions on subjective well-being were not directly associated with perceptions of risk, place attachment, and aspirations. These were placed in a separate section of the survey instrument. TABLE 1 Sample size and overview of seven cities as sites for data collection on lifetime migrant populations Locality Sample size Description Accra, Ghana 780 Population of four million, constituting 16% of the population of Ghana and the primary destination of the majority of migrants. Forty percent of the population of the city live in high density informal settlements (Rain et al., 2011). Dhaka, Bangladesh 448 Population of nine million with over 18 million people in the metropolitan area, with high proportion in informal settlements. Dhaka is the most attractive location for all types of migrants: 53% of slum residents had migrated from the rural hinterlands and smaller urban districts (Afsar, 2003). Chattogram, Bangladesh 447 Migration into Chittagong has increased rapidly over the period 1975–2005. Projections estimate it to continue this upward trajectory until 2025. With higher numbers of in-migration over out-migration the population of the city is expected to continue to grow (Mia et al., 2015). Great Kolkata, West Bengal, India Sonarpur 249 Kolkata has a population of >14 million people, making the city the third-most populous metropolitan area and the most densely populated area in India (KMDA, 2011). Kolkata has long been a sought-after destination for migrants especially engaged in rural to urban moves in Eastern India (Mukherji, 2013). It is an important economic centre is due to the concentration of industrial complexes, financial services and commercial activities (Banerjee, 2014; Kundu, 2003). Improvement of existing transport network linking peri-urban localities and changes in land use have pushed existing and new populations to expanding margins of the city (Bagchi, 2015). Dum Dum 245 Bhubaneswar, India 254 Population of >1 million, Bhubaneswar, the capital city of the state of Odisha lies within Khordha district, features the highest degree of urbanization in Odisha (Director of Census Operations, 2011). Registered the highest population growth rate in India during 1961–1971 with increasing urban sprawl (Pathy & Panda, 2012). Located in coastal region of the district of Khorda, Puri, combined with Cuttack, form the peri-urban areas of Bhubaneswar that are the destination of 84% of the intra-state migration in the region (Sharma et al., 2014). Puri, India 218 Total sample size 2641 SZABOOVA ET AL. 5 of 14 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense Sampling strategy consisted of a two-stage approach that involved on-site listing to identify the presence of migrant populations and purposive sampling. While systematic random techniques are pre- ferred to nonprobability methods in terms of obtaining a representa- tive sample, our approach was used to ensure all of our respondents were self-identified male and female migrants who were classified by different lengths of time residing at destination across all seven study locations. The sample includes recent and longer established migrants who have formed new households in their destinations. Nearly half (46%) of the sampled participants were female. Achieving a balanced gender composition within the sample was important due to the potential differences in lived experiences of migration between men and women, especially in the context of conservative societies such as Bangladesh. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the College of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Exeter. The survey was implemented with the help of project partners in each of the three countries: Jadavpur University in India, Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit at Dhaka University in Bangladesh, and the Regional Institute for Population Studies at the University of Ghana in Ghana. Partners in each country have an established track record of working in urban informal settlements with marginalised groups, including migrants. Their existing networks and connections in these settings were instrumental for recruiting partici- pants and ensured the successful execution of data collection. Field enumerators conducted the onsite listing and administered the survey between May and August 2017. All respondents gave informed con- sent to participate in the voluntary survey. 3.2 | Statistical analysis of migrants' subjective well-being in urban destinations The aim of the analysis is to examine the determinants of subjective well-being, focusing on perceived risks, place attachment, and aspirations at destination. The dependent variable is an evaluative measure of subjective well-being that is captured by a 5-point Likert scale question “How happy are you with life generally in your current location?”, adapted from the Annual Population Survey of the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS, 2012). This approach of questioning builds on Veenhoven (1991), who uses happiness and life satisfaction interchangeably and defines it as people's evaluation regarding how well they like the life they lead. The explanatory variables of interest are perceived risk, place attachment, and aspirations in destination. Perceived risks is captured by a list of fourteen items, from which the respondent had to choose and rank those considered as “serious problems.” Over 87% of the sample reported five or less items from the list; therefore, we chose this as the cut off for our analysis and only used the top five risks reported for each respondent. Place attachment is measured as a scale constructed from seven items capturing the respondent's degree of fondness for their current locality, which were first standardised to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of one and were then averaged. Aspirations at destination are measured as an indicator variable that denotes whether the respondent's main aspiration prior to migration was met. Other covariates include subjective well-being at place of origin, gender, age, age squared, religion, marital status, education attainment, type of employment, length of residence, wealth index, wealth index squared, and binary variables for each delta. The subjective well-being in origin variable was reported retrospectively, which may raise the issue of recall bias (Prince, 2012) if respondents are systematically more or less likely to retrieve their level of life satisfaction at origin. To counter this, the questionnaire design sought to minimize recall bias in responses from participants by focusing on memorable events without the need to provide exact dates or magnitudes (Clarke et al., 2008). Building on Arias and De Vos (1996), who highlight the limitations of using income alone to ascertain the material condition of participants, the wealth index was constructed by averaging two subindices: the housing quality index (type of dwelling, roof material, ownership status) and the access to services index (tap water, electricity, gas, sewage, garbage collection, and toilet). The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to test for collinearity of the regressors, and we obtained a value less than 10 for each covariate, which signals that this is not an issue in our specification. The length of residence variable