2.1. Migration policies approaches in the EU and Ukraine

The migration policy of Ukraine is a crucial aspect of the country’s post-war recovery efforts (CabMin, 2022; IOM, 2023; Moens and Barigazzi, Reference Moens and Barigazzi2024). The Ukrainian government has established working groups to develop a comprehensive plan for post-war recovery, which includes a group working on measures to facilitate the return and integration of citizens displaced abroad (CabMin, 2022). The group is working with initiatives like cultural and educational campaigns to encourage displaced people to return and reconstruction efforts for housing and public services (CabMin, 2022). After the work of this group, changes have been made to Ukraine’s current migration policy with a focus on incentivizing return and fostering ties with displaced individuals (CabMin, 2024).

In addition, the Ukrainian government is actively working with the IOM to shape migration policies that will encourage and enable the return of especially vulnerable Ukrainian displaced (IOM, 2023). For example, IOM is improving conditions in areas experiencing high numbers of spontaneous returns through humanitarian, reconstruction, and recovery programs (IOM, 2023).

Ukraine is currently discussing with EU officials to shape future migration policies, aiming to encourage the return of its citizens while the war puts pressure on resources. Now, with the EU under temporary protection directive expiring in 2025, Ukraine seeks clarity on future rules and potential support until the war ends. While the details are still unclear, promotion of the return is a clear direction taken by the Ukrainian government. For example, Zelenskyy’s Presidential Office Advisor, Serhiy Leshchenko, said in an interview with a Swiss paper: “I believe that host countries should stop supporting refugees so that they can return home” (Boss and Lipkowski, Reference Boss and Lipkowski2024).

From the perspective of the EU, efforts have been made to manage the Ukrainian displacement situation through the implementation of a Temporary Protection Directive for Ukrainian residents fleeing their country. This directive provides immediate rights and protections upon entry to EU countries, encompassing residence, employment, healthcare, and education.

One of the key distinctions that set the Temporary Protection Directive apart from traditional refugees or asylum statuses is its immediate response to crises. It offers swift relief to those affected by conflicts, ensuring their well-being and protection. While this immediate response is beneficial, it creates challenges for displaced people in making long-term plans. The uncertainty about their future residence and status after the temporary protection period expires is a major source of concern and instability (Guild and Groenendijk, Reference Guild and Groenendijk2023).

2.2. Migration to the EU, Spain, and Valencia due to Russian invasion

Since the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, millions of Ukrainians have been compelled to flee their homeland and seek refuge in the EU and other countries. The EU responded swiftly to the crisis by launching a special Temporary Protection Directive for Ukrainian residents. This Directive allowed them to enter the EU and enjoy extensive rights and protections (Guild and Groenendijk, Reference Guild and Groenendijk2023).

As of March 2024, over 4 million people from Ukraine have availed themselves of the temporary protection mechanism (Eurostat, 2024). Spain has welcomed nearly 200,000 Ukrainian displaced persons who were granted temporary protection (La Moncloa, Reference La2023; Eurostat, 2024), positioning it as the fourth-largest destination for refugees in Europe, following Poland and Germany, Czech Republic as illustrated in Figure 1 (Elcano Royal Institute, 2023; Eurostat, 2024). Of these Ukrainian displaced persons granted temporary protection in Spain, a total of 61.1% are women (122,400) and 38.9% are men (77,754). By age group, 31.3% are under 18, 26.6% are between 19 and 35, 35.4% are between 36 and 64, and 6.7% are over 65 (La Moncloa, Reference La2024). Remarkably, the Valencian Community hosts the highest number of Ukrainians at 50,066, leading among the hosting regions in Spain. It is followed by Catalonia, Andalucia, and Madrid (La Moncloa, Reference La2023).

Figure 1. Beneficiaries of temporary protection tailored to individuals displaced from Ukraine after February 24, 2022, due to the incursion by Russian military forces. Sample of the countries in the top 15 positions (Source: Authors, based on data from the Eurostat (2024) on temporary protection).

This influx can be attributed in part to previous migration dynamics shaped before the war. Notably, Italy, Czech Republic, Germany, and Spain, as EU countries, each host over 100,000 Ukrainian residents. Specifically, within Spain, data from 2014 reveals that Ukrainian immigrants were predominantly concentrated in four earlier-mentioned regions: Madrid (22%), Catalonia (20.1%), the Valencian Community (18.2%), and Andalusia (15%) (Stanek et al., Reference Stanek, Hosnedlová and Brey2016).

