Reproducing inequalities or improving adaptive strategies? : interactions between poor urban households and actors within or external to the community in the face of flood hazards in Metro Manila, the Philippines

(1)

Amsterdam Institute For Social Science Research Research Master International Development Studies

Lisa Roodenburg 6055443

RMIDS Thesis

Lisa.roodenburg@student.uva.nl

Date: 03/07/2015

Supervisor: Hebe Verrest

Word count: 39.266

Reproducing inequalities or improving adaptive strategies?

Interactions between poor urban households and actors within or external to the

community in the face of flood hazards in Metro Manila, the Philippines

(2)

2

Content

1. Introduction 5

2. Theoretical framework 8

2.1 Governing floods in urban centers 8

2.2 Zooming in on the household: adaptation strategies 11

2.3 Exchanging capitals via interactions 13

2.4 Placing it in a vulnerability context 15

3. Conceptual framework 17 4. Methodology 18 5.1 Epistemological underpinnings 18 5.2 Plan of action 19 5.3 Design 20 5. Operationalization 21 6. Methods 24 7.1 Data collection 24 7.2 Modes of analysis 26 7. Limitations 27 8. Ethics 28

9. Governance challenges at metropolitan level 29

9.1 Natural dimensions 29

9.2 Social dimensions 33

9.3 Governing interactions 38

10. Vulnerability at barangay level 42

10.1 Introducing the barangays 42

10.2 Flood exposure 44

10.3 Household capitals 46

11. Interactions with households 56

11.1 Nature of interactions 56

11.2 Linking capitals to interactions 59

11.3 Contribution to adaptive strategies 60 12. Interactions with actors at barangay level 62

12.3 Contribution to adaptive strategies 65

13. Interactions with external actors 68

13.3 Contribution to adaptive strategies 71

14. Conclusion 72 15. Literature list 80 16. Appendix A. 84 17. Appendix B. 85 18. Appendix C. 86 19. Appendix D. 87

(3)

3

List of abbreviations

CDP: Center Disaster Preparedness

DILG: Department Interior and Local Governance DPWH: Department Public Works and Highways DRRM: Disaster Risk Reduction Management

DSWD: Department Social Welfare and Development LGU: Local Government Unit

MMDA: Metropolitan Development Authority NAMRIA: National Mapping and Resource Institute

(4)

(5)

5

1. Introduction

In the current era of climate change, much of its negative consequences have to be dealt with in middle and low income countries. Especially low-lying coastal areas (will) suffer from the devastating effects of enhanced extreme rainfall patterns and sea-level rise (IPCC, 2007). Yet, it are these areas that are characterized by high population densities and urban growth (McGranahan et al., 2007). This rapid urbanization will intensify the negative impacts of climate change by reinforcing urban inequalities and urban poverty (Moser et al., 2010).

Floods are already a major threat to many urban populations, and the risks will get even higher. Especially for the urban poor, who face additional difficulties in coping with these hazards, it means added insecurities to their livelihoods. Yet these livelihoods, which are made up of „the capabilities, capitals (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living‟ (Cartney in Rakodi & Lloyd-Jones, 2002), enable households to bounce back after hazards. This principle is central to this research and well-illustrated by the following quote: „The livelihoods of people in high-risk or highly variable environments tend to exhibit considerable self-reliance and flexibility, as well as a high degree of careful adaptation to local environmental resources and environmental change‟ (Adams, 2010: 365).

According to the Global Disaster Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (2009), the Philippines ranks 8th in the order of absolute number of people exposed to floods per year. Trends show that floods nowadays occur more often and more intense (Balica et al., 2012; Bankoff, 2003), affecting more people and ecosystems. The extreme foods of November 2013 (Typhoon Yolanda hitting Tacloban) are an example of the immense impacts such floods can have. Entire neighborhoods have been washed away, leaving the residents with no housing and livelihood opportunities.

Floods are not something new in the Philippines. The archipelago, consisting of 36,000 kilometers of coastline where 60% of the population lives (Hipolito, 2011), has always been suffering from these environmental hazards. The seasonal heavy rainfall combined with the cyclone season is the main climatic reason for this suffering. In addition, it is a low elevation zone. This means that future flood risks might be more extreme (Mc Granahan et al., 2007).

Metro Manila, a highly urbanized area spread out around the capital, is surrounded by the shore and a dense river network. Metro Manila is densely populated with around 18.000 people per square kilometer. Future prospects show that it is likely that this density will grow to around 20.000 people per square kilometer in 2040 (Republic of the Philippines, 2013). However, these counts are not always accurate as the actual population is higher due to informal settlers. The area houses a heterogeneous population ranging from the very wealthy, to a large group of poor who often inhabit informal neighborhoods (Zoleta-Nantes, 2002). Not surprisingly, Metro Manila is hit by several floods each year. These floods are not only caused by heavy rainfall. It is the combination with the inadequate drainage system that makes the floods more severe. On the one hand this drainage system does not work properly because it becomes clogged by littering (Hipolito, 2011). On the other hand the capacity is simply not big enough, especially because of the high increase in population due to rural to urban migration (Zoleta-Nantes, 2000; Bankoff, 2003). The flood risks are high because of the high population density and the concentration of important economic and social institutions. Therefore an urgent question to ask is how a city like Metro Manila should sustain with this (increasing) flood risk and immense population growth?

Although the solutions might seem clear (improving the drainage system and building high scale infrastructure), in practice they are not. The government does not have the financial means to make

(6)

6 such large scale developments and therefore the situation will not change within a short period of time (Zoleta-Nantes, 2000; Hipolito, 2011). In the meantime residents themselves come up with strategies to adapt to the floods, sometimes in cooperation with NGO‟s or the government (Zoleta-Nantes, 2000). However, not all residents are capable to successfully adapt as one needs a certain set of capitals. For most poor, who often live at the most exposed locations, this is not a simple task. They are in need for assistance, which could be provided by actors at local, municipal or national level. Yet, it is largely unknown what kind of assistance is exchanged between these levels, a gap this research tries to get grip on. Several scholars propose that there is a need for a multi-level approach to flood vulnerabilities to limit the risks, as it allows sharing of valuable capitals and knowledge (Agrawal, 2010). This means that actors from these levels and different backgrounds cooperate in order to increase the capacities to adapt to floods.