was constructed as follows: new migrants (residing in the city for less than a year), short-term migrants (resident for 1–3 years), medium-term migrant (resident for 3–10 years), and long-term migrant (resident for over 10 years). Given the ordinal nature of the dependent variable, first we tested for the parallel regression assumption, namely, that the coeffi- cient of each covariate is the same for each value of the dependent variable. Following Williams (2016), we tested this assumption using the Brant test and the likelihood ratio chi-square test and both rejected the null hypothesis of equal coefficients. Therefore, we used a generalised ordered logit (GOLogit) to estimate a partial proportional odds model, where we allowed for a subset of regressors to violate the parallel lines assumption, following Williams (2006). GOLogit is our preferred specification because it is less restrictive than ordered logit and more parsimonious than multinomial logit. We also esti- mated the latter for robustness, and our results did not change dra- matically. The results are reported as marginal effects, namely, average partial effects, which denote the change in the probability of the outcome taking a given value as a response to a unit change in a covariate. Due to the cross-sectional nature of our analysis, our findings provide insights into migrants' subjective well-being outcomes at one point in time. They do not allow us to track or draw conclusions about the evolution of migrants' subjective well-being over time. Neverthe- less, we observe important differences across individuals at a given point in time, and from that, we can infer the role of social and envi- ronmental factors in shaping migrants' lived experiences of urban des- tinations. For example, we observe variations based on different characteristics as they pertain to individuals in the study (e.g., length of residence, achieved aspirations, and perceived risks). 6 of 14 SZABOOVA ET AL. 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense 4 | RESULTS Our analysis finds no evidence of a postmigration slump in subjective well-being and reveals that the average subjective well-being of migrants at destination (4.05) is higher than the average at origin (3.32), indicating an improvement in life satisfaction among migrants in our sample (see Table 2). This is true for all study locations, though some variation is present, with increase in subjective well-being being TABLE 2 Summary statistics Pooled Bangladesh Ghana India_IBD India_Mahanadi Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD SWB at destination 4.05 0.95 3.50 0.94 4.28 0.96 4.15 0.62 4.59 0.72 SWB at origin 3.32 1.31 3.23 1.26 3.82 1.19 2.68 1.24 3.33 1.31 Female 0.46 0.50 0.31 0.46 0.59 0.49 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.50 Male 0.54 0.50 0.69 0.46 0.41 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.50 Age 38.33 13.50 35.36 11.91 40.62 15.08 39.25 13.52 39.22 12.56 Muslim 0.33 0.47 0.94 0.24 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.16 Not Muslim 0.67 0.47 0.06 0.24 0.99 0.10 0.99 0.08 0.97 0.16 Never married 0.14 0.34 0.08 0.28 0.25 0.43 0.10 0.30 0.08 0.28 Married 0.77 0.42 0.84 0.37 0.60 0.49 0.84 0.37 0.87 0.34 Other than married 0.09 0.29 0.08 0.27 0.16 0.36 0.06 0.23 0.05 0.21 No education 0.20 0.40 0.29 0.46 0.12 0.32 0.26 0.44 0.11 0.31 Primary education 0.31 0.46 0.44 0.50 0.16 0.37 0.24 0.42 0.35 0.48 Secondary education 0.40 0.49 0.23 0.42 0.63 0.48 0.35 0.48 0.38 0.49 Tertiary education 0.09 0.29 0.03 0.17 0.08 0.27 0.15 0.36 0.16 0.37 Unemployed/Inactive 0.20 0.40 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.37 0.32 0.47 0.44 0.50 Temporary employment 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.35 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.32 0.06 0.24 Permanent employment 0.69 0.46 0.83 0.37 0.73 0.45 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.50 New migrant 0.09 0.29 0.19 0.39 0.06 0.23 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.21 Short-term migrant 0.12 0.33 0.24 0.43 0.08 0.27 0.05 0.22 0.05 0.22 Medium-term migrant 0.27 0.44 0.35 0.48 0.28 0.45 0.23 0.42 0.13 0.34 Long-term migrant 0.52 0.50 0.22 0.42 0.59 0.49 0.69 0.46 0.77 0.42 Wealth Index 0.72 0.18 0.71 0.18 0.61 0.15 0.79 0.13 0.88 0.13 Place attachment 3.82 0.71 3.35 0.63 3.80 0.60 4.27 0.66 4.29 0.42 Aspirations met 0.46 0.50 0.28 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.60 0.49 0.64 0.48 Food insecurity 0.41 0.49 0.54 0.50 0.14 0.35 0.66 0.48 0.33 0.47 Sanitation 0.47 0.50 0.36 0.48 0.61 0.49 0.37 0.48 0.59 0.49 Diseases 0.22 0.42 0.31 0.46 0.16 0.36 0.28 0.45 0.12 0.33 Crime 0.34 0.47 0.18 0.39 0.64 0.48 0.28 0.45 0.23 0.42 Hazards 0.17 0.37 0.28 0.45 0.04 0.21 0.04 0.21 0.28 0.45 Pollution 0.38 0.48 0.44 0.50 0.34 0.47 0.55 0.50 0.12 0.33 Poverty 0.22 0.41 0.29 0.46 0.25 0.43 0.07 0.26 0.16 0.37 Population density 0.25 0.43 0.29 0.45 0.27 0.44 0.30 0.46 0.08 0.27 Jobs competition 0.15 0.36 0.16 0.36 0.11 0.32 0.27 0.44 0.08 0.27 Social services 0.09 0.28 0.16 0.37 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.24 0.08 0.28 Credit 0.04 0.20 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.22 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.28 Welfare 0.20 0.40 0.27 0.44 0.02 0.15 0.27 0.45 0.27 0.44 Housing 0.35 0.48 0.53 0.50 0.25 0.43 0.22 0.42 0.32 0.47 Transportation 0.10 0.30 0.22 0.42 0.01 0.07 0.13 0.34 0.00 0.05 Work opportunities 0.13 0.34 0.12 0.32 0.19 0.39 0.08 0.27 0.12 0.33 N 2641 895 780 493 473 Note: Reference categories in bold. SZABOOVA ET AL. 7 of 14 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense lowest among Bangladeshi migrants and highest among respondents in the Indian settings. Contrary to expectations based on earlier stud- ies, we find no evidence of an effect of length of residence on subjec- tive well-being in our sample (see Table 3). This indicates that longer residence in cities may not inevitably result in a sustained upward trajectory in migrants' subjective well-being. We find that perceived risks, place attachment, and aspirations shape the subjective well- being outcomes of migrant populations. In order to ascertain which risks are most salient for respondents, we also generated a ranked order of self-reported social, economic, TABLE 3 Results Generalised ordered logit (1) Very_unhappy (2) Moderately_unhappy (3) Neither_unhappy_or_happy (4) Moderately_happy (5) Very_happy SWB at origin 0.009** (0.003) 0.041*** (0.005) 0.023*** (0.005) �0.071*** (0.007) �0.002 (0.006) Male �0.005** (0.002) �0.017** (0.005) �0.015** (0.005) �0.013** (0.004) 0.050** (0.015) Age 0.000 (0.000) 0.000 (0.000) 0.001* (0.000) �0.000 (0.001) �0.001 (0.001) Muslim �0.002 (0.004) �0.005 (0.014) �0.005 (0.012) �0.004 (0.011) 0.016 (0.040) Married 0.004 (0.002) 0.014 (0.008) 0.012 (0.007) 0.011 (0.006) �0.041 (0.023) Other than married 0.007* (0.003) 0.023* (0.011) 0.020* (0.009) 0.018* (0.009) �0.067* (0.032) Primary education 0.000 (0.002) 0.001 (0.006) 0.001 (0.005) 0.001 (0.005) �0.004 (0.018) Secondary education �0.002 (0.002) �0.008 (0.007) �0.006 (0.006) �0.006 (0.005) 0.022 (0.019) Tertiary education �0.003 (0.003) �0.012 (0.011) �0.010 (0.009) �0.009 (0.008) 0.034 (0.031) Temporary employment �0.012 (0.010) 0.014 (0.021) 0.017 (0.023) 0.011 (0.033) �0.031 (0.032) Permanent