The WP6 survey aims to understand all the changes a household has made within a given time frame. This includes changes to livelihoods, as well as changes to the household more generally. During data collection, we will not distinguish between true adaptations (i.e. changes that seek to reduce future climate risk that a household makes in response/in anticipation of climate drivers), serendipitous adaptations (i.e. changes made for any reason that coincidentally reduce future climate risk), coping (i.e. short term strategies that may increase future climate risk) and maladaptation adaptations (i.e. the changes a household makes in response/in anticipation of climate drivers that may increase future climate risk for the household or other members of society). These distinctions will be made during our analysis using additional data from the socio-demographic and well-being sections of the survey, which are being led by WP3.
The approach we propose is innovative as, instead of beginning with perceptions of climate drivers and then examining how people change their livelihoods as a result of them, we will begin by examining the way in which people have changed their livelihoods and then try to understand why they have done this. Our approach means that we capture data about the changes people make in response to multiple drivers. This means that the DECCMA project will be contribute to debates on the relative importance of climate drivers in adaptation. We will also capture information about serendipitous adaptations.
More specifically, the WP6 part of the survey starts by understanding the changes that respondents have made within a specified period of time. We then seek to understand the drivers for these changes (climate or other), as well as their perceived success. We will also explore the barriers that stop households making the changes that they would most like to make. Finally, we will collect data on perceptions of environmental change.
The WP6 Adaptation survey will examine two hypotheses. These are;
i. Households stay in vulnerable locations due to policy choices that encourage maladaptive behaviour
ii. Migration of one household member improves the adaptive capacity of the household who remain in-situ.