The question remains how multi-level adaptation practices work out on the ground, and specifically how this works out at the household level. For households floods are part of the lived experience, adaptation strategies are therefore also part of their lives. Agrawal (2010) and Moser & Saitterhwaite (2010) stress that it is this local knowledge and experience which is the most valuable in creating proper adaptation strategies. Therefore it is useful to explore how these local level actors (households) interact with actors from within or external to their community and what this means for them in terms of capitals. It is necessary to carry out case studies, to expand the understanding of multilevel adaptation beyond the theoretical level.

Metro Manila‟s flood governance is characterized by multiple levels. There are exposed urban poor residents (occasionally organized in community organizations) and community leaders at local level, national policy-making governmental departments and NGO‟s and municipal offices mediating between these two levels. On paper, and embedded in laws, there is a clear structure of how these actors should all cooperate. In practice this does not go without the involvement of politics. Actors do not always make decisions on based on „what is best‟. Therefore, decision making is not a power free process, but can shape inequalities (Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012). In Metro Manila this happens when some groups get more access to certain goods and services. There is a need to reform the institutional frameworks for environmental decision making, which can be achieved by including the role of public, private and civil society involvement in the provision of goods and services (Pelling, 1999). Then, adaptation practices become part of a broader development process (Pelling, 1999). This research aims to address part of this need by focusing on the role of the public (households) in getting access to goods and services in the context of flood issues.

Seeking interactions, within the community or external to the community, might enable households to get such access and thus improve their adaptive strategies. There has not been detailed research which has focused on these interactions in a flood hazard context specifically. Van Voorst (2014) described how some households in an informal settlement in Jakarta seek funding and materials from NGOs whereas others „trade‟ inside local information for risk security by government officials. Interestingly, not all households engage in interactions and those who do interact in diverse ways and with diverse actors. Some might rely on contacts from within the community whereas others seek their contacts outside. This limited in-depth study on the incentives behind these interactions, leaves a gap for further research. Understanding what factors steer these interactions will contribute to the overall understanding of household adaptive strategies within a vulnerability context. This research tries to better understand this by linking household capitals to the ways they interact with actors inside and outside the community. Certain capitals or combinations of capitals might make it easier for households to mobilize interactions, which could explain this variety in interactions highlighted by Van Voorst (2014).

(7)

7 Thus this research aims to understand this by trying to answer the following research question:

How do poor urban households mobilize and gain capitals in interacting with actors at local, municipal and national level for their adaptive strategies in the face of floods in Metro Manila, the Philippines?

To answer this question an explorative case study is carried out in two urban poor neighborhoods in Pasay City, one of the 17 cities forming Metro Manila. These two neighborhoods house households with different characteristics, making comparing them relevant. This research does not focus on comparing neighborhoods; it zooms in to an even smaller scale: the household. However, it is perceived that certain characteristics of the neighborhood, such as the organization of the community leaders, might influence interactions. Thus the comparison on the neighborhood level is also included. Zoleta-Nantes (2002) found out that households in a relatively rich neighborhood in Manila were better able to get assistance in the face of floods. She believed this was due to a better social organization on neighborhood level. Besides this, other characteristics might also be of relevance and therefore they are explored in this research. Some household have stronger social networks, resulting in neighbors collaborating in times of disaster. Others might have more financial means to construct an adequate house or others might have the right contacts with community leaders enabling them with additional goods and services. All of these examples show how the adaptive strategies of households are shaped based on their own characteristics (reflected in capitals). Thus the selection of neighborhoods enables to see how differences in a certain households characteristics define how interactions are mobilized and what these interactions yield in terms of capitals. This case study builds on a household survey, interviews in the neighborhoods and on interviews with external actors. It is very likely that the households in these two neighborhoods do not all interact in the same way; the aim of this research is to explain this variance in adaptive strategies.

Adger et al. (2003: 180) state that there is a need for „reflecting the lived experience of resource-dependent societies in the developing world in coping with climate variability‟. Nevertheless, there is not an abundance of comprehensive case study based research on these issues in the Philippines. Some are somewhat outdated (Zoleta-Nantes, 2000; 2002). The latest studies focus more on quantitative vulnerability (Balica et al., 2012), technical assessments (Muko et al., 2012) and social vulnerability and response (Porio, 2011; 2014). Thus, input on how households‟ interact within the context of Metro Manila‟s multi-leveled flood governance system is valuable for developing context-specific adaptation strategies.

First the theoretical underpinnings of the research are discussed, followed by a conceptual scheme which visualizes how the theories are connected in this research. Then, the methodology including epistemology and research design is discussed. Next the operationalization of the main concepts is outlined. How these concepts are measured, their limitations and ethical issues are discussed in the methods section. The chapters that follow will start answering the sub questions. The first chapter on metropolitan level governance challenges gives some contextual background while at the same time partly answering sub-question one. The next chapter on vulnerability at barangay level answers the second part of sub-question one and gives some more background on the local context. The three chapters that follow discuss interactions at three different levels: households, community level actors and actors external to the community. Each chapter is divided into three paragraphs, whereby each paragraph partly answers one sub-question. In the conclusion all three levels are combined to give a comprehensive answer to the research question.

(8)

8

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Governing climate change and floods in urban centers

The idea of sustainability gained ground in the scientific and political debates in the early 90s and has thereby inevitably linked the economic, social and environmental realms at all scales (Adams, 2010). This led to a shift in the study of urban social sciences as scholars started to integrate the economic and environmental realms into their research (Pugh, 2000). Obviously, there are strong links between the economic, the social and the environment. This can be illustrated by an example related to climate change. Poor countries often suffer relatively much from climate change and environmental impacts limit their social and economic capabilities. Whereas a certain level of wealth and social organization is necessary to adequately cope with the effects. Evidently, these links do not work in one direction, they are interconnected and often lead to a vicious circle. The aim of sustainability is to create favorable trade-offs between these different realms (Adams, 2010).

Until the beginning of this century urban areas were often overlooked when dealing with sustainability issues, since the focus was on the rural (Robertson, 2012). Although the concept is ever more important in the context of the city as it is a place where the economic, the social and the natural come together in a compressed manner. Now, there is a growing consensus that urban regions face one of the biggest sustainability challenges because more than 50 percent of the world population lives in urban areas. Urban growth can create difficulties and insecurities for large parts of its residents (Robertson, 2012). These insecurities can range from a wide variety of environmental, social and economic issues. When addressing these issues via a sustainability perspective you seek to foster growth and social change that is environmentally and socially acceptable (Pugh, 2000).

