JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, Hue University, Vol. 70, No 1 (2012) pp.

227-236

HOUSEHOLDS VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE

IN THUA THIEN HUE PROVINCE
Bui Dung The, Bui Duc Tinh
College of Economics, Hue University

Abstract. This paper measures the relative vulnerability of households living in

Thua Thien Hue province using the indicator approach. Information was
collected via key informant interview, focus group discussion and a questionnaire
survey of 597 households in the coastal, delta and upland areas of Thua Thien Hue
province. It is established in the present study that households in the province are
highly exposed to climatic hazards, particularly aquaculture and fishing households
in the coastal and lowland areas. There is significant difference in adaptive capacity
across different household groups. Household with aquaculture, cropping and
capture fishery as the main livelihoods are highly sensitive to climactic hazards.
Given the situation, agriculture and aquaculture should be given priority in
interventions to enhance local adaptive capacity. High levels of exposure and low
level of adaptive capacity are the main contributors to the vulnerability of
households in the province.
Keywords: climate change, vulnerability, households.

1. Introduction
The IPCC Assessment Report (2010) defines vulnerability as: The degree to
which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the
character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its
sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (McCarthy et al., 2001). Vulnerability includes an
external dimension that is represented by the exposure of a system to climate variations,
as well as a more complex internal dimension comprising its sensitivity and adaptive
capacity to these stressors. A highly vulnerable system would be one that is very
sensitive to modest changes in climate, where the sensitivity includes the potential for
substantial harmful effects, and for which the ability to adapt is severely constrained.
Thus, vulnerability is understood as a function of three components: exposure,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity, which are influenced by a range of biophysical and
socio-economic factors. Exposure can be interpreted as the direct danger (the stressor)
together with the nature and extent of changes in a regions climate variables
(temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather events). Sensitivity describes the
227

228

Households vulnerability to climate change in

humanenvironmental conditions that exacerbate or ameliorate the hazard or trigger an

impact. Exposure and sensitivity are intrinsically linked and mutually influence
potential impacts. Adaptive capacity represents the potential to implement adaptation
measures in efforts to avert potential impacts (Fssel and Klein 2006, Yusuf and
Francisco 2010).
Thua Thien Hue is located in the Central Viet Nam, bordered by the South China
Sea to the east and by Laos to the west. The province has an area of 5,053 square
kilometres 49,107 hectars of which are used as agricultural land. Another 180,412
hectars are occupied by forests. Except Nam Dong and Aluoi districts that are located in
the mountainous area, other districts are in the plain and strongly affected by inundation.
Thua Thien Hue comprises of basins of four main rivers: O Lau, Bo, Huong, and Truoi
rivers. The topography slopes downwards from the western Truong Son mountain range
to the coast and is divided into three areas, i.e., higher mountain area, low-lying area,
and coastal plain.
The province of Thua Thien Hue is considered amongst the most disaster prone
areas of Vietnam. In the past few decades, the frequency and severity of disasters
increased significantly in Thua Thien Hue. Climate changes, especially extreme
disasters killed many people and destroyed livelihoods of, and push many local
communities dropped back poverty (PCFSC 2008 and 2009).
Responses to reduce impacts by climate induced events such as floods and storm
are not only the responsibility of the community itself but also a mandate of government
agencies. The government must have adequate capacity to carry out tasks for climate
change adaptation because successful implementations of adaptation strategy will be
dependent on governments performance. In fact, capacity for planning and action on
climate change adaptation by local governments is lacking. An insight into how
different household are vulnerable to climate change is of great importance to LGUs.
Therefore, this study was to measure and explain households relative vulnerability to
climatic hazards in Thua Thien Hue province in order to suggest policy implications
to local governments and for adaptation interventions at household level.
2. Research methods
2.1. Method to calculate vulnerability index
This study used the indicator approach to measure the vulnerability of
households in Thua Thien Hue province. The indicator approach indentifies indicators
that reflect vulnerability and measures vulnerability by computing indices, averages or
weighted averages for those selected variables or indicators. This approach can be
applied at different levels (household, county/district, province and national). The
indicator approach is valuable for monitoring trends and exploring conceptual
frameworks. According to Leichenko and OBrien (2002), composite indices capture the

