Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Gender-Climate Nexus: Strengthening Women’s Roles in Adaptation and Mitigation in the Sidi Bouzid Region
Previous Article in Journal
Strengthening Western North Pacific High in a Warmer Environment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Support Needs of Agrarian Women to Build Household Livelihood Resilience: A Case Study of the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam

1
College of Education and International Services, Andrews University, 8975 Old 31, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, USA
2
Climate Change Institute, An Giang University, 18 Ung Van Khiem St., Long Xuyen 880000, Vietnam
3
Vietnam National University-HoChiMinh City (VNU-HCM), Vo Truong Toan St, Linh Trung, Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
4
Marine Laboratory, Queen’s University Belfast, 12 The Strand, Portaferry BT22 1PF, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Climate 2025, 13(8), 163; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13080163 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 12 May 2025 / Revised: 20 July 2025 / Accepted: 31 July 2025 / Published: 1 August 2025

Abstract

Agrarian women are at the forefront of rural livelihoods increasingly affected by the frequency and severity of climate change impacts. However, their household livelihood resilience (HLR) remains limited due to gender-blind policies, scarce sex-disaggregated data, and inadequate consideration of gender-specific needs in resilience-building efforts. Grounded in participatory feminist research, this study employed a multi-method qualitative approach, including semi-structured interviews and oral history narratives, with 60 women in two climate-vulnerable provinces. Data were analyzed through thematic coding, CATWOE (Customers, Actors, Transformation, Worldview, Owners, Environmental Constraints) analysis, and descriptive statistics. The findings identify nine major climate-related events disrupting livelihoods and reveal a limited understanding of HLR as a long-term, transformative concept. Adaptation strategies remain short-term and focused on immediate survival. Barriers to HLR include financial constraints, limited access to agricultural resources and technology, and entrenched gender norms restricting women’s leadership and decision-making. While local governments, women’s associations, and community networks provide some support, gaps in accessibility and adequacy persist. Participants expressed the need for financial assistance, vocational training, agricultural technologies, and stronger peer networks. Strengthening HLR among agrarian women requires gender-sensitive policies, investment in local support systems, and community-led initiatives. Empowering agrarian women as agents of change is critical for fostering resilient rural livelihoods and achieving inclusive, sustainable development.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Climate change (CC), defined as a long-term alteration in global or regional climate patterns, has become an unprecedented threat to ecological systems, human health, and socio-economic development [1,2]. Its direct impacts—including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, droughts, and floods—pose severe challenges for livelihoods, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where agriculture remains the mainstay of rural economies [3,4]. Increasing evidence underscores that these impacts are unevenly distributed, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations along lines of geography, income, and gender [5,6].
Rural women, who comprise nearly 40% of the global agricultural labor force, face compounded vulnerabilities in the context of CC [7]. Their exposure to climate risks is intensified by structural inequalities such as landlessness, gendered labor division, lower levels of education, and limited access to financial services, agricultural extension, and adaptive technologies [5,8]. These disparities inhibit their ability to anticipate, absorb, and recover from climate-induced shocks—key dimensions of livelihood resilience [9,10].
Although women are often portrayed as victims of climate impacts, a growing body of scholarship calls for re-conceptualizing women as active agents of change in climate adaptation and mitigation [11,12]. Their knowledge of local resources, agricultural biodiversity, and community dynamics positions them uniquely to implement sustainable practices and foster resilience within households and communities [13,14,15]. Yet, their roles are frequently undervalued or made invisible in both academic research and policy discourse [16,17].
The concept of household livelihood resilience (HLR) has gained traction in the climate literature as a multidimensional framework that incorporates capacities to buffer against shocks, self-organize, and learn from experiences [18,19]. HLR emphasizes not only material assets such as income, land, and infrastructure but also social, human, and political capital, including access to networks, information, and agency [20,21]. Despite increasing attention to resilience in the climate field, research often treats households as gender-neutral units, overlooking intra-household dynamics and the specific constraints faced by women [22,23].
In Southeast Asia, and particularly in the Mekong River Delta (MRD), the intersection of climate vulnerability, poverty, and gender inequality creates an acute need for context-specific studies. The MRD is one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions due to its low elevation, extensive agricultural base, and high population density [24,25]. Women in this region play a vital role in agricultural production and household well-being but often lack recognition and tailored support in climate adaptation planning [26,27].
The existing literature identifies key adaptation strategies such as livelihood diversification, migration, and the strengthening of social capital as critical to enhancing resilience in the face of climate change [28,29]. However, access to and the effectiveness of these strategies are often shaped by gendered disparities. Women, in particular, face constraints that limit their engagement in certain adaptive actions. Mobility, for instance, is frequently curtailed by caregiving responsibilities and restrictive cultural norms, reducing their opportunities to migrate or pursue off-farm income-generating activities [30,31]. Moreover, existing resilience frameworks and adaptation interventions frequently overlook the importance of participatory approaches that position women as active agents in designing and implementing responses to climate risks [32,33].
Against this backdrop, the present study aims to address these gaps by pursuing two specific objectives:
  • To examine how rural women in the MRD perceive the impact of CC on their household livelihood resilience (HLR);
  • To identify the specific support needs that women prioritize in enhancing their HLR.
By centering women’s voices and lived experiences, this research offers context-specific and gender-sensitive insights that are essential for shaping equitable adaptation responses.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study is grounded in participatory feminist research, which informs both the conceptual orientation and methodological approach. This framework is particularly appropriate for exploring rural women’s lived experiences of CC, as it emphasizes collaborative knowledge production, challenges traditional power hierarchies in research, and aims to generate socially just and transformative outcomes [34,35,36]. Consistent with feminist epistemologies, this study positions women as central actors in climate adaptation processes, recognizing them as both knowledge holders and agents of change. The research is further guided by the principles of relationality and critical reflexivity, which provide a lens to examine how power, privilege, and oppression shape women’s adaptive roles and decision-making within their households [35,37,38].

