2.1 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework for the research is given in Figure 1. It highlights the three main research variables (rainfall variability, food security, and migration) and their interactions. Research findings are based primarily on fieldwork-generated qualitative and quantitative data. Where secondary data have been used, this is indicated by coloured boxes at the edge of the research area boxes. The arrows in the framework represent feedback loops that change initial conditions as HHs dynamically manage rainfall risks to food production and consumption.

Where the rain falls: Evidence from 8 countries on how vulnerable households use migration to manage the risk of rainfall variability and food insecurity

All authors

Koko Warner & Tamer Afifi

https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2013.835707

Published online:

12 March 2014

Figure 1. Research foci, methods, and data sources. Source: Rademacher-Schulz and Rossow, 2012 in Warner et al. (2012, p. 37).

Display full size

The research framework employed in the case studies presented in this special issue examines the interrelationships and pathways affecting HH risk management and migration decisions related to rainfall, food, and livelihood. In this framework, rainfall variability can cause droughts, floods, dry spells, and heavy rainfall events. This rainfall variability in turn influences the livelihood security of the studied HHs through changes in livestock and crop production. Land ownership and land holding also impact livelihood security of HHs. The third variable deals with HH strategies to manage risks to livelihood – and food security. As the figure illustrates, factors such as the degree to which HH economy and food consumption depend on rainfall, the more sensitive it may be to changes in rainfall variability. Other factors such as the availability of a range of coping strategies further affect how HHs use migration to manage climatic risks. Some risk management strategies, including migration, affect the resilience or vulnerability of the HHs to climatic stressors like rainfall changes. If successful, migration can reduce food insecurity by increasing the available resources to buy food in the cases where migrants can send food or cash remittances to HH members. In this case, migration can be called ‘content’. If migration as a risk management strategy is unsuccessful – in this case ‘erosive’ migration, it can exacerbate food insecurity (no remittances or food sent, reduced labour supply in HH for food production). HH characteristics themselves influence the migration outcome (discussed in Section 3).

2.2 Data collection methods and modelling

In conducting field research in the eight case study countries, the following three complementary methods were applied (available at Rademacher-Schulz et al., 2012):

• Participatory research approach (PRA, n = 2000 respondents) including transect walks (providing a cross-sectional representation of the different agro-ecological zones and their comparison against certain parameters of interest to the study); wealth ranking (investigating the perceptions of wealth differences and inequalities in the communities); focus group discussions (bringing various groups of the communities together in open discussions); mobility maps (exploring the movement pattern of the individuals, groups, and communities); seasonality calendars (reflecting the perceptions of the local people regarding seasonal variations in the research site); livelihood risk rankings (identifying local people's perceptions of the risks they face and how they rank the magnitude of each risk); Venn diagrams (showing the importance and accessibility of crucial institutions and individuals influencing the local communities); and impact diagrams (identifying the impacts of certain activities, interventions or events on the communities, and the interrelations among all these factors).

• A HH survey (n = 1300) was carried out to obtain quantifiable indicators and trends that reflect how different factors affect HHs in terms of rainfall variability, livelihood/food security, and migration, and to run a statistical analysis that complements the qualitative outcomes. Researchers administered the HH survey and participatory research expert interviews mainly with government representatives, civil society actors, and scientists/academics who possess particular knowledge and information about specific topic areas related to the project's research (migration, rainfall variability, livelihoods/food insecurity, national and local development plans, climate change adaptation, vulnerability, etc.). Each case surveyed between 130 and 206 HHs representing (at least 10% of the local (district) population in six of the eight cases).

• Semi-structured expert interviews with various stakeholders were run, where the researchers asked the questions relevant to the main three variables of the study. It was important to receive information and points of view from policy-makers, academics, non-governmental organization representatives, and meteorological experts, in order to have as many as possible insights into national and local issues that are of great importance for the research.