In the natural sciences, scholars often speak of the „planetary boundaries‟, a concept intrinsically linked to sustainability thinking. It means that when certain limits of environmental dimensions are reached, change is irreversible and could have negative consequences for natural and social systems all over the world (Rockstrom, 2009). Climate change, one of these dimensions, is reaching its boundary at a fast pace. There is a growing consensus among scientist that economic and social change is unavoidable to manage within these boundaries. Cook & Swyngedouw (2012) argue that in practice sustainability is becoming neo-liberalized in a way that it is foremost a way of „greening‟ capitalism. This results in a focus on the economic pillar and often means less emphasis on the social and environmental. Because of this, Cook & Swyngedouw (2012) propose to move beyond sustainability and refocus to political ecology.

This sustainability thinking is reflected in the ways many (Southern) cities approach the idea of the sustainable city. There is an emphasis on good governance principles, ecologically sensitive technologies, institutionalization of stakeholder participation and changing consumer cultures (Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012). When linked to climate change, much attention is put towards technical fixes, which regularly result in environmentally unjust conditions as large parts of the population are excluded from for instance infrastructure (Adger et al., 2003). Besides, cities in the global South face more difficulties when relying on technical fixes as they often lack financial means.

Urban political ecology is mainly involved with „the reworking of human-non human assemblages and the production of socio-environmental inequalities‟ (Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012). Hereby, in line with urban sustainability thinking, nature and society are seen as intrinsically linked. Urbanization is such a process where linkages between the two are created as urban societies grow within an (often) limited amount of space. Urban political ecology asserts that unequal power relations are connected to

(9)

9 nature and reproduced through processes such as urbanization. Thus, in a way they assume that these power relations cannot be avoided. This can result, as mentioned above, in (social and geographical) exclusion and inequality. The inequalities and power relations do not necessarily find themselves at the same scale. Decision making at global level can have unequal local implications (Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012). This means that the actors operating at the mediating scales also play a role in „transporting‟ these inequalities. According to Cook & Swyngedouw (2012) the multi scaled state plays a key role in this process as it shapes who is included, excluded and privileged. When linking this to hazards, a geography of vulnerability is produced through these negotiations between institutions at different scales (Pelling, 1999). Hereby institutions are seen in the widest range from formal governmental institutions to civil society organizations and households. The decision making process is influenced by the backgrounds of these institutions that differ in their scale, access to information and resources and legal and cultural rights (Pelling, 1999). Thus vulnerabilities become reproduced when the institutions with „weaker‟ backgrounds hold less power in the decision making, which expresses itself in the distribution of goods and services.

One of the threatening issues numerous cities in the global South deal with are natural hazards. Floods, which are likely to be further enhanced by climate change (IPCC, 2007), are such a natural hazard. Adaptation can be seen as „adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities‟ (IPCC, 2007). Or in other words, adaptation refers to the practices of dealing with the negative effects of natural hazards, including those of climate change.

In the case of climate change, there is also the option of mitigation. Mitigation refers tackling the issue beforehand by trying to emit less greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation might, if implemented successfully on global level, slow down these climate change processes. Besides, in relation to climate change most countries in the global South focus on adaptation since they emit relatively less greenhouse gasses while they often have to deal with relatively more negative consequences. Also, mitigation is a long term process which will only work out when dealt with on a global scale. This is why there is a need for short-term action on a local scale simultaneously. Because of these reasons, this research focuses on adaptation only as it is more relevant in the context of cities in the global South.

Moser & Saitterthwaite (2010) and Adams (2010) state that multilevel adaptation to environmental hazards is the most successful. Therefore actors from different levels have to work together. In an ideal situation all these actors would benefit from each other. In reality this is not necessarily the case, since there are often other interests at stake. Especially when governments lack the means to provide adequate adaptation measures, adaptation on other levels becomes important. Thus we could see it as a governance process, as it goes beyond government (Kooiman & Bavinck, 2013). Interactive governance is a specific approach to governance, applied by Bavinck et al. (2011) to fishing conflicts in Sri Lanka and India. However, the theory is not limited to fisheries as it can also function as a framework to understand environmental urban issues. Bavinck et al. (2011) see interactive governance as a way of „solving societal problems and creating opportunities through interaction between civil, public and private persons and organizations‟. Characteristic of interactive governance is that it involves a common dimension. This means that the governance is centered on a shared resource or issue. This is certainly true in the case of urban flooding, since it affects various actors and is thereby shared by large parts of the society. In poor exposed neighborhoods it might be a direct threat to their livelihoods, whereas better protected residents might experience traffic delays or the transportation of waste into their neighborhoods.

(10)

10 The actual ability of actors to solve a societal problem can be approached by the concept of governability. Governability is hereby seen as „the overall capacity for governance of any societal entity or system‟ (Kooiman et al., 2008). However, it must be noted that the governability is not an objective measurement; it has different meanings to everyone and hinges on perceptions. The governability is determined by the interplay of three components: the system to be governed, the governing system and the governing interactions. The system to be governed connects elements of the social and natural systems that are involved in the governance issue. The governing system is seen as the processes, driving by the state, market and civil society that influence and steer the system to be governed. And at last, the governing interactions are the relations between the different actors in the governance context. Chuenpagdee & Jentoft (2013) propose to first examine the system to be governed and the governing system through four concepts: diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale. Diversity seeks to understand the heterogeneity of the components of the system. Hereby the components are seen as the different entities (those that are involved in the issue) that form the system. Complexity explores the relations between the different components of the system, how they are organized. Dynamics refers to the stability of the systems, and whether they are likely to change over time. At last scale seeks to understand at which scales the different components of the system are situated. The idea is that the higher the „score‟ on these four concepts is, the lower the governability of the issue.

Torfing et al. (2012) also use the interactive governance approach, but in a slightly altered way. They mainly focuses on the ways power flows through the process of interactive governance. Hereby power is seen as the ability to shape and secure particular outcomes. Essentially, this power influences the decisions that are being made and therefore the outcomes of the governance process. According to Torfing et al. (2012), it is problematic that a lot of scholars tend to overlook power in interactive governance. They focus on the beneficiaries of interactive governance, whereas it is not necessarily an equal and successful process. In reality, the actors involved in the governance process constantly try to influence each other‟s ideas and actions.