BUI DUNG THE, BUI DUC TINH

229

multi-dimensionality of vulnerability in a comprehensible form. The indicator approach

is the most common method adopted for quantifying vulnerability in the global change
community. It is used to develop a better understanding of the socio-economic and
biophysical factors contributing to vulnerability (Hebb and Mortsch 2007).
Vulnerability indices of households were constructed based on the interrogation
of a wide range of data sources following the notion that vulnerability is a function of
exposure to climate change and variability, sensitivity to the impacts of that exposure,
and the ability to adapt to ongoing and future changes (Hahn, Riederer, and Foster,
2009). The measurement of relative vulnerability using the indicator approach includes
a number of important steps, such as indicator identification, assigning weight and
calculating vulnerability index.
Identification of indicators: The selection of indicators was done through an
extensive review of previous reports; in particular, we draw from Gbetibouo and Ringler
(2008), Smith et al (2006), Jusuf and Francisco (2010). These indicators were then
pragmatically assessed through a workshop with the participation of LGUs and social
scientists. This is to ensure that each indicator is practical, specific, measurable and
time-bond. The study identified exposure indictors for five dominant hazards, namely
storm, flood, drought, flashflood and extreme cold. Sensitivity indicators describe the
natural, human, infrastructure and livelihood conditions that can either worsen the
hazard or trigger an impact. Adaptive capacity indicators covered the types of assets that
the local households have.
Assigning weights: The issue of weightings is highly controversial largely due to
the subjectivity inherent in assigning weightings. While the application of weights
facilitates an indication of importance of the different variables, it also leaves the results
open to manipulation. To take the local context and situation into account, weighting for
each indicator, parameter and dimension should be used. Our review of literature
indicates that there are several prevailing methods to assign weights to indicators. They
are: (1) arbitrary choice of equal weight, (2) expert judgment, (3) statistical methods
such as principal component analysis, and (4) consensus among policy makers and
stakeholders. Each method has its own pros and cons. In the present study we do not
assign equal weights because this strategy is too subjective, and the literature shows that
indicators do not equally affect the vulnerability (Hebb and Mortsch 2007). The
development of weights via expert judgment is often constrained by the availability of
expert knowledge in smaller communities and difficulties in reaching a consensus on
the weights among expert panel members. The use of statistical methods appears
complicated and it is hard to involve the stakeholders in the exercise. Therefore we
herein use the method to assign weights to indicators/dimensions through consensus
among policy makers and stakeholders. Policy makers, local government units (LGUs)
and stakeholders discussed and agreed on weights for each indicators/dimensions.

230

Households vulnerability to climate change in

Calculating vulnerability indices: As discussed earlier, the vulnerability of a

given system largely depends on its exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The
climate change vulnerability index was derived through the following steps:
- We assessed the exposure using information from historical data of climaterelated hazards. We considered the past exposure to climate risks as the best available
proxy for future climate risks.
- We calculate hazard index for the climate hazard that households face, such as
storms, floods, droughts, and extreme cold.
- We analyzed socio-economic data of surveyed households and calculated the
sensitivity indices.
- We calculated the adaptive capacity indices for all surveyed households.
- To obtain the overall index of climate change vulnerability, we get the
weighted average of exposure (multiple hazard risk exposure), sensitivity, and the
reverse of adaptive capacity indices.
It should be noted that to make the indicator values are comparable across
households we normalize indicator values using the following formula:
Zij = (Xij Xi min )/ (Xi max Xi min)
Where Zij is the normalized value of indicator i of commune j;
Xij is the original value of indicator i of commune j;
Xi max is the highest value of all communes; and
Xi min is the lowest value of all communes.
2.2. Data collection
Data and information necessary for the study are collected using several
methods including focus group discussions, key informant interview, secondary data
collection, and household survey. The sample for the household survey is 600
households. They were chosen using stratification and random sampling methods. At
first stage, the study stratified all communes into three groups based on their
topographical feature: upland, delta and coastal. In consultation with LGU staff two
communes were selected from each group. They are the upland communes of Huong
Giang, Thuong Quang in Nam Dong upland district; the delta communes of Quang
Thanh commune in Quang Dien and Phong Binh commune in Huong Tra district; and
the coastal communes of Vinh Hai Phu Loc district and Hai Duong in Huong Tra district.
Using the lists of households available at the communes, 100 households were selected
from each commune. In-person interviews were undertaken for the sampled households.
The number of interviews completed and used in the present study is 597.

BUI DUNG THE, BUI DUC TINH

231

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Exposure to climatic hazards
Hazard exposure is the main play in disaster risks to local communities. Local
communities in Thua Thien Hue are affected by various types of climate hazards.
Table1 shows that household groups with different livelihoods are exposed to different
hazards at different levels. The households who live largely on aquaculture and fishing
activities and forestry and cropping are of more exposure to climatic hazards. Nonfarming household group is considered as least exposed to hazard. Over 46% of total
households have exposure index of over 0.41 to 0.6 scales and about one fourth of
households have exposure index of 0.61 1.0. There is a significant difference in hazard
exposure of households who live in different topographical areas of the province.
Households in coastal and delta area have higher level of exposure, as compared with
households in the uplands.
Table 1. Households hazard exposure by types of hazards and livelihoods

Types of
households

Storm Floods Drought Landslide

Flash Extreme Weighted

flood
colds
Means

Cropping

0.69

0.19

0.11

0.04

0.06

0.24

0.46

Livestock
husbandry

0.63

0.13

0.09

0.09

0.10

0.21

Aquaculture
& fishing

0.78

0.15

0.06

0.05

0.02

0.28

Forestry

0.81

0.03

0.09

0.05

0.25

0.24

0.48

Non-farming

0.74

0.13

0.09

0.06

0.06

0.20

0.38

0.42
0.49

(Source: Calculation by authors using the household survey data).