2.2. Conceptual Framework

Aligned with that methodological stance, this study employs a conceptual model (Figure 1) that synthesizes insights from four established frameworks: the Livelihood Resilience Assessment [18], the Resilience Theory or 3A Framework [39], the Agency-Based Livelihood Resilience Framework [32], and the Women’s Leadership in Disaster and Climate Resilience Assessment Framework [40]. Central to this model is the household as the primary unit of analysis, emphasizing three core resilience capacities: buffering (the capacity to absorb shocks), self-organizing (the ability to coordinate responses and access support), and learning (the capability to adapt and innovate over time). Together, these capacities define household livelihood resilience: the ability of a household to absorb, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses while sustaining or innovating its livelihood over time. This resilience is shaped by multiple, interacting factors, among which gender dynamics, particularly women’s agency, participation, and leadership, play a critical role. However, limited access to transformative leadership opportunities, safe and meaningful participation, and collective advocacy often undermines households’ efforts to move beyond short-term coping strategies, typically unplanned, immediate responses focused on survival, toward long-term resilience strategies that are proactive and transformative, enabling households to reorganize and adapt in the face of ongoing and future climate risks.

2.3. Case Study Sites

This research was conducted in two rural provinces of the MRD, An Giang (upstream/inland) and Soc Trang (downstream/coastal) (Figure 2). These locations represent vulnerable ecological zones due to CC impacts such as sea-level rise, salinity intrusion, and agricultural decline [41,42]. Both provinces are characterized by smallholder farming, dependence on natural resources, and high rates of out-migration, making them representative of broader regional challenges. These criteria support the selection of these sites as illustrative case studies [43].

2.4. Research Participants

Participants were selected using purposive sampling in collaboration with local partners affiliated with the Living Deltas Hub who held official permissions to access eligible women in the selected communes. Inclusion criteria required women to (1) be household heads based on their roles as primary income earners or key contributors to household livelihoods as perceived within their families and communities, (2) have resided in the area for at least 10 years, (3) be engaged in agricultural work, (4) be willing to participate in interviews, and (5) possess awareness of community-level livelihood issues. Interviews were conducted with 30 women in each province, with the final number determined by the point of data saturation when recurring themes began to emerge consistently and additional interviews no longer yielded new or meaningful insights [44,45]. While this approach facilitated local access and trust, it introduced potential biases. Gatekeeper bias may have favored more visible or articulate women, excluding marginalized voices. Fixed participant lists may have limited socio-economic diversity. To mitigate these risks, this study prioritized variation in age, ethnicity, and livelihood types, ensured voluntary participation and confidentiality, and conducted interviews in participants’ local areas to foster comfort and openness.

2.5. Data Collection Procedures

Data was collected through semi-structured, face-to-face interviews guided by an interview protocol approved by the Institutional Review Board of Andrews University. The interview guide was designed to elicit participants’ lived experiences of CC over the past decade, with a particular focus on its perceived impacts on household livelihoods, adaptive strategies employed, and support systems currently available and needed.
Interviews were conducted in June 2024, in locations convenient to where participants lived and worked, to ensure their comfort and openness. A pre-test was carried out with five rural women in the two provinces to ensure clarity and cultural relevance. Based on their feedback, minor adjustments were made to improve question wording and flow before the main data collection. Adherence to ethical standards was rigorously maintained throughout the research process, including the assurance of participant confidentiality and secure storage of all data on password-protected devices. Access to the study communities and recruitment of participants were facilitated through collaboration with researchers from the Living Deltas project, who had obtained necessary permissions from local authorities.

2.6. Data Validation

A community feedback mechanism was employed to validate qualitative findings. One participant per province reviewed and confirmed the accuracy and relevance of the data. If data were reported as inconsistent, validation would have been extended to two additional participants, with exclusion of any unconfirmed information. In this study, all data were validated successfully.

2.7. Data Analysis

2.7.1. Qualitative Analysis

Data were analyzed through a three-stage process of deconstruction, interpretation, and reconstruction [46]. In the deconstruction phase, interview transcripts were open-coded to identify recurring concepts and initial themes grounded in participants’ lived experiences. During interpretation, these themes were analyzed to explore deeper meanings and patterns related to resilience, with insights compared against the existing literature to enhance analytical depth. The final reconstruction phase involved refining and synthesizing themes to ensure that interpretations remained grounded, nuanced, and theoretically informed, as suggested by [47].

2.7.2. Historical Event Analysis

To deepen the analysis of CC adaptation and resilience, this study used oral history interviews, aligning with a participatory feminist approach that centers women’s voices and lived experiences. This method provided rich, contextual insights into climate impacts over the past decade, capturing personal and collective memories often missing from top-down assessments. The narratives revealed patterns of disruption, adaptation, and recovery, offering a longitudinal perspective on resilience. Thematic analysis highlighted both explicit experiences and underlying meanings, enriching the broader qualitative design with insights shaped by identity, social context, and time. The historical analysis was to support the application of the Soft Systems Methodology.

2.7.3. Soft Systems Methodology with CATWOE Analysis

This study employed CATWOE analysis within the framework of the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), developed by Checkland [48], to structure and interpret complex qualitative data related to CC resilience. As a core component of the SSM, CATWOE analysis enables the transformation of complex, real-world situations into structured problem elements [49], making it particularly relevant to ecological and climate-related research [50]. CATWOE identifies six critical dimensions that help unpack the dynamics of a system: Customers (those who benefit from or are adversely affected by climate change impacts), Actors (those who take action within the climate context), Transformation (the process through which resilience is developed in response to climate pressures), Worldview (the broader perspective that frames the significance of resilience), Owners (those with authority to support or inhibit change), and Environmental Constraints (external factors that may limit or shape the resilience process). In this study, CATWOE was employed to systematically analyze the context of HLR, providing a structured lens through which to examine the roles, relationships, and constraints experienced by rural women adapting to CC.

2.7.4. Quantitative Analysis

In addition to qualitative methods, this study incorporated descriptive quantitative analysis to support and enrich the interpretation of interview data. Basic statistical measures such as sums, frequencies, counts, and cross-tabulations were applied using the R programming language [51,52]. These descriptive statistics complemented the qualitative findings by highlighting patterns and distributions within participants’ responses, thereby enhancing the depth and clarity of the analysis and providing a more comprehensive understanding of household livelihood resilience in the face of climate change.

3. Results

3.1. Community Representation

The participants of this study were rural women residing in the MRD, whose lives reflected diverse experiences, backgrounds, and identities. All women described agriculture as their primary livelihood, though most (34 out of 60) supplemented this main role with additional responsibilities, such as family caregiving, wage labor, livestock rearing, and small-scale trading activities. Regarding ethnicity, all participants from An Giang identified as members of the Kinh ethnic majority, while in Soc Trang, 19 out of 30 participants belonged to the Khmer ethnic minority, illustrating the demographic diversity within the MRD. Their ages spanned across generations, encompassing young adults (18–34 years), middle-aged adults (35–65 years), and elderly women (over 65 years), each group bringing unique perspectives and lived experiences to this study.