Bavinck et al. (2011) address this idea of power in interactive governance through the modes of interactions. This dimension acknowledges that there is constant negotiating between the different actors, whereby each mode reflects the type of relation between the actors. In some relations, the power is not evenly distributed which is reflected in the governing decisions. Three modes are distinguished to get some grip on the wide variety of interactions: self-governing interactions, co-governing interactions and hierarchical co-governing interactions. Self-co-governing interactions refer „to the capacity of social entities to govern themselves‟ (Bavinck et al., 2011). In the case of floods, a social entity can be understood as a community at neighborhood level that is able to organize effective adaptation measures. This could be through a community organization or a more spontaneous event. Central in this mode is that the interaction does not travel beyond the own social entity. In the second mode, co-governance, governance responsibilities are shared among actors, who are seeking cooperation. In this mode the power is evenly divided between the actors. At last, the hierarchical mode is a style of interactions whereby there are hierarchical structures between the actors. Terms like „policy‟ and „management‟ often indicate certain interactions as they imply that one actor makes the decisions on how to deal with the system to be governed. This usually involves government versus citizen interaction, but the hierarchal actor could take any other possible shape, as for instance a private sector organization. It is not possible to say which governance mode works the best. In every case and every context another mode of interaction might be the best fitting.

The interactive governance approach helps understanding the whole multi-scaled system of actors and interactions, whereas political ecology helps to grasp the inequalities which flow out the negotiation

(11)

11 process in the system. This research focuses on the perspective of the household within this governance arena. Therefore this research does not aim to fill gaps in the discussion on political ecology or interactive governance. Both theories are mainly used to get a better grip on the governance set up. Thus the remainder of the theoretical framework will focus on the level of the household and the ways they are able to sustain interactions with actors on all levels as this research aims to explore this in the context of flood governance.

2.2 Zooming in on the household: adaptive strategies

As discussed above, cities face big challenges when it comes to dealing with floods now, and in the future. This means that many citizens are threatened in their livelihoods (Pugh, 2010). When dealing with these hazards, action needs to be undertaken at multiple scales.

It are mostly governments who are able to apply large scale structural adaptations, but sometimes governments are not able to provide these adequate measures, which is regularly the situation in lower and middle income countries (Moser, 2009; Adger et al., 2003). In that case, individual and community action becomes more important (Moser & Satterhwaite, 2010). The economic resources for investments and access to technology are most certainly not the only factors of importance when it comes to adaptation. In fact, adaptation relies more on knowledge, experience and the reliance on climate sensitive resources (Adger & Vincent, 2005). Robertson (2012) states that it is precisely the local context specific knowledge, which is based on lived experiences, that is key in finding solutions. However, within a city not all households equally suffer from flood hazards. The poorer segments of the population, who are limited in their adaptive capacities, suffer the most. Especially since they usually inhabit locations that are most exposed to these hazards (Adams, 2009; Adger et al., 2003), plus they are often excluded from public services and infrastructure (Moser, 2009) and decision making around the issue (Adger et al., 2003).

The extent to which systems or households are capable to adapt is reflected through the term „adaptive capacity‟. According to the IPCC (2007) this adaptive capacity refers to „the ability to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences‟. In other words, the adaptive capacity is very useful in understanding what actions households could possibly undertake, but it does not reveal if these households actually undertake these actions. Thus, it is doubtful if one could truly grasp the adaptive capacity through empirical research. To see what actions households do carry out, one should look at their adaptive strategies. These are the short term and long term actions households actually undertake, to cope with fluctuations in their livelihoods (in this case fluctuations due to floods) (Agrawal, 2010). Therefore adequate adaptation strategies can be seen as actual development strategies since they improve direct living conditions, while they also indirectly enhance development (Huq et al., 2006).

People undertake different strategies to adapt to floods, these strategies depend on the way people‟s lives are affected and the package of capitals they possess. These capitals are made up by certain economic, social, political, physical and natural means that define someone‟s capacity to undertake actions (Pelling, 1998). People make use of their capitals when they are in an insecure situation (Moser & Satterhwaite, 2010). I will further elaborate on specifics of these capitals in the following paragraph.

One of the oldest examples of adaptation is resettlement. Today, this is perceived as the last option since most activities have become rather place-bound (Adger et al., 2003). This is the case in urban

(12)

12 regions, because of the concentration of job opportunities, high scale infrastructure and facilities. So if relocation is not an option, households have to undertake other strategies. Linnekamp et al. (2011) distinguish between actions that are undertaken before, during and after floods. In these different time frames, households undertake a wide variety of actions ranging from doing nothing special, to investing in technical improvements to their house.

Before floods, households can undertake actions in order to improve the conditions of their house. They higher their house or courtyard to prevent floods to reach their house or they take less cost-consuming measures by placing a small barrier in front of the doorway (Linnekamp et al., 2011). They can also invest in insurances, early-warning systems and regular cleaning activities of the waterways (Zoleta-Nantes, 2000; Linnekamp et al., 2011; Allen, 2006). Also, during floods households undertake a variety of strategies. Some move their belongings to dryer spots, seek temporary shelter elsewhere, do nothing in particular, seek help from external organizations or start removing clogs in the drainage systems (van Voorst, 2014). After floods, rebuilding and restoring activities are central as households try to get back to their daily activities.

Some of these household strategies can involve collective action, whereby several households in a neighborhood work together on for example cleaning a waterway. Adger et al. (2003) and Adger (2003) stress that collective action at local scale is one of the most important adaptation techniques. Although, collective active action has its limitations as it often only takes place if everyone can benefit and there are problems of free-riding (Ostrom, 1990). Agrawal (2010) argues that collective action has not much to offer when it concerns people with more or less the same assets. This is because it will not enable them to benefit from exchanging those assets. On a more positive note, whereas collective action might have startup problems, on the long term it has benefits for everyone living in flood prone areas according to Rydin & Pellington (2000). This is because collective action fosters local organization, which allows them to contribute to the local political agenda with less difficulty (Rydin & Pellington, 2000). Thus collective action brings the opportunity for households to get more power. Collective action is central in creating adaptive capacity at various scales (Adger et al., 2003). Related to household strategies, this collective action can take place internal or external to the neighborhood. It could mean that neighbors are working together on adaptive strategies in the neighborhood or it could mean that they focus on mobilizing external interactions. Zoleta-Nantes (2002) explained how households in some neighborhoods in Metro Manila were able to get external assistance, while others did not. This external assistance consisted of governmental and NGO programs, and a variety of funding opportunities. It were the relatively wealthy communities that were able to successfully organize themselves building on collective action, which eventually led to beneficial interactions with these external actors. Apparently certain social and economic factors affect whether interactions with external actors are part of adaptive strategies. This research tries to see to what extent this is the case in an urban setting where most households can be classified as poor.