In Spain, like in other EU countries, Ukrainian displaced are currently receiving support through the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive, which has been extended until at least March 2025. The process for Ukrainian nationals to obtain this status and access essential services in Spain appears to be relatively straightforward, facilitated by dedicated reception centers and legal aid services (EUAA, 2022). The labor market integration of Ukrainians displaced in Spain seems to be in line with the European average of 40% (Benedicto, Reference Benedicto2022; European Network on Statelessness, 2024; EMN, 2024). However, many displaced Ukrainians face difficulties in finding permanent housing, leading to a reliance on temporary accommodations such as flats and reception centers, indicative of a shortage of long-term housing solutions (Eurofound, 2024). The situation has been exacerbated by delays in receiving the promised €400 monthly subsidy, which was suspended as of September 2023 (Trelinski, Reference Trelinski2023). Despite these challenges, Eurostat data (2024) indicates a noticeable increase in the number of Ukrainians seeking shelter in Spain, rising from approximately 180,000 in 2023 to 200,000 in 2024.

3.1. Understanding return migration dynamics

Return migration, broadly defined as the movement of individuals from a host country back to their country of origin, nationality, or habitual residence, has been explored extensively in the context of international labor migration, often overshadowing the experiences of refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced people (IDPs) (IOM, 2019).

Return migration dynamics have been the subject of numerous studies, looking at i) aspirations and decisions to return, ii) the return process, and iii) reintegration (Mencutek, Reference Mencutek2022). First strand of return migration studies focuses on decisions and motivations to return that are shaped by complex interactions between economic, education, and demographic variables, alongside factors such as migration plans, expectations, and societal objectives and similar (e.g., Cassarino, Reference Cassarino2004). The second strand of return migration scholarship delves into the organization of returns, especially for refugees, asylum seekers, and IDPs. It scrutinizes pre- and post-return assistance, practices, and interventions, emphasizing legal compliance, livelihood development, and equal citizenship (e.g., Cole and Belloni, Reference Cole and Belloni2022). The third strand focuses on the reintegration of returnees, considering factors like human and financial capital, economic opportunities, social networks, and host community reception (De Bree et al., Reference De Bree, Tine and De Haas2010).

Despite the growing number of publications in the area, our knowledge of return migration is still fragmentary, and there are challenges in measuring the phenomenon due to the lack of internationally comparable statistical information and difficulties in defining return migration (OECD, 2022).

In addition, return migration’s uncertain and unpredictable nature is characterized by volatility, ambiguity, and complexity (Bijak et al., Reference Bijak, de Vilhena and Potančoková2023; King and Lulle, Reference King and Lulle2022; OECD, 2022). This unpredictability is exemplified by the displaced population return after the Yugoslav Wars from 1991 to 2001 (OECD, 2023). In the aftermath of active warfare in Bosnia, the majority of Bosnian refugees did not return home, contrasting sharply with the mass return of Kosovar refugees to Kosovo after the conflict (OECD, 2023). This volatility underscores the intricate interplay of factors shaping return migration, highlighting the need for innovative methods to delve into this intricate tapestry of factors and influences, such as foresight (Bijak et al., Reference Bijak, de Vilhena and Potančoková2023).

Before the war, return migration to Ukraine had not received significant scholarly attention. Instead, research predominantly focused on the reasons behind Ukrainian emigration (Vakhitova and Fihel, Reference Vakhitova and Fihel2020; Vakhitova et al., Reference Vakhitova, Coupe and Sologoub2013; Libanova, Reference Libanova2019). Economic and social factors, including low GDP per capita, low wages, and challenges in doing business, have contributed to significant emigration from Ukraine, making Ukraine one of the main migrant-sending countries in Europe, with thousands of Ukrainians working in Czech Republic, Italy, and Poland until the war (Vakhitova et al., Reference Vakhitova, Coupe and Sologoub2013; Libanova Reference Libanova2019; Vakhitova and Fihel, Reference Vakhitova and Fihel2020). In this regard, Vakhitova and Fihel (Reference Vakhitova and Fihel2020) noted that Ukraine could have shared the previous experience of Central European countries such as the Baltic States, Poland, and Slovakia and would see a flow of return migration in the near future. During the 1990s and early 2000s, these countries experienced temporary outflows of citizens, transitioning to permanent migration patterns, while in recent years, many Central and Eastern European countries have seen an increase in the number of returning migrants.

