Assessment of the Vulnerability of Households Led by Men and Women to the Impacts of Climate-Related Natural Disasters in the Coastal Areas of Myanmar and Vietnam
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Conceptualisation
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Study Areas and Data
3.2. Development of Livelihood Vulnerability Index
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Component-Based Vulnerability: LVI
4.1.1. Socio-Demographic Component
4.1.2. Livelihood Component
4.1.3. Social-Network Component
4.1.4. Health Component
4.1.5. Food Component
4.1.6. Water Component
4.1.7. Natural Hazard Component
4.2. IPCC-Defined Livelihood Vulnerability Index Assessment
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Major Components | Indicators | Unit | Men-VN (226) | Women-VN (74) | Men-MM (377) | Women-MM (222) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socio-demographic (6) | Average Age (years) | Year | 53.0 | 56.37 | 44.5 | 43.2 |
A household without electricity (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 1.3 | 9.21 | 49.1 | 58.6 | |
Households without secondary education (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 23.7 | 30.26 | 48.5 | 63.1 | |
Without work for family men (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 15.8 | 25.00 | 1.3 | 13.5 | |
Without work for family-women (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 17.1 | 27.63 | 22.3 | 13.5 | |
HH with family members less than 15 years (dependent children = number) | % | 26.3 | 23.68 | 58.5 | 61 | |
Livelihood strategies (8) | Household agriculture as the main income source (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 40.8 | 51.32 | 39.3 | 35.6 |
Household aquaculture as the main income source (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 35.5 | 22.37 | 25.5 | 21.7 | |
Households without having income jobs at the moment (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 52.6 | 47.37 | 54.9 | 55.9 | |
Households without income from non-farm sources (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 52.6 | 42.11 | 53.3 | 54.1 | |
Households without incomes from remittance (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 76.3 | 30.26 | 82.2 | 78.8 | |
Households without income from off-farm sources (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 50.0 | 72.37 | 71.4 | 73 | |
Households difficult to repay loans (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 35.5 | 42.11 | 67.6 | 73 | |
Household currently without access to any credit (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 31.6 | 26.32 | 58.1 | 59 | |
Social network (5) | Average Distance to nearest market (mile = number) | miles | 3.2 | 3.23 | 44.5 | 15 |
Households without/not receiving social/gov help (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 3.9 | 21.05 | 90.5 | 89.6 | |
Households without/not receiving community help (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 14.5 | 22.37 | 78.5 | 77 | |
Without Gov support during COVID-19 (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 13.2 | 6.58 | 86.4 | 91 | |
Without Private support during COVID-19 (0: Yes; 1: no) | % | 61.8 | 25.00 | 61.2 | 68 | |
Health (6) | Average Distance to health facilities (miles = number) | miles | 2.8 | 3.08 | 35.5 | 34.6 |
Average Time to health facilities (minutes = number) | Minute | 8.1 | 8.33 | 24.7 | 24.3 | |
Households without sanitary latrine/toilet (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 2.6 | 10.53 | 8.5 | 18.5 | |
Household with missed work or school due to illness (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 5.3 | 27.63 | 56 | 57.2 | |
Households with members having chronic illness (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 5.3 | 11.84 | 30.3 | 36.5 | |
Households not receiving good health facilities (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 18.4 | 19.74 | 27.9 | 21.2 | |
Food (7) | Household food strategy take loans (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 11.8 | 23.68 | 82.8 | 86.7 |
Household food strategy sell property (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 6.6 | 21.05 | 53.5 | 46.7 | |
Households consume fewer foods (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 18.4 | 26.32 | 26.3 | 24.4 | |
Households did not save food (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 15.8 | 22.37 | 69.4 | 77.5 | |
Households did not save seed (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 28.9 | 14.47 | 58.6 | 65.3 | |
Households consume non-cash food items (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 31.6 | 21.05 | 57.8 | 52.3 | |
Average Food insecure months (months = number) | Number | 2.6 | 1.05 | 15.4 | 26.6 | |
Water (7) | Households report water conflict problems (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 47.4 | 31.58 | 9.6 | 5.9 |