Besides, these interactions with external actors are also shaped by the policies of these actors. Whereas some organizations might be centered on citizen involvement and public participation, for others this might not be their area of focus. According to Few et al. (2007) public participation in climate change adaptation is desirable, although dependable on the character of the participatory process. The authors do note that public participation in climate change related processes is ever more challenging because of the issues uncertain nature and the long term scope. However, there is a growing effort to increase public involvement in adaptation (Few et al., 2007; Rydin & Pennington, 2000), as it will foster the inclusion of the local knowledge which is so valuable (Few et al., 2007).

(13)

13 Productive capital: the stock of plant, equipment, infrastructure and other productive resources owned by households. Financial capital: the financial resources available to households (savings, supplies of credit).

Human capital: investments in education, health and nutrition of households. Labour is linked to investments in human

capital; health status influences people‟s capacity to work, and skill and education determine the returns from their labour.

Social capital: an intangible asset, defined as the rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity and trust embedded in social

relations, social structures, and societies‟ institutional arrangements. It is embedded at the micro-institutional level (communities and households) as well as in the rules and regulations governing formalized institutions in the marketplace, political system and civil society.

Natural capital: the stock of environmentally provided assets such as soil, atmosphere, forests, minerals, water and

wetlands. In urban areas, land for shelter is also a critical asset.

Sources: Bebbington (1999); Carney (1998); Narayan (1997); Portes (1998); Putnam (1993)

2.3 Exchanging capitals through interactions

Capitals or assets theory will be used get a better understanding of why some households do interact with others as part of their adaptive strategies, while others do not. Interactions are seen in three ways. It occurs when households interact with other households from within their community; this might concern neighbors who help each other. It occurs when households interact with actors within their community, such as community leaders or organizations. Lastly, it might involve interactions with external actors, who are not part of the community. Examples of these external actors might be NGO‟s, municipalities or governmental agencies. Interactions are thus seen in a broad, flexible sense as having contact with someone outside of the household.

Assets and capitals are often used interchangeably in the literature; the term capitals will be used throughout this research. Capitals theory originates in the rural livelihoods literature (Scoones, 2009; Bebbington, 1999), however Moser (1998) moved capitals beyond the rural poor towards urban poor livelihoods

.

It is a way of approaching poor livelihoods by focusing on what they do have, instead of what they do not. Therefore it is a pro-poor way of approaching livelihood theory.

Moser (2009) distinguishes between capital based vulnerability and capital based adaptation frameworks. For the purpose of this research, the latter is highlighted as it focuses on the relation between capitals and individual, household and community adaptation strategies related to natural hazards. The idea behind capitals is that the poor are able to use them in order to lower their vulnerability (see paragraph 2.4): „The more assets people have, the less vulnerable they generally are; the greater the erosion of people‟s assets, the greater their insecurity‟ (Moser, 2009: 11). Households can use their capitals for their adaptive strategies, and more specifically they can use their capitals to mobilize interactions with others. To understand this in a more comprehensive way, the different forms of capitals need to be explored. Moser (2009) distinguishes the following five forms of capital modified to the urban household level.

Figure 1. Five forms of capital based on Moser (2009).

All capitals in figure 1. are perceived as relevant in the context of household adaptation to flood hazards. The figure already describes how these five types of capital are used in this research, although in some cases they have to be altered to the local context. The context is urban, which means that natural capital will focus on land rights. Adger (2003) argues that social capital is key in creating the above discussed collective action. It allows communities to find common strategies and manage risks through local networks and interactions. Social capital can be distinguished in three forms: bonding, bridging and linking. Bonding social capital refers to ties between households that more or less share the same identity (or set of capitals) (Pelling & High, 2005). Urban communities are known for having difficulties creating social capital because of their size, mobility and heterogeneity. This heterogeneity

(14)

14 expresses itself in households with different economic, social and geographical backgrounds (Philips in Rakodi & Lloyd-Jones, 2002). Metro Manila‟s communities are also heterogeneous and house many residents who are originally from the provinces. It is unknown what this migrant status means for the set of capitals they possess, but it seems likely that they would experience difficulties building (bonding) social capital. Bridging social capital refers to relations between entities that do not share the same background, but do have the same interest. Linking social capital refers to vertical relations that cross groups, for instance between households and governmental agencies (Pelling & High, 2005). Yet, I would like to add two more categories of capitals as I feel like they are not fully covered in the above five categories. First of these two is political capital. In this research this capital covers the bridging and linking dimensions of social capital. As stressed by the literature on interactive governance (Bavinck et al., 2011; Torfing et al., 2012) and political ecology (Cook & Swyngedouw, 2012; Pelling, 1999) an important aspect linked to the nature of interactions is power as it might enable or disable access to these interactions. Rakodi (1999) states that political power is about being included in the process of decision-making at multiple scales. This is often neglected in flood related decision-making (Adger et al., 2003). In a way, this links to the idea of citizenship: „the opportunity of any citizen to take part in public affairs‟ (Hordijk, 2005). Inequalities linked to this access to citizen rights can result in new movements of citizens that claim their right to the city (Holston, 2009). You could see these movements as being built on interactions between citizens from the urban peripheries. The second capital that needs to be added is cultural capital. Bebbington (1999) sees this as a set of cultural practices that are enabling and empowering to livelihood strategies. These cultural practices are reproduced through time and space. There are some examples from practice who illustrate how this cultural capital might influence adaptation practices. Bankoff (2003) describes how some Philippine societies have normalized certain adaptation practices as part of their cultural heritage. They construct their houses, practice their agriculture and have some distinct words all based on years of experiences of dealing with floods. In fact, Agrawal (2010) sees this historical experience and knowledge on adaptation practices as crucial to facilitate adaptation in the future. Therefore, it is important to include this capital in this research.