3.2. Women’s Perception of HLR to CC

3.2.1. Awareness, Vulnerability, and Gaps in CC Understanding

Participants demonstrated substantial awareness of increasing frequency and severity of climate change events over the past decade. Primary stressors such as storms, saline intrusion, heatwaves, droughts, heavy rainfall, landslides, infectious diseases, floods, and fires were identified. Historical event analysis further confirmed an increase in these natural hazards from 2012 to 2024, with variations reflecting local geography and economic activities between An Giang and Soc Trang.
Significant adverse outcomes reported by women from both regions included reduced crop yields due to droughts and landslides, exacerbated water scarcity from saline intrusion, diminished outdoor labor productivity during heatwaves, increased psychological stress during heavy rains, and negative impacts on physical health, particularly from prolonged heat exposure. With most participants engaged in labor-intensive activities such as rice planting, animal husbandry, shrimp farming, and wage labor, climate variations profoundly disrupted their livelihoods and well-being. In particular, one participant in Soc Trang described, “In the past five years, storms have become more violent. They have flattened our crops and left us struggling to recover.” Another participant emphasized the growing issue of saline intrusion: “Saline water has reached our fields earlier every year. As saline intrusion worsens, agricultural fields are abandoned.” Women in An Giang highlighted challenges related to heatwaves, droughts, and heavy rainfall. Participants described that “the weather has become too hot, particularly in summer, limiting crop production,” and that “heavy rains have led to increased disease outbreaks in rice crops.”
Participants demonstrated a clear understanding of not only immediate agricultural disruptions but also broader implications for household stability. Many respondents expressed a profound sense of helplessness in the face of recurring climate events. A woman from Soc Trang shared, “When the storms come, we lose everything: our crops, our animals, even our hope.” This perceived vulnerability was closely linked to the cumulative impacts of climate change. In An Giang, women described how sequential events such as droughts followed by floods intensified their hardships, depriving them of both recovery time and essential resources. As one participant explained, “The droughts destroy our crops, and the floods come after and take whatever we managed to save.” Beyond immediate material losses, there was a deep concern for the future, especially among mothers. One woman in Soc Trang voiced her fears: “I worry about my children. If the land becomes unusable, where will they go? What will they do?”
These personal narratives collectively reveal the rural women’s deep understanding of their environments and firsthand experiences of climate-related changes. Despite their evident awareness of climate impacts, participants, however, demonstrated limited knowledge of CC itself. When asked about the root causes of these phenomena, only one participant explicitly identified CC, while more than half replied, “I don’t know.” Similarly, approximately 65 percent reported a lack of knowledge about who bears responsibility for climate change, frequently stating, “I have no information about it.” A possible explanation for this knowledge gap lies in the participants’ household roles. Of the 60 women interviewed, 32 described themselves primarily as playing supporting roles rather than acting as primary breadwinners, a reflection of internalized gender norms and modest self-perceptions rather than their actual economic contribution. This dynamic potentially shifted their focus toward immediate household responsibilities rather than broader climate change knowledge and its underlying causes.

3.2.2. Adaptive Responses

The findings reveal that rural women in both An Giang and Soc Trang provinces are actively navigating the challenges posed by CC, employing a range of adaptive responses to sustain household livelihoods. Participants described diverse strategies, including altering agricultural practices, engaging in non-agricultural income-generating activities, and drawing on community support networks. These responses, while varied, highlight both resilience and the limitations imposed by structural and environmental constraints.
In An Giang (the upstream place of the MRD, inland), women commonly adapted by shifting from water-intensive crops to more drought-resistant vegetables. One participant explained, “We started growing vegetables instead of rice because they can survive with less water. It is not much, but it keeps us going.” Others diversified income sources through poultry raising or small trade to supplement household earnings. These strategies reflected a degree of agency and adaptability rooted in lived experience and social learning. As one woman shared, “I often talk to my neighbors to share ideas. We learn from each other about what works and what does not.”
In contrast, women in Soc Trang (the downstream part of the MRD, coastal) faced compounded challenges due to both drought and saline intrusion. Adaptive responses here leaned more heavily toward non-agricultural labor. One woman stated, “I left the land, waited for the intrusion to go to plant again,” reflecting a more passive approach, shaped by environmental constraints and a lack of viable alternatives. Others sought temporary work, such as motorcycle repair or informal labor, to sustain their families during periods when farming was not possible.
Despite these adaptive efforts, many responses remained reactive and short-term. A significant proportion of households (46.6%) reported no specific adaptation measures, and in cases of extreme events—floods, landslides, and disease outbreaks—no active strategies were identified. Most adaptive behaviors were individual-level efforts, with limited institutional support. Only two participants reported receiving assistance from local organizations, specifically in accessing fresh water during saltwater intrusion events.
Gender roles significantly shaped adaptation dynamics. While women played a central role in maintaining household livelihoods, most participants still identified their husbands as the primary decision-makers and breadwinners. This reflects the persistence of traditional norms that have historically limited women’s involvement in long-term planning and reduced their visibility in formal adaptation processes. Yet, our findings reveal a more nuanced picture of continuity and change. In both An Giang and Soc Trang, many women are actively negotiating these norms through diversified farming, petty trade, and informal knowledge-sharing. These adaptive strategies, though often outside institutional frameworks, represent forms of informal leadership and agency that challenge static representations of women’s roles in climate adaptation [11,53,54]. By leveraging social capital, building peer learning networks, and exercising strategic decision-making within and beyond their households, these women are reinterpreting, reinforcing, or contesting traditional roles. These evolving practices signal a gradual reconfiguration of gendered adaptation dynamics, suggesting that addressing structural constraints while recognizing and amplifying women’s informal strategies is essential for fostering gender-responsive and locally grounded climate resilience.
When reflecting on the future, the majority of women (52 out of 60) expressed cautious optimism, anticipating relative stability in their livelihoods over the next five years. Farming and livestock rearing remained central, though some also mentioned petty trade and saving strategies. However, many relied heavily on family support or unspecified coping mechanisms, and few articulated a clear understanding of resilience or pathways for proactive adaptation.
Overall, the narratives highlight both the ingenuity and the vulnerability of rural women in the face of climate change. While adaptive strategies exist, they are often constrained by limited resources, gender norms, and a lack of access to information and institutional support. These findings underscore the need for targeted, gender-responsive interventions that strengthen local adaptive capacity, enhance women’s agency, and move beyond short-term coping toward long-term resilience.

