Assessing vulnerability of remittance‐recipient and nonrecipient households in rural communities affected by extreme weather events: Case studies fromSouth‐WestChina andNorth‐EastIndia

Abstract

Migration is one way in which rural households can seek to reduce their vulnerability to climate change. However, migration also carries risks and costs, such that vulnerability may not be reduced. This article constructs an index of rural households' vulnerability to extreme weather events, in order to explore how key components of vulnerability relate to migration. Applied to case studies in China and India, the study finds that the effect of remittances is non-linear. Although overall, in Assam, few differences were found in the vulnerability of households that did and did not receive remittances, in Yunnan, remittance-recipient households were found to have less adaptive capacity in response to drought. However, those who had received remittances over longer periods were found to have improved adaptive capacity in both case studies, and in Yunnan, their exposure to such events was also lower. Meanwhile in Assam, longer distance migration was associated with reduced exposure to flooding and with specific forms of adaptation. The vulnerability index developed has capacity to be used in assessments of effects of migration on vulnerability elsewhere.

Migration in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: Drivers, Consequences, and Governance

“…Banerjee et al (2018) found that remittance-recipient households in Baoshan County, Yunnan province, China have less adaptive capacity in response to drought than non-recipient households. The authors also reported that the adaptive capacity of those households who had received remittances over longer periods were found to have improved, and their exposure to such events was also lower (Banerjee et al 2018). A case study in Assam state of India found that the duration for which remittances are received by a household has significant and positive association with the structural changes made in the house to address flood impacts (Banerjee et al 2017).…”

“…Recent studies that explore the role of migration in the context of vulnerability to environmental change in the HKH region of China (Banerjee et al 2018;Yahui and Banerjee 2017), India (Banerjee et al 2017), Nepal (Chapagain and Gentle 2015;Jaquet et al 2016), and Pakistan (Gioli et al 2014) suggest that households receiving remittances prioritise immediate consumption and economic needs initially, and then health and education. Remittances are used to respond to extreme events, providing finance for relief and reconstruction in the face of extreme events (e.g., earthquakes, floods).…”

“…The extent to which remittances would have a positive or negative role in remittance-recipient households and origin communities is context specific (Barnett and Webber 2009;De Haas 2012). Banerjee et al (2018) found that remittance-recipient households in Baoshan County, Yunnan province, China have less adaptive capacity in response to drought than non-recipient households. The authors also reported that the adaptive capacity of those households who had received remittances over longer periods were found to have improved, and their exposure to such events was also lower (Banerjee et al 2018).…”

Gendered translocal connectedness: Rural–urban migration, remittances, and social resilience in Thailand

“…The global significance of remittances is reflected in their consideration in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Target 10.c; UN 2015) and in the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (Objective 20; UN 2019), as well as in the context of climate change adaptation (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012; International Organization for Migration, 2008). On the local level, empirical studies evidence, for instance, the contribution of remittances to the ability to diversify one's livelihood strategies so as to distribute potential risks among multiple domains (e.g., Adger, Huq, Brown, Conway, & Hulme, 2003; Cole, Wong, & Brockhaus, 2015; Sikder & Higgins, 2016), build household resilience against climate‐related stress (e.g., Banerjee, Black, Mishra, & Kniveton, 2018; Foresight, 2011; Rockenbauch, Sakdapolrak, & Sterly, 2019; Warner & Afifi, 2014), improve a household's living standard, education, and health, and facilitate community development, including political participation and investment in social infrastructure (e.g., De Haan, 1999; Deshingkar, 2009; Faist, 2008). Such predominantly positive stances on remittances have, however, also provoked criticism—for suggesting to shift the responsibility for development and climate adaptation from the state to the individual household and migrant and thereby fostering neoliberal policy making (e.g., Kunz, 2008; Felli & Castree 2012; Bettini & Gioli, 2015; Evans & Reid 2013) and for overlooking the differences within and among households in benefiting from remittances and migration due to the socially embedded, relational nature of capital accumulation (e.g., Lindley, 2009; De Haas & Van Rooij, 2010 & van Rooij 2010; Thieme & Siegmann, 2010).…”

High Mountain Areas

“…In some instances, the different livelihood strategies complement each other to support income and well-being. A review of migration in the Himalaya and Hindu Kush found that households that participated in labour migration and received remittances had improved adaptive capacity, and lowered exposure to natural hazards (Banerjee et al, 2018). In other cases, the households and communities, which undertake wage labour migration, encounter conflicts or incompatibilities between migration and agricultural livelihoods.…”