Limited existing studies on return migration to Ukraine before the war highlight a general reluctance among some migrants to return home, citing mainly economic factors (Ryndzak and Bachynska, Reference Ryndzak and Bachynska2022)—low wages and the overall economic situation in Ukraine. In addition, the length of stay abroad was shown to be a key determinant (Vakhitova and Fihel, Reference Vakhitova and Fihel2020), with longer absences weakening ties to the home country. A study from 2010 interviewed labor migrants returning from Italy and Spain to Ukraine, revealing two main reasons to return in two groups: the ‘Disappointed’ returning due to disillusionment with their life abroad, and the “Missioners” achieving financial goals or completing missions. It highlighted that reintegration for Ukrainian labor migrants was very challenging for both groups, involving legal, social, and psychological complexities, such as documentation challenges, loss of parental roles, discrimination, and psychological struggles such as loneliness and cultural shock (Ivaschenko-Stadnik, Reference Ivaschenko-Stadnik2013).

The question arises as to whether current displaced Ukrainians will encounter similar aspirations and challenges as previous return migrants, underscoring the importance of understanding the continuity and evolution of migration dynamics in Ukraine.

3.2. Participatory foresight and migration studies

Strategic foresight, primarily utilized by strategic planning units, for example, within business organizations, encompasses various methodological approaches (Iden, Methlie, and Christensen, Reference Iden, Methlie and Christensen2017; Dahlgren and Bergman, Reference Dahlgren and Bergman2020; Gall and Allam, Reference Gall and Allam2022; UNDP, 2022; Tully, Reference Tully2023). In essence, it involves exploring the future by searching for potential trends and developments, known as a “horizon scan,” focusing on critical drivers, for example, technological advancements, often structurized using STEEP-V or PESTLE frameworks (Iden, Methlie, and Christensen, Reference Iden, Methlie and Christensen2017; Dahlgren and Bergman, Reference Dahlgren and Bergman2020; Gall and Allam, Reference Gall and Allam2022; UNDP, 2022; Tully, Reference Tully2023). This initial scan identifies critical uncertainties, paving the way for constructing future scenarios to test existing and new policies for resilience and compatibility with potential emerging futures (Iden, Methlie, and Christensen, Reference Iden, Methlie and Christensen2017; Dahlgren and Bergman, Reference Dahlgren and Bergman2020; Gall and Allam, Reference Gall and Allam2022; UNDP, 2022; Tully, Reference Tully2023). The primary objective of this approach is to augment traditional strategic planning methodologies and bolster the capabilities of organizations and governments to anticipate and adapt to changing circumstances.

The integration of foresight methodologies into migration policy discussions has been advocated for its capacity to address the complexities and uncertainties inherent in migration dynamics (Bijak et al., Reference Bijak, de Vilhena and Potančoková2023). Traditional policy frameworks often struggle to keep pace with the rapidly evolving landscape of migration, where multifaceted factors intertwine to shape individuals’ decisions. Foresight provides a valuable tool for policymakers to move beyond reactive measures, fostering a forward-looking and anticipatory approach (Jevšnik and Toplak, Reference Jevšnik and Toplak2014). By considering a spectrum of possibilities, policymakers are better equipped to develop adaptive strategies that account for diverse outcomes (IOM, 2019). This goes in line with the concept of anticipatory governance (Guston, Reference Guston2014). In this specific context, it entails preparing for multiple plausible futures rather than predicting a single, predetermined outcome.

The growing importance of foresight in migration studies is evident from various initiatives and research projects that aim to anticipate and plan for the future of migration (Bettini, Reference Bettini2017; Bijak et al., Reference Bijak, de Vilhena and Potančoková2023; OECD, 2020). While these endeavors are commendable, it’s crucial to recognize that traditional foresight practices often involve exclusive participation from small groups of influential actors such as expert futurists, politicians, scientists, managers, and decision-makers, possessing specialized knowledge about the future. However, Hines and Gold (Reference Hines and Gold2013) assert that no single group or expert can monopolize knowledge about the future. Participatory foresight, on the other hand, is opening up the foresight process to include less privileged perspectives allows for a more comprehensive approach, yielding at least three key benefits: filling knowledge gaps by integrating diverse insights and having more complete picture of the future, ensuring a more equitable distribution of opportunities and benefits, promoting transparency and legitimacy in following policy-making and fostering social learning, empowering citizens to actively contribute to enhancing that future (Neuhoff et al., Reference Neuhoff, Simeone and Laursen2023).

In the field of migration studies, participatory foresight means involving those who have experienced displacement firsthand. In the dynamic migration landscape marked by uncertainties, participatory foresight emerges as a powerful tool for navigating the intricacies of migration, encouraging a holistic understanding in addition to expert-based elaborations, while recognizing the agency of displaced populations. As migration governance paradigms shift towards people-centered and rights-based (UN, 2018) and inclusive approaches (Arnstein, Reference Arnstein1969; Rowe and Frewer, Reference Rowe and Frewer2000), participatory foresight stands as a beacon for a more inclusive, equitable, and community-driven understanding of migration.