employment �0.009 (0.007) 0.005 (0.015) �0.004 (0.016) 0.005 (0.023) 0.003 (0.021) Short-term migrant 0.004 (0.003) 0.014 (0.009) 0.012 (0.008) 0.011 (0.007) �0.042 (0.028) Medium-term migrant 0.001 (0.003) 0.004 (0.009) 0.004 (0.007) 0.003 (0.007) �0.013 (0.025) Long-term migrant �0.001 (0.003) �0.003 (0.009) �0.002 (0.008) �0.002 (0.007) 0.007 (0.027) Wealth Index 0.002 (0.022) 0.067* (0.033) 0.007 (0.037) 0.002 (0.061) �0.079 (0.055) S. Place Attachment Scale �0.014*** (0.004) �0.055*** (0.009) �0.029** (0.009) �0.102*** (0.017) 0.201*** (0.015) Aspirations met �0.004* (0.001) �0.013** (0.005) �0.011** (0.004) �0.010** (0.004) 0.037** (0.013) Food insecurity 0.002 (0.002) 0.006 (0.005) 0.005 (0.004) 0.005 (0.004) �0.018 (0.015) Sanitation �0.000 (0.001) �0.001 (0.005) �0.001 (0.004) �0.001 (0.004) 0.004 (0.014) Diseases 0.001 (0.002) 0.003 (0.006) 0.002 (0.005) 0.002 (0.004) �0.008 (0.016) Crime 0.002 (0.002) 0.008 (0.005) 0.007 (0.004) 0.006 (0.004) �0.024 (0.015) Hazards 0.015 (0.008) 0.040** (0.012) �0.030* (0.013) �0.019 (0.026) �0.006 (0.024) Pollution 0.003 (0.002) 0.009 (0.005) 0.008 (0.004) 0.007 (0.004) �0.027 (0.015) Poverty 0.003 (0.005) 0.012 (0.010) �0.007 (0.011) �0.050* (0.021) 0.041* (0.020) Population density �0.003 (0.002) �0.010 (0.005) �0.008 (0.005) �0.007 (0.004) 0.028 (0.016) Jobs competition 0.004 (0.002) 0.012 (0.007) 0.010 (0.006) 0.009 (0.005) �0.036 (0.021) Social services 0.002 (0.002) 0.005 (0.008) 0.005 (0.007) 0.004 (0.006) �0.016 (0.024) Welfare �0.003 (0.002) �0.010 (0.006) �0.008 (0.005) �0.008 (0.005) 0.028 (0.018) Housing 0.004* (0.002) 0.014** (0.005) 0.012** (0.004) 0.011** (0.004) �0.040** (0.015) Transportation �0.006* (0.002) �0.021** (0.008) �0.018** (0.007) �0.016* (0.006) 0.061** (0.023) Work opportunities 0.007 (0.007) �0.006 (0.013) 0.045** (0.014) �0.059* (0.024) 0.013 (0.024) Ghana �0.007 (0.010) �0.069*** (0.019) �0.161*** (0.019) �0.181*** (0.026) 0.417*** (0.047) India_IBD �0.025*** (0.006) �0.084*** (0.017) �0.072*** (0.014) �0.065*** (0.014) 0.246*** (0.045) India_Mahanadi �0.022* (0.011) �0.141*** (0.027) �0.177*** (0.025) �0.210*** (0.032) 0.549*** (0.045) N 46 204 258 1,208 925 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001. 8 of 14 SZABOOVA ET AL. 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense and environmental risks (see Figure 2). This exercise revealed that the highest ranked perceived sources of insecurity are largely environ- mental in nature, or at least involve dimensions that are sensitive to environmental processes. More than one third of the sample con- siders access to sanitation or food insecurity their most serious prob- lem. Such insecurities are generally an outcome of the settlement of new migrant populations in impoverished urban slums without ade- quate supply of basic services. Further salient risks are linked to mate- rial aspects of well-being such as employment, income, poverty, and housing conditions. Our results suggest that those risks that received a lower ranking—that is, were judged less pressing—are more likely to be associated with the likelihood of being very happy. For example, migrants who report that transportation is one of the five most seri- ous problems to them as individuals are 6.1 percentage points more likely to be very happy at destination, whereas those that report hous- ing as a serious issue are 4 percentage points less likely to be very happy. However, we can assert with more confidence that migrants that reported environmental hazards as serious threats are 4 percent- age points more likely to be moderately unhappy than those that did not. This indicates that exposure to environmental risks at destination shapes subjective well-being through direct and indirect pathways, as it interacts with and can exacerbate other perceived risk factors among migrants. The findings highlight the relative importance of the feeling of belonging compared with individual struggles for explaining migrants' subjective well-being at their place of destination. Although this find- ing resonates with existing evidence on mobile populations' attach- ment to multiple places and destination areas, including to migration destinations, we are not able to determine what drives this affinity, whether the functional characteristics of urban centres, their role for survival and goal fulfilment, or other factors. On average, an increase of one standard deviation in the place attachment scale is associated with 20 percentage points higher probability of reporting being very happy at destination. However, this effect is not symmetric across the distribution of subjective well-being: a similar change in place attachment is associated with only 1.4 percentage points lower likelihood of being very unhappy. We do find that respondents from the Indian regions report higher values on the nonstandardised place attachment scale, which could in part explain why migrants from this subsample experience greater increase in subjective well-being following their migration compared with those from Ghana and Bangladesh. Having achieved some aspirations is also positively associated with migrants' subjective well-being in the sampled populations, and the share of migrants who have met their main aspirations at destina- tion is higher in the Indian regions. Across all study locations, a migrant who met their main aspirations at destination is 3.7 percent- age points more likely to report being very happy than those who did not, and this effect is more than nine times greater than its counter- part at the other end of the subjective well-being scale. However, we should exercise caution when drawing conclusions from these values since only 2% of respondents declared being very unhappy at destina- tion. This result, nevertheless, suggests that migrants who meet their aspirations are likely to be happier, although the size of the effect is relatively small if we compare it with the perceived risk variables. This indicates that exposure to multiple co-occurring risks and hazards in destination can outweigh positive experiences, such as the achieve- ment of aspirations, in terms of their importance for shaping the sub- jective well-being of migrants. 5 | DISCUSSION This study builds on the insight that the movement of people from rural areas to urban centres represents an opportunity for trans- forming the lives of those involved. While the economic benefits of F IGURE 2 Ranked perceived risks SZABOOVA ET AL. 9 of 14 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense migration have been acknowledged, less is known about the impact of social and environmental risks and hazards in cities, and in particu- lar the interaction between them, on the subjective well-being of migrants. Yet, these can have important implications for the lived experiences of migration and for the sustainability of cities (see, e.g., Adger et al., 2020; Ayeb-Karlsson, 2021; Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2020). The results from our study show that, on the one hand, perceived insecurities and risks are negatively correlated with mea- sures of subjective well-being. On the other hand, developing an affin- ity to new urban residences and fulfilling some aspirations increases the probability of reporting higher subjective well-being. Indeed, unmet or frustrated aspirations