Slept very few hours due to water collection duty (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 23.7 | 28.95 | 11.7 | 15.3 | |
Reduced time for daily work/income generative activities due to water collection (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 26.3 | 35.53 | 14.7 | 22.2 | |
Reduced time for studies/missed school due to water collection (1:yes; 0:no) | % | 23.7 | 30.26 | 6.1 | 8.6 | |
Collected water from an undesirable/dirty source (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 22.4 | 18.42 | 15.2 | 16.2 | |
Households that do not have private water facilities (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 25.0 | 25.00 | 56 | 62.6 | |
Climate and hydrological changes adversely affecting households and their economy (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 72.4 | 57.89 | 97.9 | 97.3 | |
Natural Hazards (7) | Household report no early warning (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 6.6 | 34.21 | 31.6 | 36 |
Loss of family members due to disasters and/or incurring injury (1: yes, 0:no) | % | 1.3 | 6.58 | 3.7 | 6.3 | |
Household loss of housing (asset) as a result of floods/disasters (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 28.9 | 18.42 | 32.4 | 37.1 | |
Households with loss of farming products as a result of flooding/disaster events (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 31.6 | 26.32 | 62.9 | 72.4 | |
Past 10 years. Households with water insecurity problems (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 80.3 | 76.32 | 65.4 | 71.6 | |
Within 1 year. Households with water insecurity problems (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 35.5 | 27.63 | 26.3 | 28.4 | |
Flood destroys farmlands with debris (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 59.2 | 39.47 | 73.9 | 82.2 |
References
- IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; 1132p. [Google Scholar]
- Eckstein, D.; Künzel, V.; Schäfer, L. Global Climate Risk Index 2021: Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-Related Loss Events in 2019 and 2000 to 2019; Germanwatch: Berlin, Germany, 2021; Available online: https://www.germanwatch.org/en/19777 (accessed on 25 January 2021).
- IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Po, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegri, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Lo, S., Mo, V., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022; 3056p. [Google Scholar]
- Krittasudthacheewa, C.; Navy, H.; Tinh, B.D.; Voladet, S. Development and Climate Change in the Mekong Region—Case Studies; Strategic Infromation and Research Development Centre (SIRD): Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, 2019; Available online: https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/climate-change-mekong-sumernet-2019-smallsize.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2019).
- Tran, D.D.; Bich Thuc, P.T.; Park, E.; Hang, P.T.T.; Duong, B.M.; Wang, J. Extent of saltwater intrusion and freshwater exploitability in the coastal Vietnamese Mekong Delta assessed by gauging records and numerical simulations. J. Hydrol. 2024, 630, 130655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tun Oo, A. Characterizing Farm Households’ Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in Myanmar. Ph.D. Thesis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, 2018. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8581606 (accessed on 26 November 2018).
- Tran, D.D.; Park, E.; Ngoc Tuoi, H.T.; Thien, N.D.; Hong Tu, V.; Anh Ngoc, P.T.; Van, C.T.; Long, P.K.; Ho, H.L.; Chau Quang, N.X. Climate change impacts on rice-based livelihood vulnerability in the lower Vietnamese Mekong Delta: Empirical evidence from Can Tho City and Tra Vinh Province. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2022, 28, 102834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horton, R.; De Mel, M.; Peters, D.; Lesk, C.; Bartlett, R.; Helsingen, H.; Bader, D.; Capizzi, P.; Martin, S.; Rosenzweig, C. Assessing Climate Risk in Myanmar: Summary for Policymakers and Planners; Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University, WWF-US and WWF-Myanmar, UNHabitat Myanmar: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Driel, W.F.V.; Nauta, T.A. Vulnerability and Resilience Assessment of the Ayeyarwaddy Delta in Myanmar, Scoping Phase; Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) Project, Global Water Partnership (GWP) and Delta Alliance: Delft-Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 1–148. Available online: https://themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/documents/Report_Vulnerability_Resilience_Assessment_Ayeyarwady_Delta_Feb2015.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2015).
