Landscape, Safe Territories and Migration

Singularities of human displacement in Africa and Latin America

This article consists of three sections. Section one examines human mobility, migration and the landscape. Section two presents’ singularities in Africa and Latin America, and the final section outlines the landscape of hope: migration and its territory as a driving force.

HUMAN MOBILITY, MIGRATION and LANDSCAPE

Human mobility and displacement

Movement between places has always been central to human evolution. Early humans were migratory, seeking protection, food and opportunities (McNeill, 1984), with nomadic lifestyles eventually giving way to sedentary civilisational movements (Jellicoe, 2005). In this article, “mobilisation” refers broadly to the act of moving, whereas “displacement” specifically denotes the forced or necessary relocation of populations.

Today, we face an unprecedented scale of displacement of about 281,000,000 individuals, the highest figure ever recorded. It is essential to distinguish between movement as a natural or civilisational process and migration driven by factors such as socio-economic inequality, employment opportunities, ethnic conflicts, climate change, food security issues, urbanisation and war (OIM, 2009).

As Table 1 demonstrates, one in every thirty people on Earth is a migrant. This volume of movement is significant not only for its size but also for the diverse circumstances that prompt it and the needs of those affected.

Migration

Migration is a recurring and complex phenomenon linked to urbanisation, cultural exchange, and humanity’s evolving relationship with the environment. It is often due to factors such as climate change and social pressures. It takes place from developed to natural territories, upon urban and rural areas, jungle, wilderness, transitional land and the sea. It is not just a spatial phenomenon, is a temporal process as well. Migration involves not only short-term flows but also long-term resettlement. Although these movements can sometimes strain community ties, they also foster adaptation and cultural integration (Castles et al., 2009).

The term “migration” remains contentious given its complexity. Its various forms, motivations and socio-economic contexts make both its measurement and interpretation challenging (Bauböck, 2006). For example, migration is typically divided into internal—occurring within one country—and international, where people move across national borders. Movements that remain within neighbouring countries are often labelled as endogenous, while those extending beyond or between continents are regarded as exogenous or global (Mcauliffe & Adhiambo, 2024).

While Table 2 classifies migration as endogenous or exogenous, Table 3 outlines modalities and causes. According to IOM reports, women represent 48% of migrants, with children making up 10.1% of the 281,000,000 migrants. This breakdown underlines vulnerabilities and challenges accompanying displacement, including risks of human trafficking, discrimination and health problems. Since 2020, over 60,000 migrant deaths have been recorded, and by mid-2023, 6,100,000 applied for asylum (IOM op. cit.).

Despite these challenges, migration also offers opportunities. Migrants contribute culturally and economically, with 62% of the working-age migrant population – roughly 169,000,000 people – playing a vital role in host nation labour markets. Remittances now total around USD 647,000,000,000, supporting families back home and often exceeding international investment and aid.

As Figure 1 shows, remittance flows have risen steadily, indicating that labour shortages in receiving countries also drive displacement alongside conditions in countries of origin. Ultimately, recognising and upholding the fundamental rights of all migrants is crucial to harnessing the potential benefits of a more inclusive society (Jankilevich, 2024).

Migration and Landscape

To grasp the concept of landscape, we must understand it from multiple perspectives and at various scales and dimensions. Similarly, to unravel the relationship between landscape and migration, different approaches must be considered. This phenomenon is increasingly extending worldwide, demanding a deeper understanding and urgent responses.

Some scholars have questioned how migrants adapt to new landscapes, transmit their cultural customs, and how land-use changes are affected by migration (Cepic, 2011; Hou, 2013). Recent studies reveal that migration reshapes territory, making it essential to adopt integrated approaches that address both spatial and cultural dimensions (Garcés, 2006; Díez et al., 2021). This holistic view not only fosters a sense of place and identity but also promotes ecological and social resilience, together with food security and integration to the new environments (Jankilevich, 2024).

SINGULARITIES in AFRICA and LATIN AMERICA

Population Growth and Regional Singularities

The dynamics of migration differ considerably by region. Figure 2 illustrates global population growth trends towards 2100, highlighting that while South Asia and Southern Africa are expected to see substantial increases, Latin America and other regions will experience relatively stable demographic patterns. Asia is projected to contain over 50% of the global population, Africa around 30%, and Latin America roughly 10%.

Historically, both Africa and Latin America have experienced patterns of endogenous or intra-national movements that persist to this day, followed by intra-regional migrations. These patterns, shaped by historical factors, continue despite the increase of transcontinental migration (Arnal, 2017; Cerrutti, 2020). The relationship between population growth, socio-economic development and migration has been explored through various models, notably the Theory of Demographic Transition (Arango, 1980) and Zelinsky’s Mobility Transition Model (Zelinsky, 1971).

Theory of Demographic Transition

The Theory of Demographic Transition (TDT) was institutionalised after the Second World War. Its central premise is that population growth drives economic development. To justify this idea, it explains two phenomena:

o The rapid increase in the world population in the XIX century, from one billion in 1800 to over eight billion today.

o The transition from pre-industrial societies (with high birth and death rates) to industrial and post-industrial societies (with low rates).

The theory describes five demographic stages based on the evolution of the birth rate, mortality rate and population growth.

Figure 3 below presents a diagrammatic representation of the theory’s variables in relation to the five proposed stages.

Zelinsky’s Mobility Transition Model

Based on the Theory of Demographic Transition, Volodymyr Zelinsky developed the Mobility Transition Model (Zelinsky, 1971), which links migratory patterns with the economic transformation of societies. Like the TDT, it proposes five phases according to the level of industrialization:

Phases of Zelinsky’s Model

Phase I: Pre-industrial (pre-modern societies) Limited mobility.

o Seasonal or subsistence migrations.

o Forced migration due to conflicts or disasters.

Phase II: Early industrialisation

o Increase in rural-urban migration.

o Urban expansion and greater internal mobility.

o Displacement towards regions with economic opportunities.

Phase III: Advancement of industrialisation and urbanisation

o Long-distance international migrations.

o Emigration towards more developed countries.

o High labour mobility within countries.

Phase IV: Post-industrial (advanced societies)

o Decrease in rural-urban migration.

o Increase in intra-city mobility.

o Balanced migration flow between countries due to globalisation.

Phase V: Future transitions

o Greater transnational and circular mobility.

o Temporary migrations for education, employment, and quality of life.

o Mobility influenced by environmental and technological factors.

The Figure 4 illustrates the migratory modalities associated with each stage of economic evolution and their effect on migration patterns.

Zelinsky’s model predicts migratory processes, particularly in industrialised countries, showing how mobility evolves with socio-economic development. However, it overlooks the relationship between industrialised nations and those with limited or geopolitically affected industrialisation, failing to consider the coexistence of pre- and post-industrial modes, as seen in less industrialised countries.

Two illustrative examples

Migration in Africa and Latin America has historically involved interactions with receiving environments, despite contradictions. While transcontinental migration has gained prominence, intra-national and intraregional displacements remain significant, challenging Zelinsky’s model.

While in Africa, migration is heavily influenced by ethnic diversity, political instability, conflicts and poverty, in Latin America, although fewer civil wars have occurred, sharp social inequalities and historical migration patterns still dominate. Both regions have witnessed significant internal migration that remains crucial to local survival strategies. For example, in the central Maghreb, policies aimed at restricting local migration have not stemmed the ongoing flow from rural to urban areas (Ospina, 2013). Similarly, in Mexico, over 95% of migrants from states like Tabasco, Campeche and Quintana Roo have relocated internally (Varela et al., 2017).

These examples demonstrate that addressing migration does not mean eradicating local practices. Rather, it involves supporting and integrating them to promote sustainable land use and economic equity. Recognising regional singularities and utilising the inherent strengths of local communities can lead to solutions that are both culturally respectful and economically viable.

THE LANDSCAPE of HOPE: Migration and its Territory as a Driving Force

In examining the territorial expression of migration, attention turns to high-transit regions such as the Maghreb-Sahel corridor in Africa and the Central American–Caribbean region. The latter, serves as a major mobility route towards the USA–Mexico border. These regions, although marred by injustice and insecurity, present opportunities for innovative landscape architecture that can promote identity, ecological resilience and social cohesion.

Migration as Territoriality

Migration impacts territory in profound ways. The pressure exerted on borders and subsequent land-use changes call for greater involvement from landscape architects. Migration reshapes both urban and rural spaces, altering physical maps and the collective mental geography of communities (Díez et al., 2021). While formal settlements offer some stability, they are often insufficient, whereas informal settlements – developed collectively by migrants – can sometimes provide a more culturally integrated and supportive environment (Jankilevich, 2023; Trovato, 2023).

The Territory and the Migratory Spatial Structure

The concept of migratory territoriality is further refined by identifying three key components: migration corridors, border intersections and the settlements that arise at these junctions. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the distribution of these elements in regions such as the Maghreb, Sahel and Mesoamerica.

In many cases, formal settlements are insufficient, insecure and repressive, whereas informal settlements – built collectively by migrants – sometimes offer more culturally integrated alternatives (Hou, 2013).

The Landscape of a Territory

Historical borders once uniting communities now divide them. In California, proposals suggest landscape interventions could blur divisions along the Mexico–US border (Cruz and Forman, 2017; Díaz, 2024). Prioritising security—physical, legal, food, and shelter—can foster just, stable environments that reconnect territories (Jankilevich, 2024).

Landscape Architecture-based Solutions and its Potential.

Regenerative actions along migration corridors can help stabilise vulnerable populations by improving food security and reducing displacement, while also restoring ecosystems and landscapes. Several initiatives in Africa and Central America show how coordinated efforts can lead to both environmental and social benefits. In Africa, small-scale farming projects have grown into key economic activities, demonstrating the value of community-based approaches.

The following programs are highlighted:

• The Farmer Field Schools (ECAS) Program in Mali.

Source: https://www.fao.org/agriculture/ippm/programme/history/es/

• Joint Program for Resilience Development in Mali.

Source: https://www.ifad.org/en/w/news/mali-rbas-1

In Central America, agricultural proposals for border areas are presented:

• Mesoamerican Integration and Development Program.

Source: https://goo.su/QXnkT

• "Mesoamerica without Hunger AMEXCID-FAO" Program.

Source: Ortega Diaz A, et al (2023).

CONCLUSION

Through the work of landscape architects and planners, it is possible to move away from models based on refugee camps towards creating permanent, integrated settlements that provide essential resources, promote adaptability and resilience, and reinforce cultural identity and social integration. The goal is to generate healthy spaces that offer physical, legal, food and shelter security to displaced populations along their transit routes and within their eventual settlements.

‍