Despite its promise, participatory foresight is underused in migration studies. Examples from other contexts, such as urban studies (Gouache, Reference Gouache2021; Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones, Reference Dixon and Tewdwr-Jones2023), highlight feasibility and benefits of involving experiences of those intimately familiar with the lived complexities.

Hence, our research endeavors to navigate the uncharted territory of participatory foresight in the return migration field, focusing on Ukrainians displaced in Spain. By actively engaging with this displaced population, we aim to empower them to contribute to the exploration of return migration scenarios. In doing so, we aim to center the experiences of the individuals directly affected by displacement and return. Recognizing their invaluable insights and perspectives, we consider them as essential components in the broader discourse on migration policy and its implications for Ukraine’s future, ultimately contributing to the advancement of anticipatory migration approaches.

4.1. Participatory process and methods

We adopted a Participatory Action Research approach, emphasizing collaboration between researchers and participants. This allowed Ukrainians displaced to Valencia, Spain, to actively engage in the research. Complementing the PAR approach, we integrated elements of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), ensuring the study was both participatory and directly beneficial to the community involved (Smith, Reference Smith2021; Corbetta, Reference Corbetta2007).

Our research team was comprised of a Ukrainian researcher who had personally experienced forced migration due to the 2022 Russian invasion, offering invaluable firsthand insights. The second researcher specialized in participatory methodologies, ensuring a well-rounded and inclusive research approach.

Building upon the strategic foresight methodology outlined in our theoretical framework, we initiated a collaborative horizon-scanning exercise focused on the migration of displaced Ukrainians. This endeavor facilitated the identification of weak signals and critical uncertainties perceived by the participants, leading to the crafting of scenarios for exploration and analysis. A series of workshops, interviews, and participatory observation sessions were conducted to facilitate, support, and make sense of this process (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Participatory process timeline (Source: Authors).

We initiated a collaborative process that actively engaged community members in all stages of the research. This began with an “Initiation workshop in May 2023” where 20 displaced Ukrainians and researchers convened to discuss the research process, from problem identification to data collection and analysis. Facilitated by the Ukrainian researcher, the workshop led to a clear reframing of the research question, shifting the focus from the future of return migration to Ukraine to exploring the migration futures of displaced Ukrainians. This shift aimed to produce practical outcomes and solutions addressing real-world issues relevant to the participants.

We further continued the workshop with a horizon scan focused on critical drivers such as the migrations of displaced Ukrainians. We collected initial weak signals, but it became evident that more engagement was needed. Thus, a dedicated “Telegram channel” emerged as a solution and was created by the researchers to serve as an inclusive space for ongoing discussions, information exchange, and the collection of diverse weak signals from the community. Over a 3-month period, participants shared emerging signals, trends, and insights related to migration dynamics and return migration. This real-time, asynchronous communication platform enabled continuous dialogue and knowledge exchange among participants, enriching the research process with diverse perspectives.

Following this, participants gathered for a “Scenario-Building workshop in August,” where the results of the collective horizontal scanning were presented by the researchers. The Ukrainian researcher further moderated the session with earlier prepared steps. She facilitated the discussion and selection of the two main critical uncertainties surrounding migration, laying the groundwork for the construction of future scenarios. The uncertainties and scenario names were developed collaboratively by participants. The researchers’ role during the workshop was primarily facilitative, ensuring that the discussions progressed smoothly and that all participants had the opportunity to contribute their insights and perspectives. While the researcher did utilize simple pre-prepared structure to moderate the discussions (present collective horizon scanning results, energize discussion about uncertainties, identify two main uncertainties, and build scenarios based on them), she rather facilitated a collaborative and inclusive environment where participants could collectively craft scenarios.

In addition to these group activities, we conducted “in-depth semi-structured interviews” with 20 displaced Ukrainians to gain deeper insights into their lived experiences, migration aspirations, and challenges. Interviews with elements of a biographical interview were carried out between May and December 2023 in Valencia, Spain. A semi-structured interview guide comprising open-ended questions facilitated detailed responses to explore the individual dynamics of migration, specifically focusing on complexity of the decision of returning or not. It should be stressed, however, that the order of questions and their form depended largely on the course of the conversation itself. An attempt was made to give the interviews a conversational character. The researchers encouraged the interviewees to speak freely and tell their life stories spontaneously. Only when the topic of the conversation went too much off the course relevant to the purpose of the study, the researchers asked other questions to bring the conversation back on track or to deepen some issues that had not been discussed in detail earlier. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conference based on participants’ preferences, conducted in their native language, and ranged from 30 minutes to 1,5 h. The focus of the interviews was to explore various aspects of migration, including participants’ decisions regarding returning to Ukraine or remaining in their host country.