3.3. Factors Influencing HLR

3.3.1. The Role of Financial Capital in Enabling or Constraining HLR

Financial capital significantly influenced HLR in the MRD. For most participants, agriculture remained the primary source of income, often supplemented by livestock rearing and small-scale trade. These livelihood strategies were essential for navigating the uncertainties of a changing climate, yet their success was heavily influenced by access to resources—particularly financial support.
Access to agricultural loans emerged as a persistent barrier to livelihood adaptation. As one woman in An Giang remarked, “Loans for agriculture are hard to get, and even when available, the interest rates are too high.” This concern was echoed across interviews, with many participants emphasizing the difficulty of securing affordable credit to invest in adaptive farming practices or diversify income sources. When financial support was available, it typically came through informal or semi-formal channels. Women often relied on relatives, local charity programs, banks, or government institutions such as women’s associations to cope with climate-related hardships.
However, financial capital was not evenly accessible. Some women expressed reluctance to borrow, fearing debt or lacking trust in financial institutions. Others lacked awareness of available programs or did not know how to apply for assistance. This gap in financial literacy and access created disparities in adaptive capacity, limiting some households’ ability to respond effectively to climate-related shocks.
Despite these challenges, participants displayed a strong desire to maintain financial independence and stability. Many opted to manage within their means, emphasizing frugality and mutual support within their communities rather than relying on external borrowing. These findings highlight the critical need to enhance rural women’s access to affordable and clearly communicated financial services as part of comprehensive efforts to strengthen resilience in climate-vulnerable regions.

3.3.2. Social Capitals and Informal Networks as Pillars of HLR

Social networks emerged as a critical component of household livelihood resilience, offering both emotional and practical support in the face of climate stressors. Participants consistently emphasized the importance of family and neighbors as their primary sources of help and advice during times of hardship. As one woman noted, “Our neighbors and family are our safety net. During difficult times, they are the first ones we turn to for help.” This reliance on informal networks was a recurring theme across the interviews.
Women frequently sought guidance from relatives and neighbors on how to respond to climate-related disruptions. One respondent shared, “In times of need, we share ideas and resources with our neighbors. It is how we survive together.” These interactions—often grounded in trust and shared experience—served as important channels for exchanging knowledge and coping strategies. Discussions typically took place in everyday settings such as family homes, marketplaces, and gatherings organized by local groups like women’s associations.
Women’s associations played a dual role, while less frequently cited, offering both formal support and a space for peer exchange. Community events hosted by the associations enabled women to discuss climate challenges, share experiences, and learn from one another. However, some participants reported limited engagement in these activities due to caregiving duties or a lack of accessible opportunities, underscoring the need to expand inclusive participation in such forums.
While neighborhood conversations were the most frequently reported source of advice, family interactions followed closely, particularly with husbands, brothers, daughters, and other close relatives. Women’s associations were the third most mentioned source, providing a structured platform for collective learning. Other sources, such as local authorities, were cited less frequently, and a small number of women reported having no specific source of advice at all.
Overall, the findings highlight that rural agrarian women rely primarily on immediate social networks—family, neighbors, and women’s associations— for climate-related decision-making and support. These networks not only offer practical assistance but also foster collective resilience by creating spaces where women can collaboratively adapt to changing environmental conditions. At the same time, participants described limited yet notable engagement with institutional actors, particularly local governments, in instances such as receiving aid during saline intrusion. The findings suggest that support systems are in flux, somewhat present yet fragmented. Recognizing both the ingenuity of women’s informal networks and the emergent, though uneven, institutional efforts underscores the need for stronger alignment. Drawing on frameworks of adaptive governance and institutional learning [55,56], we argue for co-learning approaches in which diverse stakeholders including women contribute expertise rooted in experience, culture, and context. Such collaboration is essential not only for addressing rural women’s immediate needs but also for building inclusive, locally grounded pathways to climate resilience.

3.3.3. Gendered Responsibilities and Decision-Making

Across the study areas, participants described their communities as generally harmonious, with cooperation prevailing over conflict. Reports of social tension were rare and typically limited to minor disputes, such as occasional disagreements among neighbors or within families. Migration-related decisions, often undertaken in response to livelihood pressures induced by CC, emerged as a key source of intra-household conflict. In cases where women were compelled to migrate from rural to urban areas to secure income, such decisions sometimes led to tensions at home. These included concerns around personal safety, trust, and spousal jealousy, suggesting that migration, while necessary for survival, can destabilize domestic relationships.
The interviews underscored the central role of women in managing household-level adaptation to climate change, particularly in maintaining food security, managing household finances, and providing care for family members—roles that became especially critical during periods of environmental stress. As one participant stated, “As women, we are the backbone of the household. We keep things running even when everything else falls apart.” Yet, despite their indispensable contributions, many women described a pervasive sense of exclusion, a feeling of being overlooked and undervalued across multiple domains of their lives. This exclusion was not limited to household decision-making or institutional processes, but reflected a broader emotional and psychological experience of invisibility. One woman shared, “We do so much, but when decisions are made, we are left out,” echoing persistent gender inequities embedded within both household and community structures. Nevertheless, some participants reported consulting their husbands for major mitigation decisions, illustrating a form of negotiated agency whereby women navigate patriarchal norms to assert influence without overtly challenging established roles. Still, their limited participation in formal decision-making structures exacerbated existing gender inequities and constrained their ability to meaningfully shape responses to climate risks.
Overall, while social cohesion and supportive relationships enhanced resilience, the persistence of patriarchal norms restricted women’s agency in both household and community adaptation strategies. These findings highlight the need for gender-sensitive approaches that not only recognize women’s contributions but also create pathways for their fuller participation in decision-making.