The qualitative and quantitative data also served to develop and apply the agent-based model (ABM), which tested migration outcomes in four plausible future scenarios of rainfall. The RABMM was designed to represent the level of vulnerability of HHs to rainfall variability-induced changes in livelihood and food security, and their subsequent impact on the migration of HH members. The ABM was employed in the case of Tanzania as an illustration, but will be applied to other case studies. Modelling, based on the survey data, has shown that migration from vulnerable HHs in Tanzania is sensitive to changes in rainfall patterns, especially under extreme drying (Scenario 4). By contrast, extreme wetting (Scenario 3) results in the lowest numbers of migrants from vulnerable HHs.

2.3 Site selection

The study employed general criteria for country and research site selection; the researchers were interested in having a regional balance by covering three regions, namely South and Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. This research was carried out in districts in eight countries, namely Guatemala (Western Highlands – Cabricán Municipality), Peru (Central Andes – Huancayo Province), Ghana (Northern Ghana – Upper West Region – Nadowli District), Tanzania (Northern Tanzania Kilimanjaro Region – Same District), Bangladesh (Northern Bangladesh – Kurigram District), India (Central India – Chhattisgarh – Janjgir District), Thailand (Northern Thailand – Lamphun Province), and Vietnam (Mekong Delta – Dong Thap Province). Table 1 lists the research sites and main findings in each site.

The eight countries selected are highly exposed to climatic stressors, varying by ecosystem type, and elevation. These characteristics served for research addressing livelihoods of people relying on ecosystems on a daily basis across the research countries. Specific site selection criteria included the importance of rainfall in livelihood and food production systems (mono- and bimodal systems, dependence on rain-fed agriculture), and occurrence of rainfall-related events with reported changes in variability in recent years, significant levels of poverty and food insecurity, and recorded history of migration in study areas. Moreover, the sensitivity of livelihoods to changing rainfall patterns, the relatively high levels of poverty, and food insecurity as well as the recorded history of migration and its linkages to all the above-mentioned variables were important selection criteria.

3.1 Changes in rainfall variability

Rural people in the eight research locations perceive climatic changes happening today in the form of rainfall variability. These perceptions are consistent in sign (e.g. ‘more’ or ‘less’) with an analysis of local meteorological data over the last three decades (see Afifi, Liwenga, & Kwezi, 2014; Milan and Ho, 2014; Murali and Afifi, 2012; Rademacher-Schulz, Schraven, & Mahama, 2014). These perceptions of changing rainfall patterns shape HH risk management decisions. Table 2 draws from case study data (questionnaire and PRA). Local people – largely dependent on rainfall for their main source of food and income – reported changes in timing, quality, quantity, and overall predictability of rainfall in recent years against past experience. The most common changes reported relate to delayed onset and shorter rainy seasons; reduced number of rainy days per year; increased frequency of heavy rainfall events; and more frequent prolonged dry spells during rainy seasons.

3.2 Livelihood and food security related to rainfall variability

It is important to mention that the indicator for food security in the HH survey of the Rainfalls research was the food production in the HHs (subsistence) and the food availability in the markets. The same concept was applied when talking to the communities in the PRA sessions and the experts in the formal interviews. The primarily agriculture-based HHs in the research sites reported that rainfall variability negatively affects food production and food consumption. Table 3 draws from original data from each case study and illustrates the central pattern observed: less predictable rainfall patterns affect the ability of HHs to feed themselves and earn livelihoods. Unexpected rainfall affects HH income through investment decisions about seed varieties, when and what to plant, and expected crop yields. Adverse rainfall conditions are perceived to be increasing, and are associated with lower crop yields (used for HH income and consumption). HHs across all case studies frequently identified rainfall-related factors as among the top five risks they are concerned about. As the articles in this special issue show, HHs seek to offset these risks through livelihood diversification, changing food consumption patterns and eating less, migrating, etc. PRA sessions revealed that some HHs consider leaving agricultural livelihoods because of perceived increased rainfall variability (but the most climate-sensitive HHs often lack the skills and opportunities to find alternative livelihoods).

Levels of food insecurity varied significantly across the eight sites depending on factors such as: the total amount and seasonality of rainfall; the degree of agricultural intensification; the extent of livelihoods diversification; and the access of poor HHs to social safety net and other support services. Access to land of sufficient quality to support HH food consumption and income needs was an important issue in the research areas. Landlessness and land scarcity were manifest in median values of 15.5% and 37.7% of HHs surveyed, respectively, with these HHs in each site manifesting distinct characteristics relevant to their mobility decisions (discussed below). The average land holding for HHs across all sites was 1.5 hectares of productive land (excluding grazing land for livestock).