- Tun Oo, A.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Speelman, S. Assessment of climate change vulnerability of farm households in Pyapon District, a delta region in Myanmar. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 28, 10–21. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC). Myanmar Climate Change Strategy (2018–2030); MONREC: Yangon, Myanmar, 2019; Available online: https://myanmar.un.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/MyanmarClimateChangeStrategy_2019.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2019).
- Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE). Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for Vietnam. Available online: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/11348_ClimateChangeSeaLevelScenariosforVi.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2009).
- Gustafson, S.; Joehl Cadena, A.; Ngo, C.C.; Kawash, A.; Saenghkaew, I.; Hartman, P. Merging science into community adaptation planning processes: A cross-site comparison of four distinct areas of the Lower Mekong Basin. Clim. Change 2018, 149, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gowing, J.; Tuong, T.; Hoanh, C.T. Land and Water Management in Coastal Zones: Dealing with Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fishery Conflicts; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.T.N.; Tran, H.C.; HO, T.M.H.; Burny, P.; Lebailly, P. Dynamics of Farming Systems under the Context of Coastal Zone Development: The Case of Xuan Thuy National Park, Vietnam. Agriculture 2019, 9, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aryal, J.P.; Sapkota, T.B.; Rahut, D.B.; Krupnik, T.J.; Shahrin, S.; Jat, M.L.; Stirling, C.M. Major Climate Risks and Adaptation Strategies of Smallholder Farmers in Coastal Bangladesh. Environ. Manag. 2020, 66, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ayanlade, A.; Oluwatimilehin, I.A.; Ayanlade, O.S.; Adeyeye, O.; Abatemi-Usman, S.A. Gendered vulnerabilities to climate change and farmers’ adaptation responses in Kwara and Nassarawa States, Nigeria. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aryal, J.P.; Sapkota, T.B.; Rahut, D.B.; Gartaula, H.N.; Stirling, C. Gender and climate change adaptation: A case of Ethiopian farmers. Nat. Resour. Forum 2022, 46, 263–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNFCCC. Differentiated Impacts of Climate Change on Women and Men; the Integration of Gender Considerations in Climate Policies, Plans, and Actions; and Progress in Enhancing Gender Balance in National Climate Delegations. In Proceedings of the Synthesis Report by the Secretariat, Subsidiary Body for Implementation, Fiftieth Session, Bonn, Germany, 17–27 June 2019. Available online: https://coe.insuresilience.org/knowledge/differentiated-impacts-of-climate-change-on-women-and-men-the-integration-of-gender-considerations-in-climate-policies-plans-and-actions-and-progress-in-enhancing-gender-balance-in-national-climate/ (accessed on 12 June 2019).
- Nellemann, C.; Verma, R.; Hislop, L. (Eds.) Women at the Frontline of Climate Change: Gender Risks and Hopes; A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal; 2011; Available online: https://genderandenvironment.org/women-at-the-frontline-of-climate-change-gender-risks-and-hopes-a-rapid-response-assessment/ (accessed on 12 December 2011).
- Mujere, N. Gendered vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. In Natural Resources Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications; Information Resources Management Association, IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; 14p, pp. 1133–1146. [Google Scholar]
- Hahn, M.B.; Riederer, A.M.; Foster, S.O. The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change-A case study in Mozambique. Glob. Environ. Change 2009, 19, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deressa, T.T. Assessment of the Vulnerability of Ethiopian Agriculture to Climate Change and Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2010. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2263/28969 (accessed on 24 October 2010).