Table 2. Households hazard exposure by types of hazards and livelihoods

T-Test
Type of region
Coastal communes

Mean
F

Sig.

13.18389

2.5E-06

0.46

Delta communes

0.52

Upland communes

0.42

Total

0.47

Households vulnerability to climate change in

232

3.2. Sensitivity
Sensitivity is defined as the degree to which as system is affected either
adversely or beneficially by climate related disasters (Yusuf and Francisco, 2010). In
this study sensitivity to climate change-induced disaster is measured by function of
human sensitivity, livelihood sensitivity, infrastructure sensitivity and financial
sensitivity. As presented in Table 3 and 4, there is a statically significant difference in
the household sensitivity across type of livelihood but not across topographical area.
Households with livelihood relied on aquaculture and fishing households was rated as
the most sensitive livelihood practices in Thua Thien Hue. Households with livestock
raising and forestry as main livelihoods are also sensitive to climate hazards. Nonfarming practices are the least sensitive livelihood practices.
Table 3. Sensitivity index of households by types of livelihoods

Types of household livelihood

Mean

Cropping households

0.40

Livestock husbandry households

0.51

Aquaculture and fishing households

0.55

Forestry households

0.56

Non-farming households

0.18

All

0.38

T-Test
F

Sig.

131.3463

3.06E-80

(Source: Calculation by authors using the household survey data).

Table 4. Sensitivity index of household by topographical areas

Type of region

Mean

Coastal area

0.38

Delta area

0.37

Upland area

0.39

All

0.38

T-Test
F

Sig.

2.415999

0.28967

(Source: Calculation by authors using the household survey data).

3.3. Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive capacity of households is defined as ability to adjust to climate change,
including climate variability and extreme events in order to moderate the potential
damage from it or to take advantage of its opportunities to deal with consequences

BUI DUNG THE, BUI DUC TINH

233

(Yusuf and Francisco, 2010). It was established in the present study that non-farming
households have the highest adaptive capacity to climatic hazards than any other groups
(Table 5). The cropping household group also has high adaptive capacity. Households
with aquaculture and fishing as main livelihoods have lowest adaptive capacity to
climate hazards. Result of assessment also highlighted that forestry households also
have low adaptive capacity to climatic disaster. This explained why hazards cause
severe impacts on local communities, particularly to households who relied on
aquaculture and fishing and forestry.
Table 5. Adaptive Capacity of Households by type of livelihood

Type of households

Mean

Cropping households
Livestock husbandary households

0.46
0.43

Aquaculture and fishing households

Forestry households
Non-farming households

0.34
0.41
0.47

All

0.45

T-Test
F

Sig.

10.66957

2.35E-08

(Source: Calculation by authors using the household survey data).

The comparison of adaptive capacity between households living in different

topographical areas shows that households in delta area of the province have better
adaptive capacity to climatic hazards than that of households living in upland and
coastal areas (Table 6). About 15% of households living in delta communes have
adaptive capacity index of 0.61 1.0 in comparison with about 14% of households
living in upland communes and about 10% of households living in coastal regions.
About 50% of households living in coastal communes and about 35% of households
living in upland region have adaptive capacity lower than mean level of the whole
sampled households.
Table 6. Adaptive Capacity of Households by Topographical Area

Type of region

Mean

Coastal area
Delta area

0.39
0.47

Upland area
All

0.42
0.45

T_Test
F

Sig.

18.37644

1.8E-08

(Source: Calculation by authors using the household survey data).

Households vulnerability to climate change in

234

3.4. Vulnerability
Households living in Thua Thien Hue are highly vulnerable to climate
variability and extreme events. There is significant difference in vulnerability index to
climatic hazards between different groups of households with different livelihoods. As
shown in Table 7 households with aquaculture and fishing practices and forestry as main
livelihoods are more vulnerable to climate hazards. Non-farm households are least
vulnerable to climatic hazards. Households that live on cropping practices and livestock
are also less vulnerable (Table 7). Our analysis also indicate that about 20% of
households with livelihood practices related to aquaculture and fishing practices and
forestry have vulnerability index greater than 0.6. It is important to note that over 88%
of non-farming household groups have vulnerability index smaller than 0.2.
Table 7. Vulnerability index of households by type of livelihood

T- Test
Types of household livelihood

Mean

Cropping

.3197

Livestock

.3875

Aquaculture and fishing

.5939

Forestry

.5449

Non-farming

.0932

All

.4215

Sig.