3.3 HH migration experience managing rainfall stress on HH income and consumption

Migration – seasonal, temporary, and permanent – plays an important part in many families' struggles to deal with rainfall variability and food and livelihood insecurity. Migration associated with rainfall is often motivated by attempts of HH dependent on rain-fed agriculture to stabilize HH income and food consumption. Migration – seasonal, temporary, and permanent – plays an important part in many families' struggle to deal with rainfall variability and food and livelihood insecurity, and was reported to have increased in recent decades in a number of the research sites. However, landless, low-skilled and poor HHs (most sensitive to rainfall variability many) frequently noted that migration is often the last option for them when they are unable to access stable agriculture-based incomes and food consumption in situ.

Rainfall was observed to have a more direct relationship with HH migration decisions in research sites where the dependence on rain-fed agriculture, often with a single harvest per year, was high and local livelihood diversification options were low. Across many of the case studies, rainfall-related risks such as crop production decline, rainy season shifts, longer drought periods causing unreliable harvest, and increased drought frequency were among the top reasons for attempting migration.

Migration was found to have increased in recent decades in a number of the research sites. Migration related to rainfall variability and stress on livelihoods and food production systems was found to be almost entirely within national borders. It was predominantly male, but with growing participation by women in a number of countries. Seasonal, temporary, or permanent migration patterns were observed. Migration was undertaken largely by individual HH members (with India as the exception where entire nuclear families moved together). Migration in the studies is largely driven by livelihood-related needs (HH income) in most countries, but with a growing number of migrants seeking improved skill sets (e.g. through education) in countries such as Thailand, Vietnam and Peru. The research across the studies shows a mix of rural–rural and rural–urban, with more productive agricultural areas (Ghana, Bangladesh, and Tanzania), nearby urban centres (Peru and India), mining areas (Ghana), and industrial estates (Thailand and Vietnam) as the most common destinations (see Afifi et al., 2014; Etzold, Ahmed, Hasan, & Neelormi, 2014; Milan & Ho, 2014; Murali & Afifi, 2014; Rademacher-Schulz et al., 2014; Sakdapolrak, Promburom, & Reif, 2014; Van der Geest, Thao, & Khoa, 2014) (Table 4).

Migration experiences varied across the research sites in terms of migration as a response to rainfall variability; in the cases of Thailand and Peru, livelihood options are more diverse and people rather migrate voluntarily to improve their already relatively good livelihood. In Vietnam, HHs that suffer from poverty and do not benefit from the economic boom are often left behind (trapped populations). Similarly, the poor Indian HHs in India do not benefit from the power plants (as they do lack the necessary skills to be employed there) and do not receive only water from the canals. Therefore, they rely on seasonal migration to secure their livelihoods. Migration in Bangladesh is a typical coping strategy that becomes expensive for the people left behind. In Guatemala, there are very limited migration opportunities (lack of financial means caused by poor livelihood diversification options as well as strict border controls for migrants to the USA).

Table 5 provides numbers reflecting demographics and types of migration in the HHs sampled in the respective case studies.

Male migration (97%) is predominant in Bangladesh, where at the same time it is mainly married men (89%) who migrate, which has its social implications on the wives who are left behind. The highest rates of female migrants are in Thailand (39%, where as compared with the past more migration among women is occurring) followed by India (38%). Since in the case of India, people of the research site rather migrate in families, which has negative implications on the child education; the rate of female migrants is relatively high. In the cases of Guatemala, Bangladesh, and India, migration is rather motivated by securing the livelihood (97%, 90% and 88%, respectively). Seasonal migration has the highest rate in Bangladesh (80%) in contrast to Guatemala (only 17%), partially due increasingly constrained migration (policy-related). Permanent migration is not detected in the case studies, except for Thailand (28%).