have been found to negatively impact the subjective well-being of migrants in cities (Chen et al., 2019; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2008, 2010). However, in our sample, well-being gains from achieved aspirations might be outweighed by the direct and indirect negative impacts of environmental risks and hazards. This could be explained by the detrimental consequences of exposure to hazardous working and living conditions for different domains of migrants' subjective well-being. For example, pollution and inadequate sanitation in densely populated areas have been found to impact migrants' health and well-being (Adamo, 2010; McMichael et al., 2012). Furthermore, precarious livelihoods and work-related stress factors have been linked to poor psychological well-being out- comes among rural–urban migrants (Lu, 2010; Siddiqui et al., 2021). The observed patterns in the subjective experiences of migrants are upheld when cultural and contextual differences across the three countries are taken into account, although there is some variation in experiences. For example, Indian migrants in our sample were more likely to report higher subjective well-being and stronger place attach- ment in destination cities. Importantly, our findings do not appear to support the so called “miserable migrant” phenomenon, as we do not observe a slump in subjective well-being in city destinations. Existing research with urban migrants in Asia and Africa can offer some insight into why might migrants experience an increase in subjective well-being, despite unfavourable conditions. Although rural to urban migrants rarely achieve upward social mobility, even following long-term or multigenerational residence in cities (Krishna, 2013; Rains & Krishna, 2020), the positive aspects of urban slums as places of hope are increasingly emphasised alongside their usual negative framing, as places of despair. These places can provide a safe environment for migrants to make the transition from rural to urban living, to establish livelihoods, and support their families in rural villages (Liu et al., 2015; Owusu et al., 2008). Others have stressed that migrants are not pas- sive receivers of hardship in these spaces but agentic actors who take proactive steps towards furthering their goals and aspirations (Liu et al., 2015; Siddiqui et al., forthcoming). Indeed, our findings indicate that those who have been able to meet their main aspiration are more likely to experience improved subjective well-being. In the context of India and Bangladesh, migrants and other slum dwellers have been shown to influence local policy actors who rely on this demographic during processions, demonstrations, and elections (Auerbach, 2016; Siddiqui et al., forthcoming). Such systems of political clientelism have in places resulted in the provision of improved services and facilities that make informal settlements more liveable. Nevertheless, our findings emphasize the role of perceived risks in shaping migrants' subjective well-being in cities, suggesting that lived experiences of urban migration destinations are complex and any positive gains in subjective well-being are mediated by social and environmental factors. For example, we find that longer residence in cities may not translate into sustained gains in the subjective well- being of migrants. This could be in part due to limited upward social mobility, which means that migrants rarely move out of informal set- tlements and continue to experience social and environmental risks such as insecurity of tenure and risk of eviction or indeed exposure to environmental hazards such as water logging or landslides (Rains & Krishna, 2020; Siddiqui et al., 2021). Our results thus echo experi- ences from earlier studies that revealed that migrant populations experience multiple dimensions of insecurity in cities (Ajibade & McBean, 2014; Ajibade et al., 2013; Owusu et al., 2008; Siddiqui et al., 2021). The sources of insecurity are familiar to all precarious populations: food insecurity, access to clean environments, and a col- lection of processes of social exclusion. Yet they are, we suggest, amplified for migrant populations in places where they have less place attachment, limited citizenship rights, and cluster in densely populated informal settlements (Banks et al., 2011; Chu & Michael, 2019; Siddiqui et al., 2021). In effect, the study here points to a new urban precarity in that urban migration involves substituting one set of risks and vulnerabilities for a different set in the destination, which also include social factors (Siddiqui et al., 2021). Therefore, this study has implications for urban planning and city governance for sustainability. What do these results suggest for the sustainability of urban des- tinations? The lived experience and well-being of new migrant populations is central to urban sustainability. Indeed Sustainable Development Goals for urban areas have been formulated around such elements that contribute to a dignified and meaningful life (Klopp & Petretta, 2017; Sampson, 2017; Seto et al., 2017). It is already well established that social inequality is highly unevenly dis- tributed within cities, both at the neighbourhood level and in subpop- ulations (Sampson, 2017). Ajibade and McBean (2014), for example, based on their observational studies in Lagos, argue that the key mechanism for continued insecurity is access to housing and further that gender intersects with neighbourhood factors to amplify vulnera- bility to insecurity and negative outcomes for health (Ajibade et al., 2013; Reckien et al., 2017). These risk factors are likely to be amplified for new migrant populations, including women, men, and multiperson households and are demonstrated in this study by the reported sources of perceived insecurity, including housing and access to health. The sample of cities in Ghana, India, and Bangladesh includes women in all these settings. In Bangladesh, there is a signifi- cant increase in single women migrating to the main cities as formal sector opportunities expand, for example, in the garment industry (Siddiqui et al., 2018). Our findings point to long-term implications of environmental risks and insecurity for perceived well-being. Hence, a key policy question to be drawn from this study is how such risks can be tackled 10 of 14 SZABOOVA ET AL. 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense directly and whether they can be offset by gathering new networks and becoming attached to place in new settings. If social dimensions are to be taken as core to safe and resilient cities, then planning needs to move beyond measuring access to economic opportunities to rec- ognise multiple dimensions of well-being and reduce insecurity by focussing on housing and access to clean environments as well as recognising the importance of place attachment and the role of migrant aspirations. 