3.4. Perceived Support Needs for Agrarian Women’s HLR

3.4.1. Monetary, Technical, and Leadership Support Needs

The findings illustrate the perceived support needs of rural women for enhancing HLR. The most frequently cited need was financial support, ranging from loans and investment capital to scholarships for children, underscoring the centrality of monetary resources in women’s adaptation strategies. Respondents repeatedly emphasized that, without such financial backing, their ability to invest in tools, seeds, and technologies remains limited. A participant emphasized this by stating, “Low-interest loans would make a big difference. Right now, it is impossible to invest in better equipment or seeds.” The need for training and education also emerged as a recurring theme. Participants expressed a desire to learn more about sustainable farming practices, climate-resilient agricultural techniques, and alternative income-generating strategies. One respondent reflected, “We need knowledge. Without it, we are just guessing how to survive.”, while another said, “We need training on new farming techniques to cope with the changing climate. Without knowledge, it is hard to make progress.” A smaller subset of participants mentioned more specific aspirations, such as vocational training or access to targeted government programs related to agriculture and livestock.
Beyond financial and technical assistance, many participants expressed a general desire for support, though they were often unable to specify the exact forms this support should take. This lack of clarity points to a broader gap in awareness and understanding of available resources and climate adaptation opportunities. A small number of women stated that they did not require any support, which may reflect a sense of self-reliance or, alternatively, the influence of social norms that discourage seeking external assistance. This study also found limited evidence of women’s participation in leadership or advocacy roles related to climate adaptation. Although many women expressed a willingness to engage in adaptation planning, they frequently lacked the authority, resources, and social recognition necessary to take on leadership roles. Their involvement was further constrained by prevailing social norms and restricted access to decision-making spaces.

3.4.2. Stakeholder Roles and Support Ecosystem

To structure the complex interplay of actors, influences, and outcomes in rural women’s climate adaptation, a CATWOE analysis was applied. This framework enabled a clearer systems-level understanding of stakeholder roles, transformation dynamics, and barriers (Table 1). Complementing this, Table 2 reflects women’s assessment of five key supporter groups including women’s associations, local government, neighbors, provincial authorities, and central agencies based on the perceived frequency, quality, and helpfulness of support. Participants rated each group from 1 (least helpful) to 10 (most helpful) during interviews. These scores were then aggregated to produce total and average values across Soc Trang and An Giang, offering a comparative view of each group’s perceived contribution to household livelihood resilience.
Rural agrarian women, as customers, remain at the forefront of climate impacts and adaptation. As the most directly affected group, they are central to any transformation processes aimed at enhancing resilience. Their daily responsibilities such as food provision, caregiving, and managing household finances place them in a critical yet often underrecognized role in sustaining livelihoods under climate stress.
Actors refer to those providing or facilitating support. Participants most frequently cited women’s associations as a key source of aid and advice, followed by local governments, neighbors, provincial authorities, and occasionally central agencies (Table 2). Grassroots organizations and local governments played the most active roles in offering financial assistance, sharing knowledge, and strengthening community support.
Transformations refer to the support mechanisms and interventions designed to enhance resilience. Women identified key sources of assistance, including financial support (such as social loans and monetary aid), informal knowledge sharing with neighbors, and participation in community events organized by women’s associations.
Worldviews indicates a typically urgent need for transformation to secure stable livelihoods, yet women lacked clarity on how to achieve it. While financial assistance was seen as essential, many struggled to identify further needs or strategies, revealing a gap between awareness and the capacity to act. As one respondent said, “We know change is needed, but we don’t know how to do it or who can help.”
Owners, or those with control over adaptation decisions, were identified primarily as local government officials, who are key actors in initiating support programs and responding to community needs. Within households, husbands and male relatives were most often cited as the main decision-makers, reinforcing women’s limited roles in strategic planning. Neighbors also served as informal influencers, shaping adaptation practices despite lacking formal authority.
Environmental constraints remain substantial. Women faced limited access to climate information, difficulty articulating livelihood challenges, and restrictive gender norms. These barriers often left them feeling like passive recipients rather than active agents. Yet, examples of resourcefulness emerged: some women carefully managed household budgets to avoid debt, while others relied on informal networks or charitable aid such as food or small cash donations to weather climate shocks.
In sum, while support systems remain fragmented, women are at the center of adaptation efforts. Their resilience is evident, but systemic barriers including unequal access, knowledge gaps, and entrenched norms continue to constrain their potential for transformative adaptation.

4. Discussion

4.1. Household Livelihood Resilience Among Agrarian Women in Rural Climate Contexts

The concept of HLR in rural contexts centers on the capacity of households to sustain and improve their livelihood strategies while navigating and adapting to internal and external stressors [19,57]. A resilient livelihood system is defined by its ability to buffer against shocks (buffering capacity), preserve essential functions (self-organizing capacity), and adapt or evolve in response to changing risks (learning capacity), thereby reducing adverse effects on both economic productivity and overall well-being [58,59]. These concepts, introduced in the conceptual framework (Figure 1), provide a lens through which to interpret the adaptive responses and support needs shared by participants.
The findings reveal that while women exhibit practical strategies aligned with each capacity, these are often fragmented or constrained by intersecting structural barriers. By revisiting each core capacity, this discussion clarifies how resilience manifests and is limited within the lived realities of agrarian women in the Mekong River Delta. In terms of buffering capacity, participants leveraged various forms of livelihood capital such as traditional knowledge, informal loans, and community support to manage immediate disruptions. These forms of human, financial, and social capital provided short-term relief but were rarely sufficient for building durable, long-term resilience. For example, women often relied on small-scale trade, livestock, or assistance from relatives to offset income losses from climate-related crop failure. However, access to formal financial instruments and adaptive technologies remained limited, reducing their ability to plan or invest beyond subsistence. In addition, physical capital such as water scarcity hampered women’s ability to adapt to climate shocks or sustain productive livelihoods. Despite these persistent uncertainties, the majority of women (87%) expressed cautious optimism about the stability of their livelihoods over the next five years. This optimism reflects a form of psychological resilience that sustains motivation and engagement in adaptation. It underscores the importance of transforming hope into informed agency through targeted support, inclusive planning, and improved access to adaptive resources and knowledge.
Self-organizing capacity, the ability to coordinate adaptive responses and mobilize support, was largely confined to informal networks. Women frequently sought advice and mutual aid from neighbors, family members, and local women’s associations. While these connections fostered mutual support and knowledge exchange, they rarely extended to formal institutions or participatory planning spaces. Limited participation in broader community decision-making processes, often due to entrenched gender norms and caregiving responsibilities, further restricted women’s ability to influence adaptation planning or access institutional resources.
Learning capacity was similarly limited. Knowledge sharing primarily occurred within immediate social networks, often through storytelling or experiential advice. Although this peer-to-peer mode of learning was valuable, the women lacked access to structured capacity-building programs or formal training opportunities that could enhance their ability to respond proactively to climate-related stressors.
Moreover, many participants expressed uncertainty about the concept of resilience itself, especially in relation to CC. This unclear perception led to confusion around how to build or sustain resilience within their households. A lack of conceptual understanding—where resilience was seen as vague or unfamiliar—further hindered participants from crafting transformative strategies. As a result, while some level of livelihood resilience capacity existed, transformative adaptation remained underdeveloped and rarely practiced.
Intersecting with these limitations were entrenched gender norms that shaped women’s roles and constrained their agency. Many women reported limited or negotiated decision-making power in their households, often needing to consult or defer to male family members for major livelihood decisions. This dynamic, shaped by patriarchal expectations, further restricted their participation in community-level adaptation processes. These structural inequalities not only marginalized women from formal adaptation processes but also undermined their visibility and influence as agents of change.
In sum, while participants demonstrated some degree of livelihood resilience, their capacity for transformative adaptation was limited and seldom applied. This can be attributed to their unclear understanding of climate change, which hindered the development of effective strategies. Strengthening HLR in this context requires targeted efforts to build capacity across all three domains while addressing the structural barriers that restrict women’s agency and access.

4.2. Two Sides of HLR: Strengths and Shortfalls in Rural Women’s Livelihood Adaptation

This study underscores the critical role of grassroots-level local governments in supporting rural women’s adaptation to CC. As the most frequently cited source of assistance, local authorities demonstrate concern for community well-being and effectively monitor local conditions. Most support is financial, and women also turn to relatives, government institutions (e.g., women’s associations, banks), and charity programs. However, many women prefer to manage their expenses independently or are unaware of available resources, indicating a significant outreach and information gap.
In the context of the MRD, HLR presents both strengths and limitations—two sides of the same coin. On one hand, many women demonstrated everyday agency through crop diversification, petty trade, and peer-to-peer learning. These informal practices reflect self-reliance, grounded in lived experiences and strategic use of local resources, challenging portrayals of women as passive recipients of support. Many also mobilized support from local government institutions, neighbors, and family, further underscoring their informal leadership.
On the other hand, their limited awareness of climate change and adaptive strategies such as climate-resilient crop varieties or advanced water management techniques highlights a lack of access to innovation and technical knowledge. While social support networks including local authorities, women’s associations, and informal kin-based ties remain vital, these interactions typically occur within homes or during women’s association events and tend to be reactive, addressing immediate challenges rather than fostering long-term resilience [60,61].
Gendered patterns in adaptation strategies are also apparent with women more commonly engaging in crop cultivation and petty trade, while men are typically involved in livestock rearing and agroforestry [22]. However, access to more comprehensive adaptive measures such as income diversification, infrastructural development, and advanced technologies remains limited, highlighting persistent structural and informational constraints [62,63].
These results align with critiques that rural adaptation efforts are often reactive rather than strategically planned, tending to address immediate shocks rather than long-term risks [64]. Women’s adaptive capacity and agency are further constrained by limited access to formal education, skills training, and climate-related information—barriers that are reinforced by prevailing gender norms [65]. These findings reflect shifting gender dynamics and align with recent scholarship calling for more nuanced understandings of adaptation [11,53,54]. While informal practices such as crop diversification and petty trade offer some resilience, they fall short in the face of intensifying climate threats. Evidence from other contexts suggests that building effective resilience requires a broader range of livelihood opportunities and context-specific, targeted interventions [66,67].

4.3. Rural Women’s Perceived Needs as a Blueprint for Building Livelihood Resilience

To effectively develop strategies that enhance rural women’s HLR, a nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics shaping households’ capacities to cope with and recover from shocks and stresses is essential. Findings from this study highlight the significance of rural agrarian women’s perceptions of their support needs, revealing critical areas for targeted intervention. These insights, coupled with the theoretical framework as presented in Figure 1, offer a strong foundation for designing practical, context-specific HLR-building strategies.
Participants consistently cited climate-induced shocks such as flooding, drought, and salinity intrusion as major disruptions affecting agricultural productivity, household incomes, and migration patterns, with women compelled to migrate in search of alternative livelihoods. Financial and human capital emerged as pivotal areas of need, pointing to the importance of improving access to credit, financial assistance, and skill development opportunities. This study found that rural women primarily demonstrated absorptive capacities, relying on informal networks rather than structured anticipatory or adaptive mechanisms. A pronounced support need was for structured, tailored training and better access to reliable climate information, both essential for enabling proactive planning and enhancing adaptive capacity.
The findings also underscore the critical role of agency, empowerment, and participation. Rural women reported limited involvement in formal decision-making processes and a general lack of awareness about institutional support systems. Their expressed aspirations for vocational training and leadership development emphasize the need to strengthen social capital and leverage existing community-based structures, such as women’s associations and local governance mechanisms.
Empirical evidence pointed to an acute need for financial support, including micro-loans and grants, to improve agricultural productivity and support entrepreneurial activities. In addition, this study revealed significant gaps in access to adaptive agricultural technologies and limited awareness of resilience-enhancing strategies, highlighting the need for more robust knowledge dissemination and technology transfer. As supported by previous research [68], socio-cognitive factors such as risk perception and prevailing social norms play a vital role in shaping resilience capacities, thereby necessitating culturally sensitive approaches in resilience programming.
Aligning women’s self-identified support needs with theoretical insights, this study advocates for comprehensive, multifaceted strategies that prioritize women’s empowerment, financial capacity building, and systemic change. Expanding access to financial resources, adaptive technologies, and leadership development, complemented by inclusive policies and structural reforms, can significantly strengthen rural women’s adaptive capacities. These integrated efforts are essential for fostering sustainable, climate-resilient rural livelihoods.

4.4. The Missing Links in HLR Interventions

Building on the findings presented, this study illuminates the complex and persistent barriers that shape rural women’s HLR in the context of CC. While Vietnam’s national commitment to gender equality as articulated in key policy frameworks such as the National Strategy on Gender Equality 2021–2030 provides an important foundation, the alignment of these policy aspirations with everyday realities, particularly in rural and climate-vulnerable settings, remains an ongoing endeavor.
In line with [69], the findings reveal that rural livelihoods are acutely vulnerable to socio-economic and environmental constraints, including limited access to financial capital, healthcare, and markets compounded by climate-induced shocks. In Vietnam’s MRD, women face heightened vulnerabilities driven by gendered inequalities and restricted access to essential assets. As formal institutional support remains limited, women often rely on informal networks such as family and community groups.
This reliance reflects broader concerns, such as the observation in [70] that national adaptation frameworks often fail to recognize the distinct roles and capacities of rural women. Structural challenges including the feminization of agriculture, an aging rural population, and limited participatory planning continue to marginalize women within formal adaptation processes. As this study demonstrates, their responses are frequently driven by necessity rather than by empowered participation.
Short-term coping mechanisms, including borrowing, reducing consumption, and reallocating labor [71,72], remain common. These strategies, while practical, highlight constrained adaptive choices shaped by systemic inequalities such as limited land rights and decision-making power [73].
Livelihood diversification, a key resilience strategy [74], emerges as both essential and challenging. Despite some entrepreneurial activity, barriers such as limited resources, low education levels, and inadequate institutional support curtail these efforts. This aligns with [75], which advocates for integrated strategies linking vocational training, financial inclusion, and social support.
While gender is increasingly referenced in climate adaptation policies, implementation at the local level often falls short in fully addressing women’s specific needs and priorities [23]. Participants in this study described limited access to credit, training opportunities, and climate-smart technologies—concerns that align with findings from [76,77]. These insights point to the importance of developing more grounded and contextually responsive gender-sensitive frameworks.
Women consistently identified access to markets, financial services, and entrepreneurial education as critical to resilience—concerns shared by [78,79]. Meanwhile, patriarchal norms and gendered labor roles continue to limit women’s agency in decision-making [80,81].
A notable gap is the absence of inclusive, participatory platforms where rural women can shape local climate responses. Echoing [82], participants expressed a desire for meaningful engagement, yet lacked the training, support, and recognition needed to contribute effectively.
While descriptive statistics offered valuable insights into participants’ support networks and adaptation patterns, this study did not incorporate inferential statistical methods. That decision aligns with this study’s exploratory design and emphasis on capturing lived experiences. Nonetheless, the limited inferential scope of the quantitative component represents a methodological constraint that future research could address.
In sum, strengthening rural women’s HLR requires a multi-dimensional approach that addresses both material needs, such as finance, education, and market access, and the structural and cultural norms that constrain agency. Building resilience demands inclusive governance and participatory adaptation processes that center women’s knowledge and lived experiences.

5. Conclusions

This study has examined the support needs of rural agrarian women in the MRD to strengthen HLR amid the impacts of CC. The findings underscore the intersectionality of climatic, socio-economic, and institutional challenges that shape rural women’s responses to recurrent climate-related stressors disrupting their livelihoods. While women demonstrate notable agency through informal support networks, their resilience strategies remain largely reactive, constrained by limited access to resources, persistent gender norms, and inadequate institutional support.
The analysis identifies key areas requiring targeted intervention, including access to financial assistance, vocational and digital skills development, gender-responsive policy frameworks, improved market access, and the establishment of inclusive, community-based support systems. Enhancing sustainable HLR in this context necessitates multidimensional, gender-sensitive approaches that address both immediate vulnerabilities and systemic inequalities. Such strategies are essential not only for strengthening coping capacities but also for enabling rural women to adopt adaptive and transformative pathways in response to escalating climate risks.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.T.N.T. and S.M.A.; methodology, T.T.N.T. and S.M.A.; software, T.T.N.T.; validation, T.T.N.T. and T.T.N.N.; formal analysis, T.T.N.T., T.T.N.N., S.M.A. and E.C.A.; investigation, T.T.N.T.; resources, T.T.N.T., T.T.N.N. and S.M.A.; data curation, T.T.N.T.; writing—original draft preparation, T.T.N.T.; writing—review and editing, T.T.N.N., S.M.A. and E.C.A.; visualization, T.T.N.T.; supervision, S.M.A. and T.T.N.N.; project administration, T.T.N.T.; funding acquisition, T.T.N.T. and T.T.N.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by Vietnam National University-HoChiMinh City (VNU-HCM), grant number TX2025-16-01, and the UKRI GCRF Living Deltas Hub, under Grant Reference NE/S008926/1.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

