Migration is a key livelihood strategy to diversify incomes, reduce risks associated with rainfed agriculture and the effects of climate change, and meet personal aspirations. Drawing on life history interviews with migrant and non‐migrant families, we explore the role of migration and commuting in addressing livelihood vulnerability along a rural–urban continuum in Karnataka, India. We find that labelling migration as an adaptation strategy or not does not necessarily capture the breadth of experiences and implications for livelihoods that migrants and their families face. At an intra‐household level, migration and commuting can alleviate vulnerability for some family members while exacerbating vulnerability of others. At a larger scale, migration that is adaptive at a household scale can be maladaptive at a system scale, where cities are unable to provide for or absorb migrants who often live in highly vulnerable conditions. Finally, on a temporal scale, migration and commuting affect livelihood trajectories and choices beyond the migrants alone, and understanding how these strategies affect household vulnerability over time is crucial for adaptation research. We also highlight the use of life histories as a methodological tool that complements current econometric approaches exploring migration and allows for in‐depth and temporally sensitive inquiry into the drivers and consequences of migration.

No abstract

Vertical integration, which creates strategic linkages between national and sub-national levels, is being promoted as important for climate change adaptation. Decentralisation, which transfers authority and responsibility to lower levels of organisation, serves a similar purpose and has been in place for a number of decades. Based on four case studies in semi-arid regions in Africa and India, this paper argues that vertical integration for climate change adaptation should reflect on lessons from decentralisation related to governing natural resources, particularly in the water sector. The paper focuses on participation and flexibility, two central components of climate change adaptation, and considers how decentralisation has enhanced or undermined these. The findings suggest that vertical integration for adaptation will be strengthened if a number of lessons are considered, namely (i) actively seek equitable representation from marginal and diverse local groups drawing on both formal and informal participation structures, (ii) assess and address capacity deficits that undermine flexibility and adaptive responses, especially within lower levels of government, and (iii) use hybrid modes of governance that include government, intermediaries and diverse local actors through both formal and informal institutions to improve bottom-up engagement.

No abstract