4.1 HHs that use migration to improve their resilience (content migration)

Across all case studies, some HHs use migration as one successful risk management or livelihood strategy among a wider range of options. The profile of such HHs was low income or poor, but with adequate access to a variety of livelihood options and assets (social, political, and financial) to enable the HH to be less sensitive to rainfall stressors. Children in these HHs typically had 3–5 years more education than parents, with migrants usually in their early 20s, single, aspiring to better livelihood opportunities, and able to send remittances back home. Migration, first and foremost, is an accessible option for those HHs to enhance livelihood security and resilience for the entire HH, including members left behind. Second, migration is an active, positive choice associated with capturing an opportunity that benefits the HH. For instance, in these HHs, migrant remittances facilitate investments in education, health, and assets that enhance the welfare of the HH in ways that make it less susceptible to rainfall stressors.

For example, Promburom and Sakdapolrak (2012) show that 51% of HHs in Lamphun Province, Thailand, considered the impact of rainfall-related environmental stress on their livelihoods to be significant. Three quarters of HHs suffer from lower income due to declining crop yields and deceasing income from agriculture as a result of the exposure to environmental stress. However, diversified on- and off-farm (less sensitive to rainfall variability) income-generation activities, access to financial resources through community funds, and assistance from the local government reduce HH vulnerability to rainfall-related stress and food insecurity. In Lamphun, diverse livelihoods and access to assets and services make migration a matter of choice.

This pattern was found to some degree in the research in Peru. In their research on Huancayo Provine, Peru, Milan and Ho (2013) find that livelihood options and migration strategies vary by elevation and proximity to urban centres. The impact of changing rainfall on food production is severe for 53% of HHs and two-thirds of surveyed HHs reported crop damage and lower crop yields from changing rainfall patterns. Rainfall changes affect the ability of HHs to feed themselves and earn livelihoods and 42% experience substantial negative impacts on HH income. Migration facilitates lowered dependence on agriculture-based livelihoods and expanded employment opportunities in non-farming activities in nearby urban areas.

For the next two groups, impacts of migration on HHs facing rainfall stressors depend on the degree of ‘success’ migrating members have in securing food or resources to obtain food.

4.2 HHs that use migration to survive, but not flourish (content migration at the risk of becoming erosive)

For this group, migration is a way to avoid the worst consequences of rainfall variability and food insecurity, but few or inadequate livelihood diversification or in situ adaptation options available mean that HHs may be ‘just getting by’. These families are usually land-poor, and while they may have access to llivelihood diversification strategies, these options are often insufficient to ensure food security for the HH. Migrants are usually heads of HH in their mid-40s. Children in these HHs have – within a four-month average – the same level of education and skill sets as their parents. These families have less access to social institutions and less access than the previous group to other forms of livelihood diversification or measures to cope with rainfall-related stressors on livelihoods and food security.

While migration for these HHs is somewhat accessible – they have the assets necessary to migrate – the migration choice is more risky than for resilient HHs. The HHs in this group can easily slide from ‘resilient’ to ‘vulnerable’, if migration proves to be erosive or if rainfall stressors overwhelm the capacity of these HHs to cope. For these HHs, migration may perpetuate cycles of debt (migration is an investment) and periodic hunger (if migration is erosive). Migration may not be the first choice if more viable in situ options were available or accessible. Migration for such HHs is often seasonal or temporary to obtain food directly, or to obtain resources to access food. Migration, therefore, serves as a stop-gap measure, allowing temporary relief from rainfall variability and the impacts of crop failure or decline on the HH economy, but it does not transform HHs or release them from the poverty cycle.

This pattern of migration related to managing the risks of changing rainfall patterns on livelihood and food security is illustrated in the articles on Bangladesh, Vietnam, and India: Ahmed, Hassan, Etzold, and Neelorm (2012) show that in Kurigram District, Bangladesh, migration is a major ‘coping strategy’ to address unfavourable economic and unexpected environmental conditions, including the local implications of rainfall variability: 89% of HHs were affected economically by prevailing weather patterns and rainfall variability. Longer dry spells and frequent droughts are a ‘very important’ migration reason for 39% and 36% of HHs, respectively. In the district surveyed, both of these climatic variations have severe impacts on local agricultural production and thus on people's livelihoods. Landless, low-skilled and poor HHs (depending on rain-fed agriculture for both their livelihoods and food security) are the most sensitive to rainfall variability and utilize rural–rural migration to manage climatic risks. Although migration allows HHs to survive the impacts of rainfall variability on HH consumption and economy, there are negative social consequences associated with this risk management choice.

