# **3.2 Can household surveys help bridge existing climate migration data gaps?**

<mark>The conceptual framework presented here suggests that, despite existing limitations,</mark> multi-topic household surveys <mark>are an essential source of information</mark> for studying the key elements of the climate-migration nexus, and that even greater gains could be achieved if efforts are made to enhance their fitness for purpose in this domain. For example, standard household surveys are clearly disadvantaged in assessing the impact of fastonset shocks: because these appear suddenly and tend to be localized, nationally-representative surveys are unlikely the ideal tool to study their impact. However, coupling them with _ad hoc_ , swiftly implemented post-disaster surveys – perhaps in the form of (high frequency) phone surveys, light/rapid “response” surveys, or community-resident-based surveys – may improve their usefulness for addressing such shocks. Having established, well-functioning, regular national survey programs in place makes these types of data collection workable as there are higher chances that national survey data can be used as pre-shock baselines in quasi-experimental research designs (see for example McCarthy et al., 2018) and, more broadly, can facilitate the design of such instruments.<sup>22</sup> When considering slow-onset events, the framework as well as the literature more generally, implies that the migratory outcome should not be the only outcome of interest for researchers and policy makers. This suggests that broader reference statistical population for climate migration studies should be considered – one which encompasses ‘potential migrants’ and people ‘trapped’ in immobility due to the formation of local vulnerability pockets and poverty traps triggered by climate change. From a practical perspective, the study of immobility and the identification of such populations would benefit from the collection of additional information within multi-topic household surveys, such as migration aspirations and intentions, and household adaptation and coping strategies in the face of climatic shocks. Strengthening the focus on climate-induced immobility traps can also represent a complementary solution to the ‘rare event’ problem since the ‘trapped’/‘potential’ migrant sample supplements the ‘actual’ migrant sample.<sup>23,24</sup> Exploring concrete possibilities for integrating multi-topic household survey data with mobility data or labor data in destination places, and enhancing the interoperability between these different data sources, will be key for expanding the knowledge base on migration chains; for example, it would allow assessing

> 22 Note that this applies to all kinds of unforeseen shocks. A very recent example is the High-Frequency Phone Surveys on COVID19 (HFPS) supported by the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) team at the World Bank which leveraged existing LSMS (face-to-face) survey systems in seven Sub-Saharan countries for rapid and timely implementation of monthly phone survey rounds to track responses and the socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic in those countries (Gourlay et al., 2021).

> 23 Other ways for addressing or attenuating the ‘rare event’ problem are discussed in section 4.

> 24 By routinely collecting accurate information on migration intentions, actual migration episodes and characteristics of migrants as part of longitudinal household surveys, it will be also possible to assess if and to what extent intentions are able to predict future migratory flows. This can be particularly relevant for policy makers as, if it is shown that migration intentions are good predictors of future moves, this type of data can help in identifying possible emigration hotspots and characterizing the different profiles of the potential migrants, thus anticipating the future challenges the sending and recipient countries may face.

15