Climate change is expected to have a significant role in weather patterns and consequential scarcities as well as in environmental degradation around the world. The research presents two countries, the Netherlands and Bangladesh, facing similar climate and environmental changes in different forms mainly represented by extreme weather and by sea level rise. The difference between those countries lies within the coping capacity which determines how well are Netherlands and Bangladesh prepared for possible insurgencies. In the Netherlands, the cooperation of government, private companies and citizens created a stable base for dealing with climate change supported by a well-working mechanism where technical innovation meets economic advances and highly skilled professionals. The country is prepared for large-scale flooding and rising sea level as well as for consequential impacts such as salinization of the land or infrastructure challenges. Whereas in Bangladesh the government, highly corrupted and dysfunctional, has not been able to create such a complex system. Therefore, the coping capacity of Bangladesh is weak and insufficient. Environmental change can work as a multiplier of economic, demographic, governmental and social factors and lead not only to environmental scarcities but also to a lack of social and economic ingenuity and conflict followed by migration. Environmental migration might be considered as one of the coping strategies and will most likely intensify already existing migration flows in Bangladesh and the Netherlands. This fact is particularly important in case of Bangladeshi population which will be most likely internally displaced and eventually forced to leave the country without implementing the efficient coping strategy.
This paper aims to understand how environmental stressors influence people’s livelihood options in the coastal belt of Bangladesh. We argue that environmental stressors such as cyclones, riverbank erosion, salinity intrusion, and floods have negative impacts on people’s lives by reducing their livelihood options. Twelve in-depth interviews (Livelihood Histories) and twelve Focus Group Discussions (FGD) based.. Read More