Nguyen, Nguyen, and van der Geest (2012) did research in the Thap Muoi District in Vietnam (in the Mekong Delta). They find that of the HHs surveyed, the majority noted the adverse effects of heavy rainfall, shifting seasonality of rainfall and a higher frequency of rainy days on crop yields and non-farm income sources: 89.5% of these HHs reported negative effects of changing rainfall patterns on HH economy. Migration in Thap Muoi District is a short-term risk management strategy (short run only), if HHs face difficulties attaining livelihood security locally. However, the impacts on longer-term resilience can be very negative. For landless and low-skilled HHs, rural–rural migration can help fill HH income gaps if it is content, but can also interrupt skill building and education.

Murali and Afifi (2014) demonstrate in the Jangir District in Chhattisgarh State in India that migration is one of the most important strategies employed by the residents of the research villages to cope with rainfall variations/climatic changes and food insecurity. Therefore, migration is often the last resort for resource-poor and landless HHs, especially when they are unable to access or benefit from livelihood options in situ. The authors find that migration does not increase resilience or provide better long-term opportunities. Family migration keeps HHs intact but amplifies negative longer-term effects on livelihood diversification, for example by interrupting the schooling of children, and HH skill building.

4.3 HHs that use migration as a last resort and ‘erosive’ coping strategy

Another profile of HHs included those for whom migration is an erosive coping strategy (i.e. one that makes them more vulnerable or prevents them from escaping poverty). These HHs are similar to the previous group; these HHs are landless or land scarce, poor, and have few or no options to diversify livelihoods away from crop and livestock production. Children from these HHs have the same (low) level of education as their parents. Migrants from these HHs compete for unskilled employment in the agricultural sector (and sometimes in urban settings). The migrant profile of such HHs in the Rainfalls research was head of HH, mid-40s, married with dependents. These HHs are also ‘just getting by’, and do not have access to or are unable to capture in situ adaptation or livelihood diversification options. Typical coping measures when faced with rainfall stressors on livelihoods and food availability include reducing food consumption, the quality of food consumed, selling assets, or seeking help from others in the village. As these HHs may already have limited mobility, focus group discussions indicated that entire villages may face similar challenges and be in a poor position to help each other in times of need (co-variation of risks).

Migration for this type of HH can be seasonal (less than six months), temporary (more than six months), or permanent, with the nearest places with more favourable livelihood opportunities as areas of destination. When such migrants leave during the hunger season – where there is no harvest and people run out of food reserves – to find food or resources to access food, HH members left behind can be more vulnerable to a variety of environmental as well as social stressors. Migration is a last resort to avoid the worst consequences of food insecurity and may require actions – such as risky loans to pay for migration– that leave the HH deeper in poverty. For these HHs, repeated environmental shocks and stressors – and repeated migration –erode livelihoods, food security, and asset bases enough to make migration inaccessible. This pattern can be seen in small numbers in all the cases but is more pronounced in countries that generally face larger challenges with poverty and food insecurity and low livelihood diversification options for climate-sensitive sectors.

Rademacher-Schulz et al. (2013) find in the Nadowli district in Ghana that migration at new points of time (e.g. during the main food production periods) is mainly due to livelihood and food insecurity linked to climatic and environmental factors affecting rain-fed agriculture. They find that the most important triggers of migration among HHs are crop production decline, rainy season shifts, unemployment, longer drought periods causing unreliable harvest, and increased drought frequency. HHs use migration to link bridging income gaps but are often unable to improve overall well-being for those HH members left behind. In Nadowli, female-headed HHs are more vulnerable to shifting rainfall variability, face a higher degree of food insecurity, have fewer HH members of working age, possess less land, and engage slightly less in migration than male-headed HHs (Rademacher-Schulz & Mahama, 2012).