6 | CONCLUSION Migration and urban sustainability are inextricably linked, because urban population growth is in part driven by the arrival of new populations, and the situation of migrants is often far from sustain- able. The well-being of new populations is often precarious in rapidly growing cities globally. We have examined the role of social, environ- mental, and economic factors in shaping the subjective well-being of migrants in rapidly growing urban destination areas. We find evidence of new forms of urban precarity, which include perceived social and environmental risks to migrants' well-being in destination. These are manifest in experiences of discrimination by the host society, insecu- rity relating to food, water, sanitation, and exposure to environmental hazards in new places of residence. However, the findings also indi- cate that meeting migration-related goals and aspirations and devel- oping an affinity to urban destinations might mitigate negative sentiments from perceived and experienced risks and hazards and could contribute to a positive perception about life in the city among lifetime migrants. This could potentially explain the underlying finding that migrants experience life after migration positively, compared with life in origin, despite the multiple challenging circumstances in cities. These findings have, therefore, important implications for future urban planning and city governance for sustainability. Sustainable Development Goal 11 on cities articulates an ambitious plan, which aspires to make cities and communities safe, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable by 2030. The study here suggests that dealing with envi- ronmental risks often faced by recently arrived populations is key to delivering on ambitious sustainability targets. The results highlight the need for moving beyond material concerns of economic performance in urban policy and planning discourses, to also recognize subjective and relational dimensions of well-being and their interaction with social and environmental determinants. The interaction between mate- rial, subjective, and relational dimensions of well-being and social and environmental conditions in cities presents both challenges and oppor- tunities to the lived experience of migration and to urban precarity. However, recognizing and integrating these into policy discourses and actions could improve outcomes for migrants and enhance the liveabil- ity and sustainability of rapidly growing urban areas. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding is acknowledged from the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia through the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada (IDRC grant 107,642). Further funding is acknowledged from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa (grant 109223-002). The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of FCDO and IDRC or its Boards of Governors. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The dataset for the analysis presented in the paper can be publicly and freely accessed through the Mendeley Data repository at DOI TBC https://doi.org.10.17632/pr9d2cj2g8.2. ORCID Lucy Szaboova https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5259-7254 Ricardo Safra de Campos https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2345-7524 W. Neil Adger https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4244-2854 Mumuni Abu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6455-0162 Samuel Nii Ardey Codjoe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6567-0262 Maria Franco Gavonel https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2377-5987 Shouvik Das https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3872-6662 REFERENCES Adamo, S. B. (2010). Environmental migration and cities in the context of global environmental change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustain- ability, 2(3), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.06.005 Adams, H., Adger, N. W., Huq, H., Rahman, R., & Salehin, M. (2013). Trans- formations in land use in the southwest coastal zone of Bangladesh: Resilience and reversibility under environmental change. In Trenasformations in a changing climate (pp. 160–168). Oslo, Norway: Univeristy of Oslo. Adams, H., & Adger, W. N. (2013). The contribution of ecosystem services to place utility as a determinant of migration decision-making. Environ- mental Research Letters, 8(1), 015006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/8/1/015006 Adger, W. N., Kelly, P. M., Winkels, A., Huy, L. Q., & Locke, C. (2002). Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories, and social resilience. Ambio, 31(4), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-31.4.358 Adger, W. N., Safra de Campos, R., Siddiqui, T., Franco Gavonel, M., Szaboova, L., Rocky, M. H., Bhuiyan, M. R., & Billah, T. (2021). Human security of urban migrant populations affected by length of residence and environmental hazards. Journal of Peace Research, 58, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320973717 Adger, W. N., Safra de Campos, R., Siddiqui, T., & Szaboova, L. (2020). Commentary: Inequality, precarity and sustainable ecosystems as ele- ments of urban resilience. Urban Studies, 57(7), 1588–1595. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0042098020904594 Afsar, R. (2003). Internal migration and the development nexus: The case of Bangladesh. In Regional Conference on Migration, Development and Pro-Poor Policy Choices in Asia (pp. 22–24). Agyeman, J. (2004). Just Sustainability: The emerging discourse of environ- mental justice in Britain. The Geographical Journal, 170(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00117.x Ajibade, I., & McBean, G. (2014). Climate extremes and housing rights: A political ecology of impacts, early warning and adaptation constraints in Lagos slum communities. Geoforum, 55, 76–86. https://ac.els-cdn. com/S0016718514001298/1-s2.0-S0016718514001298-main.pdf? _tid=e1615370-b8f7-11e7-b230-00000aacb361&acdnat=1508876 224_ded6bdf12de2caefd877df53b9bba281, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.geoforum.2014.05.005 Ajibade, I., McBean, G., & Bezner-Kerr, R. (2013). Urban flooding in Lagos, Nigeria: Patterns of vulnerability and resilience among women. Global SZABOOVA ET AL. 11 of 14 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense Environmental Change, 23(6), 1714–1725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2013.08.009 Akay, A., Bargain, O., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2012). Relative concerns of rural-to-urban migrants in China. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81(2), 421–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011. 