These capitals cannot be seen as autonomous entities; in fact they are all interconnected. This is illustrated by the following example. The ways citizens are involved in decision making processes can be intrinsically linked to their social capital. Meaning that it are certain social relations that enable people to get access to this political capital. Although not only capitals can define someone‟s adaptive strategies. As van Voorst (2014) argued in her PhD, there is a variety in adaptation practices at the individual level that cannot be explained by such factors alone. Individuals can have personal motives and ideas that have been shaped by their past experiences and beliefs. Some simply do not want to cooperate with certain actors for reasons that cannot be grasped by predetermined capitals.

The key motive behind mobilizing interactions lies in the reciprocity. The interaction itself might strengthen social ties, but moreover it results in an exchange of capitals. On the one hand households use their own capital to mobilize interactions, whereas on the other hand these interactions contribute to the capitals of these households. When neighbors work together, they are able to share their equipment to better protect their houses. This contributes to physical and social capitals. There are NGO‟s and insurance companies that help households by getting them insurance for their property. This strengthens households‟ financial capital (Moser, 2009). Also, other organizations might focus on providing knowledge by giving community preparedness trainings. These kinds of activities contribute to the human capital (Moser, 2009).

(15)

15 These examples illustrate that interactions with others can surely be beneficial in the face of floods. Still, it is largely unknown what defines why some households engage in interactions while others do not. Certain combinations of capital might make a household more likely to engage in an interaction with a certain type of actor.

2.4 Placing it in a vulnerability context

Moser‟s (2009) understanding of capitals is that they can lower the vulnerability of households, when used in the right way. Yet, this statement comes with some assumptions on the causality of the concept vulnerability. Therefore I will explore this concept, and more specifically its relation with adaptation strategies, in this paragraph.

Governability approaches the extent to which shared issues can be solved by governance. This concept is very useful in understanding the ins and outs of a whole „system‟. In the scope of this research it is harder to grasp this governability when looking at it from a household level. How capable are households to manage their position linked to this shared issue? Therefore I feel like there is need for an additional concept to get grip on the position of households within the interactive governance approach. This is a more local approach which can be explored by vulnerability (Kooiman, 2013). Vulnerability, a concept which can be used for different levels of analysis (Adger et al., 2003), is often used in disaster studies to get grip on the social and ecological environments in the creation of risks (Few, 2003). The concept is entangled with adaptation, which is reflected through the following quote on the meaning of household adaptation: „actions to reduce the vulnerability of a household to the adverse impacts (of climate change)‟ (based on Moser et al., 2010). In a way, the above discussed capitals and personal motives form the way households are able to adapt. These adaptive strategies are shaped by, and influence, the vulnerability of households.

Vulnerability is one of those concepts that can be defined in multiple ways (Few, 2003; Fussel, 2007). Adger et al. (2003: 288) mainly see it as a starting point which leads to adaptive strategies: „individuals and societies have been at risk of climatic hazards and other factors, and this vulnerability can act as a driver for adaptive resource management‟. Pelling (2003) on the other hand defines vulnerability as „the degree of exposure to natural hazards and the capacity to prepare and recover from any negative impacts‟. So on the one hand it is about physical exposure (which is about the intensity and frequency of hazards), and on the other hand it is about capacities to adapt to these hazards.

In the social science based line of thought, vulnerability is mainly seen as a starting point. Hereby your vulnerability defines your adaptation capacities. In natural sciences this relationship is often viewed the other way around. In that case your adaptation strategies define the level of your vulnerability (Fussel, 2007). In this research it is perceived that this relationship is working both ways: the adaptive capacity influences the vulnerability of your position, while this level of vulnerability simultaneously shapes the space for adaptation. Pelling‟s (2003) definition of the concept coincides with this. Because of the twofold position of vulnerability, in this research it is understood as a contextual factor instead of a measurable concept. When using it as a contextual factor, it will help understanding why households need to adapt, while at the same time understanding how they can be limited in their capacities to adapt.

Several scholars developed frameworks of how to practically measure this vulnerability. Fussel (2007) created such a framework, which fits Pelling‟s (2003) definition of the concept. Fussel (2007) disentangles vulnerability as internal and external, while being made up of the following dimensions:

(16)

16 environmental, physical, social and economic. External refers to factors outside of the community/area whereas internal to factors that come from within the community/area. Since this research has a household focus, municipal, national and other external policies concerning floods will be considered as external factors. Following this, there is also a distinction between the socio-economic and bio-physical dimensions. Table 1. shows the four dimensions of vulnerability, as set up by Fussel (2009), with factors that indicate the vulnerability of households within this research.

Table 1. Dimensions of flood related vulnerability for households. Source: Author, 2013; based on Fussel (2009)

Socio-economic Biophysical Internal Capitals (based on Bebbington, 1999;

Moser et al., 2010; Moser, 2011; Scoones, 2009)

Land use

Population density

External National, municipal flood policies NGO projects

Exposure to floods Future risk (climate change)

To sum up, the theories discussed in this chapter raise some questions. There is an emphasis that adaptation should be multi-leveled, so that all groups are included and interacting. This inclusion can strengthen the livelihoods (the sets of capitals) of marginalized groups (such as urban poor) who are often excluded. Urban poor communities are heterogeneous and in the case of Metro Manila they often house many migrants. Yet, it is unknown what this variety in household capitals means for households‟ ability to take a place in this multi-leveled adaptation network. Do they mainly interact with households and form strong alliances to push for their interests? Or do they interact with actors at mediating levels such as the neighborhood, in order to get access to more goods and services? Following from this, do interactions actually improve livelihoods and thus the capacity to adapt, or are there processes reproducing inequalities that limit this. There a few examples in the literature whereby household capitals have been linked to their ability to contract interactions. It has only established that these interactions can be useful.

(17)

17

3. Conceptual scheme

Based on the theoretical framework this conceptual scheme is created.

In this scheme, the interactive governance approach functions as a context that shapes the general characteristics of the flood issue, which has natural and social dimensions. The dynamics of the social and natural dimensions constantly influence the way all actors act, while these actions at the same time influence the flooding issue. The governability refers to the capacity for governance of these dimensions at metropolitan level. This is used to understand the general context, so that the place of households within this „system‟ can be understood.

Because the government does not have enough means, adaptation at household level is important. Households can use their different capitals in order to create adaptive strategies. Interactions (both inside as outside of the „community‟) might be part of these adaptive strategies as households‟ capacity to mobilize external actors might initiate the exchange of capitals. Hereby the interactions enhance, for instance, a households‟ economic capital when building materials are provided. Hence, the relationship between capitals and interactions with external actors is seen as two-way.

The adaptive strategies of households flow out of their vulnerable position. What kind of adaptive strategies a household is able to undertake depends on their capitals. Eventually adequate and structural adaptive strategies can have a positive influence on the vulnerability. Vulnerability is seen as a background factor which shapes the need for adaptation and the capacity to adapt. Interactions might lead to enhanced or reduced vulnerability. This depends on the nature of these interactions and the capitals exchanged through the interactions. The question remains why some individuals do interact while others do not and to what extent this is shaped by capitals.

(18)

18

4. Methodology

4.1 Epistemological underpinnings

This research builds on a critical realist perspective assuming that there is a reality out there, although as a researcher you can never really understand that reality aside from your own position in the society. Critical realism enables an understanding of the urban context, which connects abstract structures to the agents and events in the city structures (Banai, 1995). It does go beyond structuralism as they are influenced by human agency, activities they govern and space-time variance (Banai, 1995). Critical realism is somewhat in the middle of positivism and constructivism, which results in the use of both quantitative as qualitative methods. The idea is that reality can be best understood via mixing methods of different epistemologies, as this can best grasp the multi-layered identity of this reality. Pragmatism, which reasons that you should use those methods that suit your questions, is the main philosophy behind my choice of methods. In my case, this means that all questions will be addressed by a combination of methods, which are linked to different epistemological backgrounds. Although some authors perceive these clashing epistemologies as problematic (Denzin, 2012), I think that mixing methods allows you to „consider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints‟, while these mixed methods can be used as a validation process that the explained variance is the result of the underlying phenomenon or trait and not the method (Johnston et al., 2007). By doing this, you seek for compatibility between these different perspectives and minimize the limitations of the one by using the other.

The research has some transformative elements as it derived from the idea that there are some issues related to the current situation, to which my research might contribute in understanding them. Seeking change is not the starting point, but it might be an outcome. To me, it is important to first understand the nature of issues and the multiple viewpoints connected to it, before moving on to change. Nevertheless, this change should not take place in either the structures or the agents, as it is believed that there is a constant interplay between the two.

This accommodates the idea that the vulnerabilities of those researched, the households, are not „real‟ vulnerabilities solely because of structures that limit them. Nor as vulnerabilities that can be measured via strict frameworks of dimensions. It is perceived that it are the households themselves who can position and shape their lives within a context of continues hazards. Therefore, measuring them in terms of levels of vulnerability will not be the aim of this research. This research does aim to understand how different dimensions related to vulnerabilities are perceived at the ground and form the context for their adaptive strategies.

(19)

19

4.2 Plan of action

As stated before, this research aims to answer the following research question:

How do poor urban households mobilize and gain capitals in interacting with actors at local, municipal and national level for their adaptive strategies in the face of floods in Metro Manila, the Philippines?

To give a structured answer, the question is split up in the following sub-questions.

1. What challenges does Metro Manila face in governing floods from metropolitan to barangay level?

2. How do urban poor households interact with other households, actors at barangay level and external actors with regards to floods?

3. In what way is the distribution of household capitals related to the type of interactions households‟ contract?

4. What capitals are gained in the interaction and how do they contribute to the adaptive strategies of households?

Essential in developing a plan of action, is making sure that all sub-questions become answered. For each question, the most suitable and feasible data collection techniques are defined. I will further elaborate on the sequence of these techniques and the methods that link to it. For now, table 2. shows the mixed set of data collection techniques linked to each sub-question. It is tried to use a mixed approach to each of the questions to be in line with the epistemological ideas as discussed before.

Table 2. Sub-questions and the collection techniques.

Sub-question Data collection technique

1. What challenges does Metro Manila face in governing floods from metropolitan to barangay level?

Social & participatory mapping, literature analysis, household survey, in-depth interviews households and external actors.

2. How do urban poor households interact with other households, actors at barangay level and external actors with regards to floods?

Household survey, in-depth interviews households and external actors.

3. In what way is the distribution of household capitals related to the type of interactions households’ contract?

4. What capitals are gained in the interaction and how do they contribute to the adaptive strategies of households?

Sub-question 1. functions to set the context and will be answered using literature on the concepts governability of the system to be governed (metropolitan level) and vulnerability (neighborhood/household level). The question is somewhat descriptive of nature, although the aim is to use these different data collection techniques to make it more explanatory and provide different viewpoints on the characteristics of the flooding issue. Sub-question 2, is more exploratory of nature, as it was largely unknown to what extent households in Manila use interactions with others. The theoretical background builds on examples from case studies, combined with the nature of governing interactions from interactive governance theory. Sub-question 3, aims to explain the interactions of households with others. Hereby primarily livelihood theories on capitals are used to explain the variance in interactions. Sub-question 4, has the aim of understanding what these interactions mean for households. To understand this, it has to be clear what they gain in terms of capitals, but more importantly how they value this themselves. This means that „the contribution to adaptive strategies‟ is not valued by me solely, but by the households.

(20)

20

4.3 Research design

In order to understand the relations between the different concepts, a mixed set of research methods is used. These methods are carried out in an explorative case study design in two neighborhoods in Manila. Two neighborhoods (barangays) are selected whereby the aim was to select a „new‟ migrant focused one and an established one, as I believed that this criteria results in differences in a variety of other factors as well. In practice there was no such thing as a full migrant neighborhood, as most migrants live scattered though the barangays. Therefore the selection has resulted in a barangay that has relatively many people that recently moved there (barangay 135) and one with relatively more people that have been living there for many years (barangay 177) mainly based on existing flood risk maps of project NOAH (2015) and policy reports of Up Planades (2013). Hereby, comparing the two cases is very interesting as it reveals how differences, in terms of capitals, play a role in the adaptive strategies of households. Now, the methods are described briefly, while focusing on the design aspects of the research. A simplified view on the design can be found in figure 2, to better illustrate the following story.

First, the fieldwork started off with a phase of exploring the dynamics of the flood issue. Hereby it was tried to get a better understanding of the flooding problem at city level and more specifically for the two neighborhoods. The initial idea was to use existing data-sets to perform a GIS analysis of socio-economic characteristics and flood vulnerable locations of Metro Manila. It turned out that getting access to these datasets was a process of several months. Thus a number of in-depth interviews with key actors (government officials, NGO‟s, key community members) combined with reports from UP Planades have been used as the starting point of the analysis. Based on the results of this first phase, case studies have been selected and the topic list for interviews has been optimized.