The research by Liwenga, Kwezi, and Afifi (2012) in the Same District in Tanzania shows that changes in rainfall variability translate directly into impacts on food security. Surveyed HHs identified drought as the major hazard to HH livelihoods. In Same, rainfall changes affect the food production of more than 80% of HHs ‘a lot’ and there are strong linkages between unpredictable and changing weather patterns and the decision to migrate. The top three factors affecting HH migration decisions in Same are: (1) increased drought frequency, (2) longer drought periods, and (3) water shortage. While the majority of migrants are male and young, women now represent one-third of the total and out-migration from Same District is a mix of rural–rural and rural–urban migration.

4.4 HHs that cannot use migration and are struggling to survive in their areas of origin (trapped populations)

The final profile of HHs includes those that have been described as ‘trapped populations’ in the literature: HHs that do not possess the assets necessary to migrate, even to cope with food insecurity, or who cannot access migration options. These are often landless or land scarce HHs in very poor areas. Characteristics of these HHs (or individual members within the HH) include: female-headed HHs who may have multiple burdens of needing to care for agricultural land and care for young children or elderly, HHs where – often – a main breadwinner has already left the HH in search of other livelihood options, HHs with few able-bodied workers in relation to dependents such as children, elderly, or disabled persons. These HHs face acute food production and consumption shortfalls when rainfall varies, and they report having too little to eat at multiple times in a given year. These HHs tend to have few or no diversification options, and limited migration options. For trapped HHs or populations, repeated environmental shocks and stressors can continue to erode their asset base and increase their food and livelihood insecurity. In Guatemala, remote, food-insecure communities face a situation where they have few good options – high sensitivity to rainfall, few local options to diversify risks or livelihoods, and migration options that are too expensive (to a major city or international), too risky, or to places with similar challenges (see Milan & Ruano, 2014).

Examples of such HHs were found in all research areas, but the research in Guatemala provided more examples of communities with few good options to either stay or leave. Milan and Ruano (2013) shares results from Cabricán, Guatemala, showing that 97% of migration is motivated by attempts to secure stable HH consumption and income generated by rain-fed agriculture. Rainfall affects food production of 68% of HHs surveyed. Migration opportunities (seasonal in Guatemala and long-term to the USA) are decreasing due to decreased demand for labour and difficulties in reaching destinations. HHs reported concerns about the long-term viability of their farming systems and food availability, but were also not in a position to use migration to ameliorate the risks changes in rainfall patterns pose for HH economy and HH consumption. Some very vulnerable HHs in Bangladesh, especially women-headed HHs, were also found to have characteristics of ‘trapped populations’ unable to improve their situation in situ or via migration to improve livelihood and food security (Ahmed et al., 2012).

6.1 Summary

The results presented in this article indicate the circumstances under which resilient and vulnerable HHs use migration as a risk management strategy when faced with rainfall variability and related livelihood and food insecurity. Rural people in the eight research locations perceive climatic changes happening today in the form of rainfall variability, and these perceptions shape HH risk management decisions. The most common changes reported relate to the timing, quality, quantity, and overall predictability of rainfall. These perceived changes correlate with an analysis of local meteorological data over the last several decades. The largely agriculture-based HHs in the research sites report that rainfall variability is already negatively affecting production and contributing to food and livelihood insecurity.

The relationship between rainfall variability and migration was manifest via livelihood and food security of HHs. Rainfall was observed to have a direct relationship to food production and consumption, influencing HH migration decisions in research sites where the dependence on rain-fed agriculture was high and local livelihood diversification options were low.

Climatic factors affect migration via impacts on HH economy (food production) and HH food security (food consumption). In most districts surveyed, respondents were poor and often land scarce, and most used migration in one form or another. The findings suggest that the answer to how climatic stressors affect migration decisions and the degree to which migration improves the adaptive capacity of those HHs lie in the vulnerability of the HH and its sensitivity to climatic factors. The data reveal for the first time in a comparable global study distinct HH profiles of ‘resilience’ – those HHs in which migration is one of a variety of adaptation measures that progressively reduce the climate-sensitivity of those HHs – and ‘vulnerability’ – those HHs in which migration is part of a spectrum of erosive coping strategies and in which sensitivity to climatic stressors is maintained or exacerbated. In contrast, migration can also undermine climate-resilient development efforts for ‘vulnerable’ HHs which have the least access to such options – few or no livelihood diversification opportunities, no land, little education – use migration as a survival strategy in an overall setting of erosive coping measures which leave or trap such HHs at the margins of decent existence.