Furthermore, “participatory observation” (Kawulich, Reference Kawulich2005; Corbetta, Reference Corbetta2007) was carried out exclusively during the participatory process. Supported by a field diary, this observation method enabled us to immerse ourselves in the participants’ interactions and the unfolding process. It proved particularly valuable during workshops, informal gatherings, and conversations or through the Telegram group, fostering continuous reflection by the researcher.

Finally, we organized an “exhibition” to present our research findings, allowing participants to witness the progression of the study, recognize their contributions, and share these insights with the broader community (UPV, 2023). Additionally, the exhibition enabled us to continue collecting emerging signals and engage with attendees through participatory exposition methods, including interactive displays and photographic documentation.

Researchers frequently met to discuss observations and engaged in continuous critical discussions on their biases, assumptions, and power dynamics, promoting self-awareness throughout the research process. Coming from a position as an ‘insider view’ in the field of Ukrainian research had its advantages and challenges (Wilkinson-Weber, Reference Wilkinson-Weber2012; Szolucha et al., Reference Szolucha, Timko, Ojani and Korpershoek2023). On one hand, it facilitated access to the field and helped establish connections with the participants. However, this positionality may have influenced the researcher’s sense of empathy and could have led to blind spots in the research, presenting a limitation. As Howlett and Lazarenko (Reference Howlett and Lazarenko2023) noted, the necessity to maintain a distinction between personal and professional lives during fieldwork made the research inherently participatory in nature. Coming from the position of outsider Spanish researcher maintained an ‘observer’ role and analytical distance, in order to be able to describe and interpret the cultural context from an external, academic perspective. This allowed for the critical balance between participation and observation, as described by (Kawulich, Reference Kawulich2005; Wilkinson-Weber, Reference Wilkinson-Weber2012; Szolucha et al., Reference Szolucha, Timko, Ojani and Korpershoek2023).

Thus, researchers have taken several steps to distinguish their own conceptual frameworks from those of the participants, including researcher positionality, a strong focus on participatory approach, continuous reflection and dialogue, an emphasis on participant experiences, and triangulating data from multiple sources (Wilkinson-Weber, Reference Wilkinson-Weber2012; Szolucha et al., Reference Szolucha, Timko, Ojani and Korpershoek2023).

4.2. Participants

Participants were recruited through various channels, including newly established online groups such as Telegram and Facebook groups catering to the recently arrived Ukrainians in Valencia. Additionally, an open call was extended to Ukrainian diaspora organizations in these cities. The selection criteria ensured that participants were Ukrainians displaced due to the Russian invasion post-February 24, 2022. The participants encompass a diverse range of ages, backgrounds, experiences, and aspirations, sharing a common identity as displaced individuals.

In detail, there are 18 female participants and 2 male participants in the study, reflecting a predominantly female demographic of the displaced Ukrainians. Ages span from 19 to 68 years, with an average age of approximately 40. Participants exhibit a diverse range of educational backgrounds, with the majority holding higher education degrees such as bachelor’s or master’s, and two participants possessing doctorate degrees and four participants with middle education. Notably, full-level education is not unique to this group but rather characteristic of the Ukrainian population, which tends to have individuals with higher formal qualifications compared to many other countries, surpassing the EU average significantly by 2020 (OECD, 2023). The participants originate from various regions of Ukraine, including Odesa, Ternopil, Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Symu, Rivne, Lviv, Herson, and Donetsk. In terms of family status, a majority are married, with their husbands residing in Ukraine. However, four participants are divorced or separated, with three experiencing divorces after the onset of the war. And four are living with their Ukrainian partners in Spain. Additionally, most participants were parents who had one or two kids with them.

Regarding employment status, a portion of participants are unemployed or not officially employed (doing cleaning, baby sitting), while some are employed or pursuing further education. Seven individuals are working full-time in Spain or engaging in remote work with Ukrainian and other international companies. Three participants are part of the support programs, such as the Red Cross refugees support program, that is, a part of the Spanish Government’s reception and integration support program for asylum-seekers without sufficient economic resources (UNHCR, 2024). Housing arrangements among participants vary, with some able to rent rooms or flats, but many are still living with relatives (diaspora), and a few residing in unique arrangements such as with a host family or Red Cross Support program. Housing is the main concern for this particular group. Economic status among participants in Ukraine (before the war) ranges from low to high, with a notable portion falling into the middle-economic category (the full list of anonymous details of the participants can be provided on request).