- Ahsan, M.N.; Warner, J. The socioeconomic vulnerability index: A pragmatic approach for assessing climate change led risks—A case study in the south-western coastal Bangladesh. Intern. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 2014, 8, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank Group; FAO; IFAD. Gender in Climate-Smart Agriculture. Module 18 for Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. 2013. Available online: https://www.cac.int/sites/default/files/BM_FAO_IFAD._2015._Gender_in_climate_smart_agriculture.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2015).
- Simpson, A.; South, A. Evolving Climate Change Governance in Myanmar: Limitations and Opportunities in a Political Crisis; Chapter 7 in Governing Climate Change in Southeast Asia: Critical Perspective; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Eichelberger, L.; Dev, S.; Howe, T.; Barnes, D.L.; Bortz, E.; Briggs, B.R.; Cochran, P.; Dotson, A.D.; Drown, D.M.; Hahn, M.B.; et al. Implications of inadequate water and sanitation infrastructure for community spread of COVID-19 in remote Alaskan communities. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 776, 145842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuin, V.; Ortolano, L.; Alvarinho, M.; Russel, K.; Thebo, A.; Muximpua, O.; Davis, J. Water supply services for Africa’s urban poor: The role of resale. J. Water Health 2011, 9, 773–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adams, E.A.; Adams, Y.J.; Koki, C. Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) insecurity will exacerbate the toll of COVID-19 on women and girls in low-income countries sustainability: Science. Pract. Policy 2021, 17, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebel, L.; Navy, H.; Siharath, P.; Long, C.T.M.; Aung, N.; Lebel, P.; Hoanh, C.T.; Lebel, B. COVID-19 and household water insecurities in vulnerable communities in the Mekong Region. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 25, 3503–3522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duy Can, N.; Hong Tu, V.; Thai Hoanh, C. Application of livelihood vulnerability index to assess risks from flood vulnerability and climate variability case study in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2013, 2, 476–486. [Google Scholar]
- Adu, D.T.; Kuwornu, J.K.M.; Anim-Somuah, H.; Sasaki, N. Application of livelihood vulnerability index in assessing smallholder maize farming households’ vulnerability to climate change in Brong-Ahafo region of Ghana. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 39, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paavola, J. Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Morogoro, Tanzania. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008, 11, 642–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, K.U.; Dulal, H.B.; Johnson, C.; Baptiste, A. Understanding livelihood vulnerability to climate change: Applying the livelihood vulnerability index in Trinidad and Tobago. Geoforum 2013, 47, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Zhao, X.; Tang, H. Vulnerability of communities to climate change: Application of the livelihood vulnerability index to an environmentally sensitive region of China. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinkel, J. Trans-Disciplinary Knowledge Integration. Cases from Integrated Assessment and Vulnerability Assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008. Available online: https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/biblio/biblio_pdf/Hinkel.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2008).
- Wolf, S.; Hinkel, J.; Hallier, M.; Bisaro, A.; Lincke, D.; Ionescu, C.; Klein, R.J.T. Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalization. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 2013, 5, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patt, A.; Schroeter, D.; de la Vega-leinert, A.C.; Klein, R.J.T. Vulnerability research and assessment to support adaptation and mitigation: Common themes from the diversity of approaches. In Assessing Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change; Patt, A., Schroeter, D., Klein, R.J.T., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Eds.; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Hinkel, J. Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C.; Alemu, T.; Yesuf, M. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Change 2009, 19, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN Women; World Bank; UNEP; UNDP. The Cost of the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda; UN Women, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank Group Publication: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015; p. 32. Available online: https://africa.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2015/10/the-cost-of-the-gender-gap-in-agricultural-productivity-in-malawi-tanzania-and-uganda (accessed on 22 October 2015).
- UN Women; UNDP. Factors Driving the Gender Gap in Agricultural Productivity: Malawi; UN Women, UNDP and UN Environment: Nairobi, Kenya, 2018; pp. 1–30. Available online: https://africa.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Field%20Office%20Africa/Attachments/Publications/2019/the20gender20gapcompressed.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2018).
