Adapting to Climate Extreme Events Based on Livelihood Strategies: Evidence from Rural Areas in Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam

Abstract

The key farming communities in Vietnam are generally poor and lack resources to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate extreme events (CEEs), but the extent of their adaptation strategies is not well understood. This study aims to analyze the impacts of CEEs, current barriers, and adaptation strategies based on three categories of livelihood strategies. The classification method is first used to divide the livelihood strategy into these three categories, and a multinomial logistic model (MLS) is then applied to determine the set of parameters that affect adaptation options. CEEs result in significant damage in terms of both financial and health dimensions. Various barriers remain, such as the low capacity of relevant staff, lack of local budgets, and outdated methods being used to estimate and mitigate the impacts of CEEs. Notably, there were over 44%, and 28% conducted reactive and proactive adaptations, respectively, while a high percentage of households did not implement at least one adaptation method, around 27%. The MLS model is able to explain about 51.2% of the driving factors that influence adaptation strategies. In addition, the behavior of households in choosing adaptation methods shows the difference between perceptions of CEEs’ impacts and livelihood strategy profiles. There is a need for a package of adaptive solutions to address the impacts of CEEs that cover the many different household perspectives and involve stakeholders at multiple levels.

Adapting to the new normal: A sustainable livelihood framework for the informal sectors during COVID‐19

“…Surprisingly, our empirical findings reveal that enterprises with a keener awareness of their surrounding environment are less flexible about mitigation adoption. It is noted that the living environment (represented by participants' environmental perception) is an important factor not only for agricultural businesses (Aryal, Sapkota, Rahut, Marenya, & Stirling, 2021;Zurovec & Vedeld, 2019) but also for other business types in remote areas (Araro, Legesse, & Meshesha, 2020;Meyer, Meyer, & Neethling, 2016;Minh, Hao, & Lebailly, 2020;Pouliotte, Smit, & Westerhoff, 2009). This is due to the (negative) impacts that the environment can impose on the network of remote companies, including self-employed operations.…”

Estimated the Willingness to Pay Levels for the Adoption of the Internet of Things-IoTs Technology: An Empirical Study in Swiftlet Farming in Binh Thuan Province, Vietnam

“…The selection of each method depends closely on the field of study, the availability of data collection, sample size method (Luqman & Van Belle, 2017;Antony et al, 2020;Chuang, Wang, & Liang, 2020). The discrete choice model is common used in the adoption of a service or a technique where the value of the selection is ranked randomly and the collected data allow to classified to follow a standard distribution (Tun Oo, Van Huylenbroeck, & Speelman, 2017;Minh, Hao, & Lebailly, 2020). However, the limitation of this model comes from the completed steps and concrete conditions to estimate the model.…”

Farmers’ Perceived Vulnerability and Proactive versus Reactive Climate Change Adaptation in Chile’s Maule Region

“…Despite the agreement regarding the definition of reactive and proactive adaptation, the practices and strategies included in each one vary depending on the case study. For example, the widely used practice of "changing the timing of sowing and harvesting" has been classified as proactive and reactive by different scholars depending on local conditions and farming systems [30,31], and, as pointed out by Carman and Zint [14], a strategy or measure could be both, depending on if it is a response (reactive) or if it a coping mechanism (proactive).…”