1
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
It is believed that the establishment of livelihood vulnerability index is necessary in
order to categorize the vulnerability for each country, region and community. These indices
serve as the basis for direct intervention in the most severely affected areas (Alam, 2017;
Bhuiyan et al, 2017; Jacobson et al., 2018).
Perch (2011) also agreed as he proved that if
adaptation policies (such as national adaptation programme of action ) are developed
without considering the livelihoods of vulnerable groups, they are unlikely to succeed.
Therefore, many evaluation methods on livelihood vulnerability have been constructed and
developed. Among them, Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) proposed by Hahn et al.
(2009) has been used by many scholars (Sarker et al., 2019; Zhang and associates, 2019;
Peng et al, 2019; Tjoe, 2016; Adu et al., 2018; Huong et al, 2019). However, most of the
studies applying LVI used weighted balance, which was criticized as the same weights were
applied to different components (Beccari, 2016; Miller et al., 2013; Abeje et al., 2019).
Therefore, it is necessary to develop a more suitable calculation method for LVI to produce
more convincing results.
The development of LVI to classify the vulnerability for each country, region and
community is essential, nevertheless most previous studies only calculated the index
without considering the overall importance of vulnerable components on livelihood. It is
neccessary to provide a general picture of impacts by vulnerable elements (exposure,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity) on livelihood as well as study factors that reduce negative
effects on vulnerability on livelihood in order to devise effective adaption policies.
Therefore, more specialized studies are neccessary in order to have a clearer picture of
vulnerable components' influence on livelihood and to take into
The necessity of this topic not only originates from the knowledge gap but also from
the practical needs. It is found that climate change has adversely affected the world economy
through the increased frequency of extreme events such as droughts, floods, storms, and sea
level rise (Anik et al., 2018). Although many countries are affected by global climate change,
the biggest impact will happen to countries that rely on agricultural production (Mendelsohn,
2008). Vietnam, a rice-based agricultural economy, will be hit severely by climate change,
especially in the Mekong Delta, which provides about 50% of the country's output. This
region will be extremely vulnerable and affected by natural disasters, especially salinity
intrusion (Vu et al., 2018). In fact, the Mekong Delta has been identified as one of the regions
in the world being most vulnerable to climate change (Nguyen et al., 2019) and most studies
claimed that salinity intrusion is one of major problems in the Mekong Delta, which tends to
be exacerbated in the future due to sea level rise and declining upstream discharge (Tran Quoc
Dat et al., 2012; Tran Hong Thai et al., 2014). This can lead to the region's rice production
2
will be decreased by at least half and Vietnam would be a country without rice exports (Tran
Quoc Dat et al., 2012). Threats of food security, depletion of natural resources, shrinking
cultivated areas will negatively affect citizens' livelihood... These are great challenges faced
by the Mekong Delta when resolving salinity intrusion to improve the socio-economic
development.
In the past, there were many research on sustainable livelihoods, vulnerability
assessment in the Mekong Delta (Ministry of Science and Technology, 2016; Nguyen
Thanh Binh, 2012; Tran Hong Thai et al. et al, 2014; ADB, 2011; Dinh et al, 2012;
Birkmann et al, 2012; Miller, 2014; Trung and Thanh, 2013; Can et al, 2013; Phung et al,
2016 ...). However, these studies mainly focused on climate change (temperature change,
rainfall) and did not specify which form of livelihood is vulnerable in the context of salinity
intrusion. Furthermore, authors of these studies did not quantify the impact of salinity
intrusion on households' livelihood or research factors which could minimize the negative
effects of salinity intrusion. Quantifying these effects will provide important insights in the
amount of money should be spent on mitigation, and also orientate where, when and how
the adaptation policy should be implemented (Mendelsohn, 2008). Therefore, it is essential
for further studies to study which form of livelihood is vulnerable in the context of salinity
intrusion as well as factors that reduce influence of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta in
order to provide appropriate policies.
Taken into account these practical requirements and research shortcomings, the
author selected "Vulnerability and livelihood outcomes in the context of salinity intrusion in
the Mekong Delta" as the topic of the dissertation.