- World Health Organization (WHO). Gender and COVID-19. Advocacy Brief. 14 May 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Advocacy_brief-Gender-2020.1 (accessed on 14 May 2020).
- Tessema, Y.A.; Aweke, C.S.; Endris, G.S. Understanding the process of adaptation to climate change by smallholder farmers: The case of east Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Food Econ. 2013, 1, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank Group. Gender Dimensions of the COVID-19 Pandemic; Policy Note by World Bank Group, April 26; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/618731587147227244/pdf/Gender-Dimensions-of-the-COVID-19-Pandemic.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2020).
Major Component | Indicators | Unit | Men-VN (226) | Women-VN (74) | Men-MM (377) | Women-MM (222) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Socio-demographic | Average Age (years) | Year | 0.548 | 0.411 | 0.445 | 0.432 |
A household without electricity (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.013 | 0.092 | 0.491 | 0.586 | |
Households without secondary education (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.237 | 0.303 | 0.485 | 0.631 | |
Without work for family men (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.158 | 0.25 | 0.013 | 0.135 | |
Without work for family women (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.171 | 0.276 | 0.223 | 0.135 | |
HH with family members less than 15 years (dependent children=number) | % | 0.263 | 0.237 | 0.585 | 0.61 | |
Balanced Average Score (St.dev) | 0.232 (0.03) | 0.262 (0.017) | 0.374 (0.036) | 0.422 (0.039) | ||
Livelihood strategies | Household agriculture as the main income source (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.408 | 0.513 | 0.393 | 0.356 |
Household aquaculture as the main income source (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.355 | 0.224 | 0.255 | 0.217 | |
Households without having income jobs at the moment (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.526 | 0.474 | 0.549 | 0.559 | |
Households without income from non-farm sources (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.526 | 0.421 | 0.533 | 0.541 | |
Households without incomes from remittance (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.763 | 0.303 | 0.822 | 0.788 | |
Households without income from off-farm sources (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.5 | 0.724 | 0.714 | 0.73 | |
Households difficult to repay loans (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.355 | 0.421 | 0.676 | 0.73 | |
Household currently without access to any credit (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.316 | 0.263 | 0.581 | 0.59 | |
Balanced Average Score (St.dev) | 0.469 (0.018) | 0.418 (0.02) | 0.565 (0.023) | 0.564 (0.025) | ||
Social network | Average distance to nearest market (mile=number) | miles | 0.408 | 0.41 | 0.445 | 0.150 |
Households without/not receiving social/gov help (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.039 | 0.211 | 0.905 | 0.896 | |
Households without/not receiving community help (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.145 | 0.224 | 0.785 | 0.77 | |
Without gov support during COVID-19 (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.132 | 0.066 | 0.864 | 0.91 | |
Without private support during COVID-19 (0: Yes; 1: no) | % | 0.618 | 0.25 | 0.612 | 0.68 | |
Balanced Average Score (St.dev) | 0.268 (0.048) | 0.232 (0.025) | 0.722 (0.038) | 0.681 (0.062) | ||
Health | Average distance to health facilities (miles=number) | miles | 0.459 | 0.52 | 0.355 | 0.346 |
Average time to health facilities (minutes=number) | Minute | 0.355 | 0.388 | 0.247 | 0.243 | |
Households without sanitary latrine/toilet (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.026 | 0.105 | 0.085 | 0.185 | |
Household with missed work or school due to illness (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.053 | 0.276 | 0.560 | 0.572 | |
Households with members having chronic illness (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.053 | 0.118 | 0.303 | 0.365 | |
Households not receiving good health facilities (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.184 | 0.197 | 0.279 | 0.212 | |
Balanced Average Score (St.dev) | 0.188 (0.03) | 0.267 (0.027) | 0.305 (0.026) | 0.321 (0.024) | ||
