Comparative Analysis and Overarching Propositions

In this chapter, I comparative and assess the full empirical evidence from three case studies on the highlands, rainforest, and coastal zone of Peru. By doing so, I identify resemblances and divergences regarding the well-being impacts of climate (im)mobilities and mechanisms of action. Findings show that the studied (im)mobilities led to a range of total well-being outcomes, with more net-negative than net-positive results on average. More often than not, significant structural constraints set hard limits on people’s well-being pathways. Foremost, weak governance as well as development and climate inequalities, together with other structures of neglect and marginalization, created an uneven distribution of opportunities to migrate in the first place, to move or stay under tolerable conditions, and to subsequently preserve or enhance well-being. Simultaneously, people’s well-being trajectories also depended on the varying nature and impacts of hazards, which shaped their baseline resources to different extents. Severe abrupt or late-stage gradual climate impacts created particularly heavy well-being burdens for subsequent (im)mobilities. Moreover, the analysis demonstrates that most farmers had very limited agency to address climate impacts or circumvent state failures and other structural hurdles, which further lowered their chances of maintaining or enhancing their well-being. Few affected people managed to use their limited agency to achieve small advances within their constrained room to maneuver. Using the full empirical evidence base generated in this book, I conclude by distilling nine key propositions regarding the well-being impacts of climate (im)mobilities that can be applied beyond the contexts studied here and tested in future research.