50.003

0.000

(Source: Calculation by authors using the household survey data).

Table 8 shows that households living in upland regions and coastal regions are
the most vulnerable groups to climate hazards with average vulnerability index of 0.60
and 0.54, while that of households in the delta area is 0.33.
Table 8. Household vulnerability index by type of livelihoods

T-Test
Topographical area

Mean
F

Coastal area

0.54

Delta area

0.33

Upland area

0.60

All

0.42

Sig.

3.195708

(Source: Calculation by authors using the household survey data).

0.041642

BUI DUNG THE, BUI DUC TINH

235

4. Conclusion
It is to conclude that there is a significant difference in hazard exposure of
households living in different topography and different livelihood practices. Storm is
assessed as the most severe hazards to households. Households living in coastal
communes of this province are the most exposure to storms than households living in
upland regions. Households with aquaculture and fishing as main livelihood are most
exposed to storms.
In terms of sensitivity, aquaculture and fishing household are more sensitive to
climatic hazards. Forestry households and livestock raising household groups are also
highly sensitive to climatic hazards. This is reason why these household groups suffer
more damages than other groups. Adaptive capacity of households in the study site is
relatively low. Households living in coastal and upland communes have lower adaptive
capacity in terms of technology indicators, as compared with households living in delta
region. However, it should be recognized the fact that social capital indicator is an
important play in local adaptive capacity to extreme climate events in the context of low
economically adaptive capacity.
It is important to conclude that households living in Thua Thien Hue are
highly vulnerable to climatic extreme events and climatic variability. Household groups
with livelihoods related to aquaculture and fishing and forestry are the most vulnerable
to climatic hazards. Non-farming households are the least vulnerable group in this
project site. It is recommended that given the limited availability of adaptation fund,
households with aquaculture and fishing as main livelihood should given high priority
in adaption program.

References
[1]. Arief Anshory Yusuf and Francisco Herminia A., Hotspots! Mapping Climate Change
Vulnerability in Southeast Asia, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast
Asia (EEPSEA), 2010.
[2]. Blaikie, B., Cannon T. Davis I and Wisner B., At risk natural hazards, peoples
vulnerability, and disasters, Routledge, London, 1994.
[3]. CCFSC (Central Committee for Flood and Storm Control), Introduction about
Disasters in Vietnam, 2008.
[4]. Chaudhuri, S., Jalan, J. and A. Suryahadi, Assessing Household Vulnerability to
Poverty from Cross Sectional Data: A Methodology and Estimates from Indonesia.
Columbia University Department of Economics Discussion Paper 0102-52, April, 2002.
[5]. Chaudhuri, S., Assessing vulnerability to poverty: concepts, empirical methods and

236

Households vulnerability to climate change in

illustrative examples, Columbia University, 2003.
[6]. Francisco Herminia A., Adaptation to Climate Change: Need and Opportunities in
Southeast Asia/ in Glover David and Lee Poh Onn (eds.), Asean Economic Bulletin:
the Environmental, Climate Change, and Natural Resource in Southeast Asia: Issues
and Challenge. ASEAN Economic Bulletin Vol 25, (1), (2008), 7-19.
[7]. H.-M. Fssel and R. J. T. Klein, Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An
Evolution of Conceptual Thinking, Climatic Change, 75, (2006), 301329.
[8]. Hahn, M.B., Riederer, A.M. and Foster, S.O., The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A
pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and changea case
study in Mozambique, Global Environmental Change, (19), (2009), 7488.
[9]. Hebb, A.J. and L. Mortsch., Floods: Mapping Vulnerability in the Upper Thames
Watershed under a Changing Climate, Project Report XI. CFCAS Project Assessment
of Water Resources Risk and Vulnerability to Changing Climatic Conditions,
University of Western Ontario, (2007), p.53.
[10]. IPCC, Climate Change 2010: the Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[11]. Leichenko, R. M., and K. L. OBrien, The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global
change: The case of Southern Africa, Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global
change, 7 (1), (2002), 118.
[12]. McCarthy J. J., O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken and K. S. White, eds.,
Climate Change 2001:Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[13]. PCFSC (Provincial Committee of Floods and Storms Control of Thua Thien Hue),
Report on Disasters in Thua Thien Hue province in 2008, 2008.
[14]. PCFSC (Provincial Committee of Floods and Storms Control of Thua Thien Hue),
Report on Disasters in Thua Thien Hue province in 2009, 2009.
[15]. Smith, B. & Pilifisova, O., From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability
reduction, in: S. Huq, J. Smith & R. T. J. Klein (Eds) Enhancing the Capacity of
Developing Countries to Adapt to Climate Change (London, Imperial College Press),
2003.