Food | Household food strategy—take loans (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.118 | 0.237 | 0.828 | 0.867 |
Household food strategy—sell property (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.066 | 0.211 | 0.535 | 0.467 | |
Households consume fewer foods (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.184 | 0.263 | 0.263 | 0.244 | |
Households did not save food (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.158 | 0.224 | 0.694 | 0.775 | |
Households did not save seed (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.289 | 0.145 | 0.586 | 0.653 | |
Households consume non-cash food items (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.316 | 0.211 | 0.578 | 0.523 | |
Average food insecure months (months=number) | Number | 0.026 | 0.211 | 0.848 | 1.254 | |
Balanced Average Score (St.dev) | 0.165 (0.015) | 0.215 (0.005) | 0.619 (0.034) | 0.683 (0.034) | ||
Water | Households report water conflict problems (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.474 | 0.316 | 0.096 | 0.059 |
Slept very few hours due to water collection duty (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.237 | 0.289 | 0.117 | 0.153 | |
Reduced time for daily work/income generative activities due to water collection (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.263 | 0.355 | 0.147 | 0.222 | |
Reduced time for studies/missed school due to water collection (1:yes; 0:no) | % | 0.237 | 0.303 | 0.061 | 0.086 | |
Collected water from an undesirable/dirty source (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.224 | 0.184 | 0.152 | 0.162 | |
Households that do not have private water facilities (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.56 | 0.626 | |
Climate and hydrological changes adversely affecting households and their economy (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.724 | 0.579 | 0.979 | 0.973 | |
Balanced Average Score (St.dev) | 0.344 (0.027) | 0.325 (0.018) | 0.302 (0.049) | 0.326 (0.049) | ||
Natural Hazards | Household report no early warning (0: yes; 1: no) | % | 0.066 | 0.342 | 0.316 | 0.36 |
Loss of family members due to disasters and/or incurring injury (1: yes, 0:no) | % | 0.013 | 0.066 | 0.037 | 0.063 | |
Household loss of housing (asset) as a result of floods/disasters (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.289 | 0.184 | 0.324 | 0.371 | |
Households with loss of farming products as a result of flooding/disaster events (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.316 | 0.263 | 0.629 | 0.724 | |
Past 10 years. Households with water insecurity problems (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.803 | 0.763 | 0.654 | 0.716 | |
Within 1 year. Households with water insecurity problems (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.355 | 0.276 | 0.263 | 0.284 | |
Flood destroys farmlands with debris (1: yes; 0: no) | % | 0.592 | 0.395 | 0.739 | 0.822 | |
Balanced Average Score (St.dev) | 0.348 (0.04) | 0.327 (0.031) | 0.423 (0.036) | 0.477 (0.04) |
LVI Components | Exposure 1 | Adaptive Capacity 2 | Sensitivity 3 | Over LVI 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
VN-Men (226) | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
VN-Women (74) | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
MM-Men (377) | High | Very High | High | High |
MM-Women (222) | High | Very High | High | High |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oo, A.T.; Cho, A.; Minh, D.D. Assessment of the Vulnerability of Households Led by Men and Women to the Impacts of Climate-Related Natural Disasters in the Coastal Areas of Myanmar and Vietnam. Climate 2024, 12, 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12060082
Oo AT, Cho A, Minh DD. Assessment of the Vulnerability of Households Led by Men and Women to the Impacts of Climate-Related Natural Disasters in the Coastal Areas of Myanmar and Vietnam. Climate. 2024; 12(6):82. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12060082
Chicago/Turabian StyleOo, Aung Tun, Ame Cho, and Dao Duy Minh. 2024. "Assessment of the Vulnerability of Households Led by Men and Women to the Impacts of Climate-Related Natural Disasters in the Coastal Areas of Myanmar and Vietnam" Climate 12, no. 6: 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12060082