In these two neighborhoods a mixed set of methods has been carried out to get the best possible understanding of the research problem. Mixing methods allows you to strengthen the places one methods falls short with another method. Also, some elements can be better understood via certain methods. Then, a number of in-depth interviews with the barangay council and analysis of reports of earlier community trainings have been done to get a better understanding of the lived experience related to the concepts of the conceptual scheme. This data has been used for qualitative analysis and to develop the survey. In the next stage this survey has been conducted with 150 residents. This has been combined with more in-depth interviews with residents, barangay officials and external actors. For a successful interpretation of the survey data, a final round of in-depth interviews with residents and external actors has been done. In this stage the aim was to check whether the findings from the survey data make sense „on the ground‟.

(21)

21

5. Operationalization

Based on the theoretical framework and the conceptual scheme, some concepts need to be

operationalized in order to understand them in the field. For each indicator a method is selected, which will be elaborated on in the next section.

As reflected through the first sub-question, the term „governance challenges‟ is used to understand the context in which the households perform their adaptive strategies. It is not tried to understand this context in a „top-down‟ way, therefore these variables were used as guidance in the explorative phase of the case studies. Hereby governance challenges are translated in two concepts linked to the theory: governability and vulnerability. Aim of the metropolitan level dimensions is to grasp the governability (through diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale), whereas the aim of the neighborhood level is to grasp the vulnerability

Concept Dimension Variable Indicator Method

Governability Metropolitan level Diversity Complexity Dynamics Scale

- What are natural components of the system (climate and geographical characteristics)? - What are the social components of the system (actors)?

- What are the governing relations between the main components?

- How has the issue developed over time? - What are the future prospects?

- On what scales do these components play a role? Mapping + Interviews + Analysis academic articles, policy documents Vulnerability Household/ neighborhood level Exposure Land use Population density Policies and projects Capitals

- Average frequency exposure to floods each year

- Average duration before water goes away - Increase in floods over the last years? - What are the most flood exposed areas in the neighborhood?

- Location facilities that offer help in flood relief (neighborhood

centers/churches/emergency centers)

- Estimated number of people per square meter - Estimated number of houses per square meter - Are there flood related projects in the neighborhood?

- Is there flood related infrastructure in the neighborhood? (drainage systems, sluices etc.) See next table.

Participatory mapping + Survey + Interviews

(22)

22 Next, the concept capital of households is operationalized. The operationalized capitals are perceived to be relevant concerning flood issues. For instance, households probably possess many more „productive resources‟ than listed in the next table. However, in times of floods, let‟s say kitchen equipment is not the most relevant. During the exploratory phase of the fieldwork these capitals have been shaped to the local context.

Capitals of households related to floods Financial Spending Savings Borrowing Insurance

- Average monthly household income

- Does the household have access to savings in any form?

- Does the household borrow money? - From banks or informally?

- Does the household have insurance for your possessions/property?

Survey

Human Education Health Labour

- What is the highest education level of the household?

- Do households suffer from health issues that limit them in daily activities?

- Are there households with (permanent/temporary) jobs?

Survey

Social Bonding - Frequency contact neighbors

- What kind of contact? (assistance, friendship, family, ..)

- Do you trust your neighbors? - Is there a sense of community in the neighborhood?

Survey

Political Linking

Bridging

- Possess ID card

- Do you feel like you have a say in municipal policies?

- Do you feel like you have a say in neighborhood affairs?

- Is the household involved in clubs or organizations (both internal and external)? - What kind of organizations?

- What is their role?

Survey

Natural Tenure security

- Is the household house owner/renter/other? - Does the household have security that they can stay in this house?

- Location in the neighborhood

Survey

Physical Productive resources

- Do you have working tools? - A car?

- Mobile phone? - Access to internet?

Survey

Cultural - How many years has the household been dealing with floods? (duration in Manila + this neighborhood)

- How did the household learn how to deal with floods?

- Has the household certain culturally based beliefs/ideas about the nature of floods?

(23)

23 Adaptive strategies are a central concept in this research. They are seen as strategies that are undertaken by households in order to deal with the exposure to and the impacts of floods. These strategies can be undertaken before, during or after floods. For this research the focus is on actions that involve an interaction. Hereby there is a distinction in these interactions. Internal refers to actors (for instance a neighborhood organization) or households from within the neighborhood, whereas external refers to actors from outside of the neighborhood (say a governmental organization). When conducting the survey, informants are first asked an open question about general adaptive strategies, before specifically asking about interactions. This is so they understand the direction the survey is going to. This is structured by a general operationalization of the concept adaptive strategies. It must be noted that „doing nothing specific‟ is perceived as an action as well. As Van Voorst‟s research (2014) showed that several residents in Jakarta deliberately choose to just wait until the water flows away. Doing nothing specific could also mean something else for a resident in Manila, than it does for me. For them, adaptation to floods is normalized into their lives. Therefore some residents did not mention that they waited on the top of their houses until the water would flow away (Van Voorst, 2014). This was not perceived as a „strategy‟, because it was so normal to them. Luckily working together with local research assistants has helped understanding the local perspective.

Household adaptive strategies Before During After Actions Actions Actions

- What actions does the household undertake before floods?

- What actions does the household undertake during floods?

- What actions does the household undertake after floods? Survey Interactions with others Internal External

Form - Do you work together/receive help from others regarding floods?

- What actor (at what level)? - When (before, during, after flood)? - Where does interaction take place? - Frequency

Survey + Interview

Input - What capitals are mobilized to generate the interaction? Survey + Interview Mode (individual/co-governance/ hierarchical)

- How did the contact originate?

- How are decisions about actions being made? - What does the actor expect from households - What do households expect from the actor?

Survey + Interview Motivation - Why did you decide to interact with the

actor?

- Why do you refrain from interaction? - Is the motivation based on capitals/individual motives?

Survey + Interview

Output - What capitals are acquired through the interaction? (knowledge, materials, …)

Survey + Interview Value - What is the perceived contribution of the

interaction as part of adaptive strategies? - What capitals are key this contribution? - How is the experience of the overall interaction? (negative and positive aspects)

Survey + Interview