2. Research objectives and questions
Research objectives
General Objective: The research was conducted to evaluate livelihood vulnerability in
the context of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta to indicate which areas and subjects are
more vulnerable. Concurrently, the study also aimed at assessing the impacts of LVI
components (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity) on livelihood outcomes, and taking
into account the regulatory role of adaptive capacity in mitigating the effects of salinity
intrusion on livelihood outcomes in the Mekong Delta.
Specific objectives
- To complete the theoretical model in evaluating impacts of LVI components
on livelihood outcomes in the context of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta.
- To measure livelihood vulnerability in the context of salinity intrusion in the
Mekong Delta according to each local area and households' characteristics based on
the analysis of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity.
- To evaluate the influence of LVI components on livelihood outcomes in the
3
context of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta as well as assess the regulatory role
of adaptive capacity in mitigating the effects of salinity intrusion on livelihood
outcomes in the Mekong Delta.
Research questions
- Livelihood vulnerability in the context of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta
happens to which group of subjects and their degree of vulnerability?
- How do LVI components (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity) affect livelihood
outcomes in the Mekong Delta?
- How does adaptive capacity affect the mitigation of effects of salinity intrusion on
livelihood outcomes in the Mekong Delta?
3. Research subjects and scope
Research subjects
The dissertation studied components of livelihood vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity
and adaptive capacity), livelihood outcomes and the effects of these components on
livelihood outcomes of households in the context of salinity intrusion.
Research scope
- In terms of spatial aspect: According to Appendix 06 in “Decision No. 90/QD-TTg
dated January 12, 2016 of the Prime Minister on approving the planning of national natural
resource and environmental monitoring network in the period of 2016-2025 with a vision
towards 2030 ”, as of early 2016, the whole Mekong Delta region had 35 saline measuring
stations located in eight provinces, including Long An, Tien Giang, Ben Tre, Tra Vinh,
Kien Giang, Soc Trang, Bac Lieu, and Ca Mau. Therefore, the thesis will focus on
researching households affected by salinity intrusion in the above eight provinces with the
assumption that all households living in the same area are equally affected by salinity
intrusion.
- In terms of temporal aspect: The study concentrated on analyzing LVI components
and assessing the impacts of these components on livelihood outcomes in the context of
salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta in the period of 2014-2018.
4
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
1.1 Research overview of livelihood
The author conducted an overview of three approaches related to sustainable
livelihood: (1) United Nations Development Program (UNDP), (2) A humanitarian agency
delivering emergency relief and international development- Cooperative for American
Remittances to Europe-CARE and (3) Department for International Development (DFID).
All three organizations use sustainable livelihood as a strategic approach for poverty
reduction, and they also use similar definitions of sustainable livelihood. Nevertheless,
UNDP and CARE use sustainable livelihood and the sustainable livelihood framework to
plan and build programs and projects, while DFID utilizes sustainable livelihoodss as a
primary framework for the analysis. In addition, CARE supports livelihood security at the
community level, while UNDP and DFID not only concentrate on the community level, but
also emphasize on addressing environmental policies, macroeconomic reform and
legislation for effective poverty reduction. Therefore, after the research review, the author
affirmed that DFID's approach to sustainable livelihood is suitable with the research
objectives of the dissertation.
1.2 Research overview of vulnerability in the context of climate change
1.2.1 The approach to vulnerability
In general, vulnerability in climate change is affirmed by numerous studies which
results in the diversity in definitions. Three general perspectives on vulnerability can be
listed as the physiological, social and integrative perspectives respectively. Specifically, the
integrative perspective is considered as a modern model in analyzing the vulnerability in
climate change. It provides a broad conceptual and analytical foundation by allowing the
integration and application of different conceptual contexts as well as a range of potentially
complementary methods and tools.
1.2.2 Main components of vulnerability
As previously stated, the integrative perspective is considered as a modern model in
analyzing the vulnerability in climate change. Thus, it was preferred and used by many
authors through its three components (exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity) (Hahn et
al. et al, 2009; Shah et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2019...).
1.2.3 Methods for vulnerability evaluation
Among methods for vulnerability assessment, the index method is considered optimal
and is widely used in various studies. The act of prioritizing the use of indicators to describe
and quantify problems is explained for three main reasons. First, it provides a reference
point in evaluating frameworks for development policy (Kelly and Adger, 2000, Eriksen
and Kelly, 2007). Secondly, it can offer information for the development of adaptation and
5
mitigation plans (Gbetibouo et al., 2010). Thirdly, it provides a standardized means of
measuring vulnerability, which allows a comparison of different contexts. This will lead to a
possible solution in establishing priorities in resource allocation for adaptation and
mitigation (Preston et al., 2011; Heltberg and Siegel, 2009). Therefore, within the scope of
this thesis, the attendant also used the index method to measure ivelihood vulnerability.
1.2.4 Analysis framework of vulnerability
According to Nguyen Thi Vinh Ha (2016), there were seven frameworks in the world
currently used to analyze and assess vulnerability caused by natural disasters including (1)
Double structure model, ( 2) harzard model, (3) Pressure and Release model, (4) UNISDR's
harzard reduction model, (5) Sustainable livelihood framework, (6 ) BBC model and (7)
vulnerability analysis model by Tuner et al. (2003). Based on each author or organization's
viewpoint, vulnerability can depend on the probability of occurrence of a specific hazard,
and/or the degree of exposure or adaptive capacity , prevention, response and recovery of
the environmental system. Therefore, depending on different assessment objectives,
different evaluation models will be used. According to Nguyen Thi Vinh Ha (2016), in the
context of Vietnam, the database for research is often limited and not easy to collect, the
double structure model by Bohle (2001), vulnerability analysis model by Turner et al.
(2003), the BCC model (2006) and the DFID's sustainable livelihood framework (2001) can
be applied to evaliate the vulnerability due to natural disasters in Vietnam.
However, DFID's sustainable livelihood framework (2001) is particularly appropriate
with vulnerability in climate change as it provides an analytical framework for all the key
components of livelihood and related contextual factors affecting livelihood. All are closely
related to factors that make households or communities more sensitive and impact their
ability to cope with environmental changes (Eakin and Luers, 2006).
1.3 Overview of index method to measure livelihood vulnerability in the context
of climate change
After reviewing domestic and foreign studies, it can be confirmed that the index
method is considered to be optimal and is widely used to measure livelihood vulnerability in
the context of climate change. This method was developed by Hahn et al. (2009) and
applied or modified by many studies (Sarker et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Peng et al.,
2019; Tjoe, 2016; Adu et al, 2018; Huong et al, 2019). However, most of the studies
applying LVI used the weighted balance which was criticized because the same weights are
applied to different components of LVI (Beccari, 2016; Miller; et al, 2013; Abeje et al.,
2019). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a more suitable vulnerability calculation method
to produce more convincing results.
1.4 Overview of impacts of LVI components on livelihood outcomes in the
context of salinity intrusion
6
During the overview, the author discovered that there were not many studies on the
direct effects of vulnerability on livelihood outcomes. Most research often focused on the
impacts of one of LVI components on livelihood outcomes.
Firstly, regarding the impacts of exposure on livelihoods outcomes, many studies
were conducted to analyze the influence of climate change on households' livelihood
outcomes. The exposure often reduces income, expenditure and is the cause of consistent
poverty and poverty traps. However, there is a lack of practical evidence when considering
the effects of salinity intrusion on livelihood outcomes in the Mekong Delta, where is
identified as one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to climate change, especially
salinity intrusion (Nguyen et al., 2019; Vu et al., 2018; Tran Quoc Dat et al, 2012; Tran
Hong Thai et al, 2014).
Secondly, in terms of influence of sensitivity on livelihood outcomes, there is a lack of
detailed research of this issue. Most of previous studies only concentrated on aspects of
sensitivity such as health, food or water sources. And most results showed that, when
families are sensitive to these aspects, it reduces crop productivity, household income, and
spending.
Thirdly, regarding the effects of adaptive capacity on livelihood outcomes, they were
proven by many scholars. Scholars often analyzed adaptive capacity in terms of capital
resources (natural, human, social, financial, and physical resources ) and they found that all
these resources play a positive role in improving livelihood outcomes of households.
Fourthly, in terms of the regulatory role of adaptive capacity, although previous
studies confirmed the important role of adaptive capacity in reducing negative impacts of
LVI component, they mainly approached from a macro perspective and did not thoroughly
consider its regulatory role, only analyzed small components in adaptive capacity in the
context of vulnerability in general and salinity intrusion in particular. Therefore, it is
essential to carry out studies on the regulatory role of adaptive capacity in the relationship of
salinity intrusion and livelihood outcomes.
1.5 Research gaps
Therefore, there are still some notable research gaps in analyzing the vulnerability
and livelihood outcomes, specifically:
(1) Most studies applying LVI used weighted balance, but this method was criticized as
same weights are applied to different components of LVI. Therefore, it is necessary to develop
a more suitable vulnerability calculation method to produce more convincing results.
(2) Regarding livelihood vulnerability, domestic and international research often
focused on climate change scenarios (temperature change, precipitation)to calculate LVI to
indicate which regions and who are affected but without thoroughly studied the context of
salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta - where is confirmed as one of those regions in the
7
world being the most vulnerable to climate change, especially salinity intrusion.
(3) Most studied only measured LVI without analyzing the overall role of LVI
components in livelihood outcomes.
(4) Previous studies only explored the regulatory role of several small components in
adaptive capacity, and did not analyze specifically the regulatory role of adaptive capacity
in the context of salinity intrusion.
Therefore, the main objective of the dissertation is to assess livelihood vulnerability in
the context of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta with the application of unequal weight
proposed by Iyengar and Sudarshan (1982), to concurrently evaluate the impacts of LVI
components (exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity) on livelihood outcomes, to
specifically indicate the regulatory role of adaptive capacity in reducing influence of salinity
intrusion on livelihood outcomes in the Mekong Delta. With the above objectives, the
author hopes to resolve all research gaps and offer some recommendations to minimize
livelihood vulnerability in the context of salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta.
8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Livelihood and sustainable livelihood framework
2.1.1 Livelihood and sustainable livelihood
The definition of livelihood that is frequently used and cited in later studies is based
on the concept of livelihood by Chambers and Conway (1992), in which livelihood is, in the
simplest sense, the means to make a living. In a more detailed description, Chambers and
Conway defined that livelihood includes the capabilities, resources, and activities required
to provide the daily life. Similarly, Scoones (1998) stated that livelihood includes necessary
abilities, resources (including physical and social resources) and activities as a means of life
for human beings. Taken into account the above definitions, DFID (2001) also argued that
livelihood includes the capabilities, resources and activities necessary to serve as a means of
life for human beings. In summary, livelihood is the use of resources necessary to carry out
activities to achieve desired results (Vu Thi Hoai Thu, 2013).
2.1.2 Sustainable Livelihood Framework of DFID (2001)
Sustainable livelihood framework of Department for International Development -
DFID (2001) is a tool designed to analyze various factors that influence livelihood
outcomes, especially those creating opportunities or posing challenges for livelihood(Twigg,
2001). Accordingly, all households have a means of making a living (livelihood) based on
available livelihood resources (five types of resources) in the context of certain policies and
institution in the local areas. These factors are also influenced by external factors such as
storms, floods, droughts, salinity intrusion... and seasonal elements. The household's
selection of livelihood based on current livelihood resources is the result of the interaction
between these groups of factors.
Figure 2.1: Sustainable Livelihood Framework of DFID (2001)
9
The purpose of the sustainable livelihood framework is to support policymakers and
researchers from many fields in participating in the discussion of factors influencing
livelihood outcomes and their importance and interaction. This facilitates the identification
of suitable elements for livelihood support based on a clear analysis of each factor.
Consequently, many scholars had confirmed that the sustainable livelihood framework of
DFID (2001) is the most suitable method to analyze livelihood outcomes and disaster
vulnerability (Twigg, 2001; Nguyen Duc Huu, 2016). This is also a theoretical framework
that the author used to solve research questions in the dissertation.
2.2 Livelihood vulnerability in the context of salinity intrusion
2.2.1 Vulnerability
The research overview has provided three broad viewpoints on vulnerability:
biophysical, social, and integrated perspectives. It also confirms that the integrated
viewpoint of vulnerability as a modern model in analyzing vulnerability in the context of
climate change. Therefore, in this dissertation, vulnerability is approached from an
integrated point of view, specifically the definition of vulnerability by Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001) was frequently cited (Ha Hai Duong, 2014; Abeje et
al., 2019; Parry, 2007). Accordingly, vulnerability is the degree to which a natural or social
system can be vulnerable or unable to cope with adverse effects due to extreme weather
patterns and climate change). The IPCC clearly identified vulnerability as a function of
three factors including exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
2.2.2 Livelihood vulnerability
As stated above, livelihood is considered sustainable if it can cope with and recover
from harzards, maintain or enhance its abilities and assets, while not weakening its natural
resources. Therefore, Scoones (1998) proposed that if livelihoods are unable to engage in
dealing (temporary adjustments) or adapting (long-term change), it is considered vulnerable.
Vulnerability is therefore used as an attribute of livelihoods and thus it emphasizes people
and how they manage their lives (Murungweni et al., 2011).
Hence, in the context of salinity intrusion, livelihood vulnerability refers to the degree
to which communities/households can be vulnerable or unable to overcome the effects of
salinity intrusion. It is also a function of three factors including exposure, sensitivity and
adaptive capacity, specifically:
Exposure
is the presentation of individuals, households, communities, nations or
ecosystems affected by an adverse environmental or socio-political factor characterized by
the frequency, intensity, time and space of the event (Turner et al., 2003; Adger, 2006).
Sensitivity
is the degree to which a system is affected (either positively or
negatively) by one or more factors from internal or external environment (IPCC, 2001). .
Adaptive capacity
(Turner et al., 2003) or reactive capacity (Gallopín, 2006) is the
10
potential to respond and reduce the vulnerability of a particular system. Adaptive capacity is
highly dependent on the existence and access to resources such as natural resources,
financial capacity, infrastructure, political institutions, human resources and social
relationships (Brooks and Adger, 2004).
2.2.3 Measurement of livelihood vulnerability due to salinity intrusion
Measurement of the exposure of salinity intrusion: As stated above, exposure is an
expression of individuals, households, communities, nations or ecosystems affected by an
adverse environmental or socio-political factor characterized by the frequency, intensity,
time and space of the event (Turner et al., 2003; Adger, 2006;). Therefore, in the context of
salinity intrusion and research of the household unit, the degree of exposure is the
presentation of a household affected by salinity intrusion characterized by the frequency,
intensity, time and sapce of salinity intrusion. Based on the research overview and data of
salinity intrusion in the Mekong Delta, the author selected three indicators to measure the
exposure of salinity intrusion, namely: (1) annual average salinity; (2) Salinity being above
4 ‰; (3) Salinity fluctuation in the month with most serious drought (April).
Measurement of sensitivity
: To measure the sensitivity, most authors used
mainly three sub-factors including (1) health; (2) food sources and (3) water sources.
Each sub-factor includes one of the component indicators. This dissertation also
measured the sensitivity based on the above three components and components of the
sensitivity were measured through the main water source for domestic use; untreated
water for domestic use; crop diversification index; livestock diversification index; the
monthly rate indicating the lack of two meals a day, the rate of injured or sick family
members in need of caretaking, number of days for sick leave per person.
Measurement of adaptive capacity:
Adaptive capacity is measured through five
livelihood assets (natural capital, human capital, physical capital, financial capital, social
capital) and this method was also used by many authors (Pandey et al., 2015; Gerlitz et al.,
2017; Zhang et al., 2019). Based on the research overview and on the availability of data on
households' living standard in 2014, 2016, 2018, this dissertation measured natural capital
via agricultural and forestry area per capita; land diversification; rice cultivated area per
capita; cereal cultivated area per capita. Also, the author calculated human capital through the
proportion of household members having jobs; Head of household with professional and
technical qualifications; Head of household graduated from primary schools or higher
education. In addition, the study measured physical capital via the durable goods diversity
index; average net residual value; living area per capita; types of house. The author also
calculated financial capital through access to savings; access to loans in cash and goods;
livelihood diversity index and measured the social capital through the proportion of household
members joining the union; number of support forms; and number of means of media.