12.006 Arias, E., & De Vos, S. (1996). Using housing items to indicate socioeco- nomic status: Latin America. Social Indicators Research, 38(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00293786 Aslany, M., Carling, J., Mjelva, M. B., & Sommerfelt, T. (2021). Systematic review of determinants of migration aspirations. Southampton: University of Southampton. Auerbach, A. M. (2016). The political economy of party network organiza- tion and development in India's urban slums. World Politics, 68(1), 111–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887115000313 Awumbila, M., Owusu, G., & Teye, J. K. (2014). Can rural-urban migration into slums reduce poverty? Evidence from Ghana (Migrating Out of Poverty Working Paper No. 13). Migrating Out of Poverty, Universioty of Sussex, Brighton. http://migratingoutofpoverty.org Ayeb-Karlsson, S. (2021). “When we were children we had dreams, then we came to Dhaka to survive”: Urban stories connecting loss of wellbeing, displacement and (im)mobility. Climate and Development, 13, 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1777078 Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Kniveton, D., & Cannon, T. (2020). Trapped in the prison of the mind: Notions of climate-induced (im)mobility decision-making and wellbeing from an urban informal settlement in Bangladesh. Palgrave Communications, 6(62), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s41599-020-0443-2 Azaola, M. C. (2012). Becoming a migrant: Aspirations of youths during their transition to adulthood in rural Mexico. Journal of Youth Studies, 15(7), 875–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.677813 Bagchi, D. (2015). Migration, street dwelling and city space: A study of women waste pickers in Calcutta. In K. M. Sengupta, I. K. Mitra, & D. Bagchi (Eds.), Cities, rural migrants and the urban poor: Migration and the urban question in Kolkata (pp. 32–46). Kolkata: Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group. Banerjee, A. (2014). Migration in the slums of Kolkata: A gendered perspective. Urban India, 34(1), 134–156. Banks, N., Roy, M., & Hulme, D. (2011). Neglecting the urban poor in Bangladesh: Research, policy and action in the context of climate change. Environment and Urbanization, 23(2), 487–502. https://doi. org/10.1177/0956247811417794 Boccagni, P. (2017). Aspirations and the subjective future of migration: Comparing views and desires of the “time ahead” through the narra- tives of immigrant domestic workers. Comparative Migration Studies, 5(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-016-0047-6 Bove, V., & Elia, L. (2017). Migration, diversity, and economic growth. World Development, 89, 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev. 2016.08.012 Carling, J. (2002). Migration in the age of involuntary immobility: Theoretical reflections and Cape Verdean experiences. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(1), 5–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183012010391 Carling, J. (2008). The determinants of migrant remittances. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(3), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/ grn022 Carling, J., & Schewel, K. (2018). Revisiting aspiration and ability in international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(6), 945–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384146 Chen, J. (2013). Perceived discrimination and subjective well-being among rural-to-urban migrants in China. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 40(1), 131–156. Chen, J., Kosec, K., & Mueller, V. (2019). Moving to despair? Migration and well-being in Pakistan. World Development, 113, 186–203. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.007 Cheng, Z., Wang, H., & Smyth, R. (2013). Happiness and job satisfaction in urban China: A comparative study of two generations of migrants and urban locals. Urban Studies, 51(10), 2160–2184. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0042098013506042 Chu, E., & Michael, K. (2019). Recognition in urban climate justice: Margin- ality and exclusion of migrants in Indian cities. Environment and Urbani- zation, 31(1), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818814449 Clarke, P. M., Fiebig, D. G., & Gerdtham, U. G. (2008). Optimal recall length in survey design. Journal of Health Economics, 27(5), 1275–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.05.012 Clemens, M. A., Ozden, C., & Rapoport, H. (2014). Migration and develop- ment research is moving far beyond remittances. World Development, 64, 121–124. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2458132 Dang, Y., Dong, G., Chen, Y., Jones, K., & Zhang, W. (2019). Residential environment and subjective well-being in Beijing: A fine-grained spa- tial scale analysis using a bivariate response binomial multilevel model. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(4), 648–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317723012 Das, S., Hazra, S., Haque, A., Rahman, M., Nicholls, R. J., Ghosh, A., Ghosh, T., Salehin, M., & Safra de Campos, R. (2021). Social vulnerabil- ity to environmental hazards in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta, India and Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 53(November 2020), 101983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijdrr.2020.101983 De Haas, H. (2010). Migration and development: A theoretical perspective. International Migration Review, 44(1), 227–264. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00804.x de Jong, G. F., Chamratrithirong, A., & Tran, Q.-G. (2002). For better, for worse: Life satisfaction consequences of migration. The International Migration Review, 36(3), 838–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747- 7379.2002.tb00106.x Deshingkar, P., Kumar, S., Chobey, H., & Kumar, D. (2006). The role of migration and remittances in promoting livelihoods in Bihar. London. Retrieved from http://www.brlp.in/admin/Files/A Study on Bihar Migration (Full Report).pdf Di Masso, A., Williams, D. R., Lewicka, M., Buchecker, M., Raymond, C. M., Shahrad, A., Stedman, R., Verbrugge, L., & von Wirth, T. (2019). Between fixities and flows: Navigating place attachments in an increasingly mobile world. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.006 Director of Census Operations. (2011). Census of India. District Census Handbook, Khordha (Series-22, Part-A). Odisha. Fields, G. S. (1975). Rural-urban migration, urban unemployment and underemployment, and job-search activity in LDCs. Journal of Development Economics, 2, 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304- 3878(75)90014-0 Foresight. (2011). Foresight: Migration and Global Environmental Change (2011) Final Project Report. London: The Government Office for Science. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/287717/11-1116-migration-and-global- environmental-change.pdf Gustafson, P. (2001). Roots and routes: Exploring the relationship between place attachment and mobility. Environment and Behaviour, 33(5), 667– 686. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973188 Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and developmnent: A two-sector analysis. The American Economic Review, 60(1), 126–142. Haug, S. (2008). Migration networks and migration decision-making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(4), 585–605. https://doi. org/10.1080/13691830801961605 Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp. 1997.0060 Hendriks, M., Burger, M. J., Ray, J., & Esipova, N. (2018). Do international migrants increase their happiness and that of their families by 12 of 14 SZABOOVA ET AL. 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense migrating? In J. F. Helliwell, R. Layard, & J. D. Sachs (Eds.), World Happiness Report 2018 (pp. 45–67). New York: Sustainable Solutions Network Ltd. Hossain, S. (2013). Migration, urbanization and poverty in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Hum.), 58(2), 369–382. Huang, X., Zhao, B., Liu, Y., & Xue, D. (2020). Belonging to a place: An analysis of the perceptions of rural-to-urban migrants in China. Geographical Review, 110(3), 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/gere. 12366 Ivlevs, A., Nikolova, M., & Graham, C. (2019). Emigration, remittances, and the subjective well-being of those staying behind. Journal of Population Economics, 32, 113–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-018- 0718-8 Jacobs, J. A., Karen, D., & McClelland, K. (1991). The dynamics of young men's career aspirations. Sociological Forum, 6(4), 609–639. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF01114404 Khawaja, N. G., Yang, S., & Cockshaw, W. (2016). Taiwanese migrants in Australia: An investigation of their acculturation and wellbeing. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp. 2016.1 Klopp, J. M., & Petretta, D. L. (2017). The urban sustainable development goal: Indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities, 63, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.019 KMDA. (2011). Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Annual Report. https://kmdaonline.org/home/aar_2011 Knight, J., & Gunatilaka, R. (2008). Aspirations, adaptation and subjective well-being of rural-urban migrants in China (Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series No. 381). Oxford. Knight, J., & Gunatilaka, R. (2010). Great expectations? The subjective well-being of rural–urban migrants in China. World Development, 38(1), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.03.002 Knight, J., & Gunatilaka, R. (2012). Aspirations, adaptation and subjective well-being of rural–urban migrants in China. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), Adap- tation, poverty and development: The dynamics of subjective wellbeing (pp. 91–110). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/ 9781137002778_4 Koo, A. (2012). Is there any chance to get ahead? Education aspirations and expectations of migrant families in China. British Journal of Sociol- ogy of Education, 33(4), 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692. 2012.678755 Krishna, A. (2013). Stuck in place: Investigating social mobility in 14 Banga- lore slums. Journal of Development Studies, 49(7), 1010–1028. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2013.785526 Kundu, N. (2003). The case of Kolkata, India. In Understanding slums: Case studies for the global report on human settlements. UN Habitat. Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001 Li, J., & Rose, N. (2017). Urban social exclusion and mental health of China's rural-urban migrants—A review and call for research. Health and Place, 48, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017. 08.009 Liu, Y., Li, Z., Liu, Y., & Chen, H. (2015). Growth of rural migrant enclaves in Guangzhou, China: Agency, everyday practice and social mobility. Urban Studies, 52(16), 3086–3105. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098014553752 Liu, Y., Zhang, F., Wu, F., Liu, Y., & Li, Z. (2017). The subjective wellbeing of migrants in Guagzhou, China: The impacts of the social and physical environment. Cities, 60, 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities. 2016.10.008 Lobnibe, I. (2008). Between aspirations and realities: Northern Ghanaian migrant women and the dilemma of household (re)production in Southern Ghana. Africa Today, 55(2), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.2979/ aft.2009.55.2.52 Lu, Y. (2010). Rural-urban migration and health: Evidence from longitudinal data in Indonesia. Social Science and Medicine, 70(3), 412–419. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.028 Lundholm, E., & Malmberg, G. (2006). Gains and losses, outcomes of interregional migration in the five Nordic countries. Geografiska Annaler, 88, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2006. 00204.x MacKenzie, R., & Forde, C. (2009). The rhetoric of the “good worker” ver- sus the realities of employers' use and the experiences of migrant workers. Work, Employment and Society, 23(1), 142–159. https://doi. org/10.1177/0950017008099783 Maharjan, A., Bauer, S., & Knerr, B. (2013). International migration, remit- tances and subsistence farming: Evidence from Nepal. International Migration, 51(S1), e249–e263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435. 2012.00767.x McMichael, C., Barnett, J., & McMichael, A. J. (2012). An ill wind? Climate change, migration, and health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(5), 646–654. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104375 Melzer, S. M. (2011). Does migration make you happy? The influence of migration on subjective well-being. Journal of Social Research and Policy, 2(2), 73–92. Mia, A., Nasrin, S., Zhang, M., & Rasiah, R. (2015). Chittagong, Bangladesh. Cities, 48, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.011 Montgomery, M. R., Stren, R., Cohen, B., & Reed, H. E. (2003). Cities trans- formed: Demographic change and its implications in the developing world. London: Routledge. Mukherji, S. (2013). Migration in India: Links to urbanization, regional dispar- ities and development policies. Rawat Publications. Mulcahy, K., & Kollamparambil, U. (2016). The impact of rural–urban migration on subjective well being in South Africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 52(9), 1357–1371. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00220388.2016.1171844 Njwambe, A., Cocks, M., & Vetter, S. (2019). Ekhayeni: Rural–urban migra- tion, belonging and landscapes of home in South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 45(2), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03057070.2019.1631007 Nowok, B., van Ham, M., Findlay, A. M., & Gayle, V. (2013). Does migration make you happy? A longitudinal study of internal migration and sub- jective well-being. Environment and Planning A, 45(4), 986–1002. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45287 ONS. (2012). Subjective Well-being Annual Population Survey. Subjective Well-being Dataset Apr 2011 - March 2012. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ ons/datasets-and-tables/index.html?pageSize=50&sortBy=none&sort Direction=none&newquery=subjective+well-being&content-type= Reference+table&content-type=Dataset Owusu, G., Agyei-Mensah, S., & Lund, R. (2008). Slums of hope and slums of despair: Mobility and livelihoods in Nima, Accra. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Nor, 62(3), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00291950802335798 Pathy, A. C., & Panda, G. K. (2012). Modeling urban growth in Indian situation—A case study of Bhubaneswar City. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume, 3(6), 1–7. Prince, M. (2012). Epidemiology. In P. Wright, J. Stern, & M. Phelan (Eds.), Core Psychiatry (Third ed.) (pp. 115–129). London: Saunders Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7020-3397-1.00009-4 Qian, J., Zhu, H., & Liu, Y. (2011). Investigating urban migrants' sense of place through a multi-scalar perspective. Journal of Environmental Psy- chology, 31(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.01.002 Rain, D., Engstrom, R., Ludlow, C., & Antos, S. (2011). Accra Ghana: A City Vulnerable to Flooding and Drought-Induced Migration. Case study prepared for Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Set- tlements 2011. UN Habitat. http://www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2011 Rains, E., & Krishna, A. (2020). Precarious gains: Social mobility and volatil- ity in urban slums. World Development, 132, 105001. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105001 SZABOOVA ET AL. 13 of 14 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense Ravallion, M., Chen, S., & Sangraula, P. (2007). New evidence on the urbanization of global poverty. Population and Development Review, 33(4), 667–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007. 00193.x Reckien, D., Creutzig, F., Fernandez, B., Lwasa, S., Tovar-Restrepo, M., Mcevoy, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2017). Climate change, equity and the Sustainable Development Goals: An urban perspective. Environ- ment and Urbanization, 29(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0956247816677778 Safra de Campos, R., Codjoe, S. N. A., Adger, W. N., Mortreux, C., Hazra, S., Siddiqui, T., Das, S., Atiglo, D. Y., Bhuiyan, M. R. A., Rocky, M. H., & Abu, M. (2020). Where people live and move in deltas. In R. J. Nicholls, W. Neil Adger, C. W. Hutton, & S. E. Hanson (Eds.), Deltas in the Anthropocene (pp. 153–177). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23517-8_7 Sampson, R. J. (2017). Urban sustainability in an age of enduring inequalities: Advancing theory and ecometrics for the 21st-century city. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(34), 8957–8962. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614433114 Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006 Seto, K. C., Golden, J. S., Alberti, M., & Turner, B. L. (2017). Sustainability in an urbanizing planet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(34), 8935–8938. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1606037114 Sharma, A., Kulkarni, R., & Khandelwal, R. (2014). Studies, stories and a canvas: Seasonal labour migration and migrant workers from Odisha. Centre for Migration and Labour Solutions. Siddiqui, T., Bhuiyan, M. R. A., Das, P. K., Chakraborty, G., & Hasan, M. (2018). Accommodating migration in climate change adaptation. Dhaka: Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit, University of Dhaka. Siddiqui, T., Sikder, M. J. U., & Bhuiyan, M. R. A. (forthcoming). Security and vulnerability of climate change effected migrants in new urban locations. In T. S. Eriksen, H. Susan, & P. Mendes (Eds.), Cooling down: Local response to global climate change. New York: Berghahn. Siddiqui, T., Szaboova, L., Adger, W. N., Safra de Campos, R., Bhuiyan, M. R. A., & Billah, T. (2021). Policy opportunities and constraints for addressing urban precarity of migrant populations. Global Policy, 12, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758- 5899.12855 Simmons, A. B. (1985). Recent studies on place-utility and intention to migrate: An international comparison. Population and Environment, 8(1–2), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01263020 Stillman, S., Gibson, J., McKenzie, D., & Rohorua, H. (2015). Miserable migrants? Natural experiment evidence on international migration and objective and subjective well-being. World Development, 65, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.07.003 Sulemana, I., Doabil, L., & Anarfo, E. B. (2019). International remittances and subjective wellbeing in sub-Saharan Africa: A micro-level study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 40(3), 524–539. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10834-019-09615-5 Tegegne, M. A., & Glanville, J. L. (2019). The immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being in Western European countries: Assessing the role of social capital. International Migration Review, 53(2), 458–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0197918318769309 Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneap- olis: University of Minnesota Press. UN-Habitat. (2007). Enhancing urban safety and security: Global report on human settlements 2007. London: Earthscan. Vathi, Z., & King, R. (2017). Return migration and psychosocial wellbeing: Discourses, policy-making and outcomes for migrants and their families. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619613 Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292648 Wang, B., & Collins, F. (2020). Temporally distributed aspirations: New Chinese migrants to New Zealand and the figuring of migration futures. Sociology, 54(3), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0038038519895750 Wang, B., Li, X., Stanton, B., & Fang, X. (2010). The influence of social stigma and discriminatory experience on psychological distress and quality of life among rural-to-urban migrants in China. Social Science and Medicine, 71(1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed. 2010.03.021 Wen, M., & Wang, G. (2009). Demographic, psychological, and social envi- ronmental factors of loneliness and satisfaction among rural-to-urban migrants in Shanghai, China. International Journal of Comparative Soci- ology, 50(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715208101597 Williams, D. R., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1999). Leisure places and modernity: The use and meaning of recreational cottages in Norway and the USA. In D. Crouch (Ed.), Leisure Practices and Geographic Knowledge (pp. 214–230). London: Routledge. Williams, R. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial protportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. The Stata Journal, 6(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0600600104 Williams, R. (2016). Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 40(1), 7–20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2015.1112384 Wright, K. (2011). Constructing migrant wellbeing: An exploration of life satisfaction amongst Peruvian migrants in London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(9), 1459–1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369183X.2011.623621 Yu, K., Zhang, Y., Zou, H., & Wang, C. (2019). Absolute income, income inequality and the subjective well-being of migrant workers in China: Toward an understanding of the relationship and its psychological mechanisms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2597), 1–27. Zhang, J., Li, X., & Fang, X. (2009). Discrimination experience and quality of life among rural-to-urban migrants in China: the mediation effect of expectation–reality discrepancy. Quality of Life Research, 18, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9454-6 Zhang, J., Li, X., Fang, X., & Xiong, Q. (2009). Discrimination experience and quality of life among rural-to-urban migrants in China: The media- tion effect of expectation-reality discrepancy. Quality of Life Research, 18, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9454-6 How to cite this article: Szaboova, L., Safra de Campos, R., Adger, W. N., Abu, M., Codjoe, S. N. A., Franco Gavonel, M., Das, S., Siddiqui, T., Rocky, M. H., & Hazra, S. (2021). Urban sustainability and the subjective well-being of migrants: The role of risks, place attachment, and aspirations. Population, Space and Place, e2505. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2505 14 of 14 SZABOOVA ET AL. 2022 28, e2505. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2505 15448452, 2022, 1, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/psp.2505 by U niversity of G hana - A ccra, W iley O nline L ibrary on [06/05/2024]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense