International mobility of climate technology researchers in South Korea: A comparative analysis of mitigation and adaptation subfields

This study examines international mobility patterns of climate technology researchers by comparing mitigation and adaptation subfields. Using Web of Science climate technology publications (2018.1 ~ 2024.9) linked to ORCID education and employment histories, country-level career trajectories were constructed for PhD-holding researchers who authored at least one publication with a Korean institutional affiliation during the observation period (n=2,998) and classified researchers into five mobility types: stayer, returner, inflow (brain gain), outflow (brain drain), and circulation. The analysis reveals that 70.1% of the researchers exhibit at least one cross-border education or employment experience, indicating a comparatively high level relative to rates commonly reported for doctorate holders in prior mobility studies. This elevated rate likely reflects both the globally collaborative nature of climate research and the sample's focus on core researchers with complete ORCID records. Subfield comparisons reveal statistically significant differences (χ²=34.55, p<0.001). Mitigation researchers show a higher outflow rate (23.8%) than adaptation researchers (19.2%), supporting Hypothesis 1. Adaptation demonstrates a higher settlement rate-the share of researchers currently employed in Korea-than mitigation (79.3% vs. 74.3%), supporting Hypothesis 2. Adaptation also shows a higher net inflow (+19.2 percentage points vs. +8.5 in mitigation). These patterns align with differing knowledge-production regimes: mitigation research tends to involve more standardized and globally contested solutions, while adaptation research is more place-based and institutionally embedded. However, the observed effect sizes are small (Cohen’s h=0.11-0.12), suggesting that subfield characteristics alone do not fully explain mobility differences; factors such as funding structures, industry linkages, and visa policies may also play a role. The findings suggest that climate technology talent policies should be differentiated by subfield, emphasizing circulation and return pathways for mitigation researchers and retention/settlement support for inbound adaptation talent.