It is widely accepted that climate change may be contributing to population movement and has gendered effects. The relationship between climate change as a direct cause of migration continues to give rise to debates concerning vulnerabilities, while at the same time gendered dimensions of vulnerabilities remain limited to binary approaches. There is limited cross-fertilization between disciplines that go beyond comparison between males and females but interrogate gender in association with climate change and migration. Here, we seek to develop an analytical lens to the nexus between gender, migration and climate change in producing, reproducing and sustaining at risk conditions and vulnerabilities. When gender and mobility are conceptualized as a process, and climate change as a risk modifier, the nexus between them can be better interrogated. Starting by using gender as an organizing principle that structures and stratifies relations entails viewing gender not as a category that distinguishes males and females but as a discursive process of social construction that (re)produces subjectivities and inequalities. Gender is a dynamic process that shapes and (re)produces vulnerabilities and consequently shapes mediation of climate impacts and migration and is also shaped by symbolic processes that go beyond households and communities.

ABSTRACT:In recent years island communities have actively adapted in response to a complex combination of changes that has shaped life on the islands, and this has had gendered consequences. The gender ramifications of adaptation on islands are still largely neglected in adaptation policies, although they are increasingly being addressed in the scientific literature. Understanding gendered consequences is indispensable for a critical comprehension of adaptation on islands. It would help avoid the formulation of adaptation policies that tend to focus only on technical problems and solutions. Such solutions potentially run the risk of reducing island problems to only biophysical issues such as sea level rise or problems attributed to the size and isolation of the islands. This paper investigates the consequences of adaptation for the mobility of both women and men on two islands in the Maldives, a small island developing state (SIDS) that has experienced unprecedented changes in recent decades. The focus on mobility stems from the fact that it forms an integral social and cultural part of island life. Although gender and mobility are intrinsically linked, the gendered consequences of adaptation for mobility are understudied. This study used qualitative interviews to collect narratives. The results show that the adaptation interviewees describe from their living memory has only exacerbated gender inequality by influencing the mobility of men and women in different ways.

Mountain communities are adapting their livelihoods to a complex combination of social, political and economic changes and associated risks. Despite recognition of adaption in response to multiple changes in sustainable livelihood and critical climate change literature, risks attributed to biophysical effects of climate change have increasingly assumed importance. Consequently, diversification is promoted as an adaptive approach to reduce such risks. However, understanding livelihood adaptation from the vantage point of climate change alone might lead to a limited understanding of non-climatic factors also shaping it. This paper proposes understanding adaptation through analysing long-term livelihood changes and using society rather than climate change as a conceptual starting point. It argues that such an approach has better potential to highlight a broader range of dynamic drivers operating over decades and to inform contextually grounded rural livelihood adaptation policies. Changes are traced in the overall livelihood trajectories among four rural communities in Nepal, in living memory, to understand the role of adaptation in shaping it. Qualitative life narratives were collected and complemented by key informant interviews, field observations and the analysis of official documents. The findings suggest that livelihoods have shifted not only from subsistence towards income generation but also from engagement in diverse livelihood sectors towards specialisation; the opposite of the advocated diversification. The role of political, economic, social and cultural processes within and outside the community has been prominent in shaping this trajectory.