The research results presented here showed that ‘resilient’ and ‘vulnerable’ HHs use migration in different ways when faced with climatic stressors, with implications for how we understand the role of migration in adaptation to climate change: Resilient HHs employ migration as one of a number of risk management strategies that reduce the climatic sensitivity of the HH over time. Resilient HHs have diverse assets and access to a variety of adaptation measures – livelihood diversification, or risk management options through social networks, community or government support programmes, and education. They use migration to further diversify livelihoods, build skill sets, and enhance resilience. In contrast, vulnerable HHs have fewer and less effective risk management strategies. They use migration as part of ‘climate survival strategies’ which ultimately increase HH sensitivity to climatic risks like changes in rainfall variability. Those HHs with least access to adaptation options use internal migration during the hunger season, which reduces HH labour to tend and harvest crops, maintains land tensure, and interrupts HH investments in education as a survival strategy in an overall setting of erosive coping measures which leave or trap HHs at the margins of decent existence. An adaptation gap could grow for those already vulnerable HHs engaging in migration and other erosive coping strategies because they cannot access sufficient adaptation options. It is important to note, however, that it is not always possible to draw a clear cut between ‘vulnerable’ and ‘resilient’ HHs or between ‘erosive’ and ‘content’ migration, as the process is dynamic and HHs and migrants can move between the various circumstances, respectively. Furthermore, among the eight case studies of the research, there was no case study where all the HHs gave a model of ‘resilience’ or ‘vulnerability’, but a mixture and an overlap between all these indicators were present in all the case studies to various extents.

6.2 Outlook

The 2007 IPCC fourth Assessment Report predicts that the average global temperature rise could reach 6.4°C by 2100. Even after mitigation actions have been taken and adaptation choices have been made, climate impacts are likely to outstrip the options available to vulnerable countries, communities, and HHs. The consequences of greater variability of rainfall conditions – less predictable seasons, more erratic rainfall, unseasonable events, or the loss of transitional seasons – have significant repercussions for food security, livelihoods of climate-dependent people, and the migration decisions of vulnerable HHs. Pressure on rainfall-dependent livelihoods is likely to grow as a driver of long-term mobility in the coming decades if vulnerable HHs are not assisted in building more climate-resilient livelihoods in situ.

Understanding how HHs manage impacts of changing rainfall patterns on livelihoods and food security today is of paramount importance for adaptation planning, development, and transition to a more climate-resilient future. People in vulnerable communities worldwide are already experiencing impacts associated with extreme weather events and slow-onset climate change. They report changing rainfall patterns, shifting growing seasons, and increasingly severe weather events (IPCC, 2012). Climate change threatens to decrease agricultural productivity, increase food insecurity, and challenge the livelihoods and survival of poor people, particularly smallholder farmers, livestock keepers, and the landless in least developed countries.

In this context of potentially significantly changing weather patterns including rainfall patterns, research must further identify those characteristics that make HHs and communities more resilient to climatic stressors, and those that lead to erosive coping that undermines development efforts. The Rainfalls research presented in this special issue of Climate and Development help shed light on the role migration plays in HH risk management strategies vis-à-vis rainfall changes, food, and livelihood security. This research is a step contributing to more differentiated knowledge of adaptation for certain HH profiles. As adaptation knowledge and possible actions to address climatic risks improve, interventions can become more targeted towards the particular risk management needs of vulnerable communities – and help ensure that migration can be one of a variety of adaptation choices which help reduce sensitivity to climate stressors. In terms of research sites and methodologies, future research should continue using a mixed-methods approach but expand the scale of the research sites, so that more credible generalizations can be done within one case study rather than increasing the number of case studies and keeping the small-scale analysis and geographic coverage/scope in each case study.