We give thanks to the Climate Change Institute, An Giang University and Andrews University for their research support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allen, M.; Dube, O.P.; Solecki, W.; Aragón-Durand, F.; Cramer, W.; Humphreys, S.; Kainuma, M. Special report: Global warming of 1.5 °C. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change 2018, 27, 677. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolan, S.; Padhye, L.P.; Jasemizad, T.; Govarthanan, M.; Karmegam, N.; Wijesekara, H.; Amarasiri, D.; Hou, D.; Zhou, P.; Biswal, B.K.; et al. Impacts of climate change on the fate of contaminants through extreme weather events. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 909, 168388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ricciardi, W.; Marcheggiani, S.; Puccinelli, C.; Carere, M.; Sofia, T.; Giuliano, F.; Dogliotti, E.; Mancini, L.; Agrimi, U.; Alleva, E.; et al. Health and Climate Change: Science calls for global action. Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita 2019, 55, 323–329. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rocha, J.; Oliveira, S.; Viana, C.M.; Ribeiro, A.I. Chapter 8—Climate change and its impacts on health, environment and economy. In One Health; Prata, J.C., Ribeiro, A.I., Rocha-Santos, T., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Elsevier: London, UK, 2022; pp. 253–279. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kuran, C.H.A.; Morsut, C.; Kruke, B.I.; Krüger, M.; Segnestam, L.; Orru, K.; Naevestad, T.O.; Airola, M.; Keranen, J.; Gabel, F.; et al. Vulnerability and vulnerable groups from an intersectionality perspective. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 50, 101826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Glazebrook, T.; Noll, S.; Opoku, E. Gender matters: Climate change, gender bias, and women’s farming in the global South and North. Agriculture 2020, 10, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anderson, J.; Clause, V.; Mattern, M.; Zani, K. Strengthening Rural Women’s Climate Resilience: Opportunities for Financial and Agricultural Service Providers; CGAP Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/publications/Working%20Paper-RRW_CGAP-Agrifin.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  8. Contzen, S.; Forney, J. Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: A typology of farming-family configurations. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Frankenberger, T.; Mueller, M.; Spangler, T.; Alexander, S. Community Resilience: Conceptual Framework and Measurement Feed the Future Learning Agenda; Westat: Rockville, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Asmamaw, M.; Mereta, S.T.; Ambelu, A. Exploring households’ resilience to climate change-induced shocks using Climate Resilience Index in Dinki watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Rao, N.; Lawson, E.T.; Raditloaneng, W.N.; Solomon, D.; Angula, M.N. Gendered vulnerabilities to climate change: Insights from the semi-arid regions of Africa and Asia. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Huyer, S.; Gumucio, T. Going back to the well: Women, agency, and climate adaptation. World J. Agric. Soil Sci. 2020, 5, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. FAO. Addressing gender inequalities to build resilience. In Stocktaking of Good Practices in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ Strategic Objective 5; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; p. 48. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carvajal-Escobar, Y.; Quintero-Angel, M.; Garcia-Vargas, M. Women’s role in adapting to climate change and variability. Adv. Geosci. 2008, 14, 277–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Namiech, O. Women’s livelihoods and resilience in complex and volatile environments. In An Analysis of Best Practices; JDC: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 68. [Google Scholar]
  16. Smyth, I. Gender in climate change and disaster risk reduction, Manila, October 2008. Dev. Pract. 2009, 6, 799–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Djoudi, H.; Brockhaus, M. Is adaptation to climate change gender neutral? Lessons from communities dependent on livestock and forests in northern Mali. Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Speranza, C.I.; Wiesmann, U.; Rist, S. An indicator framework for assessing livelihood resilience in the context of social–ecological dynamics. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 28, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Quandt, A. Measuring livelihood resilience: The household livelihood resilience approach (HLRA). World Dev. 2018, 107, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Department for International Development. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets; DFID: London, UK, 1999. Available online: https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/114097690/114438878/Sustainable+livelihoods+guidance+sheets.pdf/594e5ea6-99a9-2a4e-f288-cbb4ae4bea8b?t=1569512091877 (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  21. Greene, C.; Wilmer, H.; Ferguson, D.B.; Crimmins, M.A.; McClaran, M.P. Using scale and human agency to frame ranchers’ discussions about socio-ecological change and resilience. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 96, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ngigi, M.W.; Mueller, U.; Birner, R. Gender differences in climate change adaptation strategies and participation in group-based approaches: An intra-household analysis from rural Kenya. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 138, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bryan, E.; Alvi, M.; Huyer, S.; Ringler, C. Addressing gender inequalities and strengthening women’s agency to create more climate-resilient and sustainable food systems. Glob. Food Secur. 2024, 40, 100731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. ASEAN. ASEAN Master Plan on Rural Development 2022 to 2026; ASEAN: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022; Available online: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/34-ASEAN-Master-Plan-on-Rural-Development-2022-2026.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  25. Sentian, J.; Payus, C.M.; Herman, F.; Kong, V.W.Y. Climate change scenarios over Southeast Asia. APN Sci. Bull. 2022, 12, 102–122. Available online: https://www.apn-gcr.org/bulletin/article/climate-change-scenarios-over-southeast-asia/ (accessed on 28 April 2025). [CrossRef]
  26. Han, Y.-C.; Pross, C.A.; Agarwal, R.A.; Raluca Torre, A. The State of Gender Equality and Climate Change in ASEAN; ASEAN: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022; Available online: https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/State-of-Gender-Equality-and-Climate-Change-in-ASEAN_FINAL-1.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  27. Zhou, W.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Xu, D. Livelihood resilience and strategies of rural residents of earthquake-threatened areas in Sichuan Province, China. Nat. Hazards 2021, 106, 255–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bird, K.; Shepherd, A. Chronic Poverty in Semi Arid Zimbabwe; CPRC Working Paper No 18; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2003; p. 59. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d1240f0b652dd00173c/18Bird_Shepherd.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  29. Liu, W.; Cheng, Y.; Li, J.; Feldman, M. Livelihood adaptive capacities and adaptation strategies of relocated households in rural China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 1067649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bhatta, G.D.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Poudel, S.; Belgrave, D.A. Climate-induced migration in South Asia: Migration decisions and the gender dimensions of adverse climatic events. J. Rural Community Dev. 2015, 10, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fruttero, A.; Halim, D.; Broccolini, C.; Coelho, B.; Gninafon, H.; Muller, N. Gendered impacts of climate change: Evidence from weather shocks. Environ. Res. Clim. 2024, 3, 045018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chen, F.; Xu, H.; Lew, A.A. Livelihood resilience in tourism communities: The role of human agency. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 606–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lawless, S.; Cohen, P.; McDougall, C.; Orirana, G.; Siota, F.; Doyle, K. Gender norms and relations: Implications for agency in coastal livelihoods. Marit. Stud. 2019, 18, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gervais, M.; Weber, S.; Caron, C. Guide to participatory feminist research. In Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies; McGill University: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2018; p. 44. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/43347231/Guide_to_Participatory_Feminist_Research_Abridged_Version_ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  35. Goessling, K.P. Learning from feminist participatory action research: A framework for responsive and generative research practices with young people. Action Res. 2024, 23, 48–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Saeidzadeh, Z. Gender Research and Feminist Methodologies. In Gender-Competent Legal Education; Vujadinović, D., Fröhlich, M., Giegerich, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 183–213. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bradbury, H.; Divecha, S. Action methods for faster transformation: Relationality in action. Action Res. 2020, 18, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fine, M.; Torre, M.E. Critical participatory action research: A feminist project for validity and solidarity. Psychol. Women Q. 2019, 43, 433–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bahadur, A.V.; Peters, K.; Wilkinson, E.; Pichon, F.; Gray, K.; Tanner, T. The 3As Tracking Resilience Across BRACED; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2015; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
  40. UN Women. Assessing Women’s Leadership in Disaster and Climate Resilience: Assessment Framework and Tools 2022. Available online: https://wrd.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/UNWomen%20Final%20Framework%20and%20Tools%20final.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2025).
  41. Beckwith, L.; Warrington, S.; Nguyen, H.; Nguyen, T.; Greru, C.; Smith, G.; Minh, T.M.T.; Nguyen, L.; Hensengerth, O.; Woolner, P.; et al. Listening to Experiences of Environmental Change in Rural Vietnam: An Intergenerational Approach. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2023, 23, 461–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rainer, D. Mekong Delta Climate Resilient Agriculture Activity Design: Local Consultations Report; United States Agency for International Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/4477128/mekong-delta-climate-resilient-agriculture-activity-design/5274458/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  43. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; p. 282. [Google Scholar]
  44. Malterud, K.; Siersma, V.D.; Guassora, A.D. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qual. Health Res. 2016, 26, 1753–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Mason, M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2010, 11, 19. [Google Scholar]
  46. Naeem, M.; Ozuem, W.; Howell, K.; Ranfagni, S. A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2023, 22, 16094069231205789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, L.; Mitsch, W.J. Modelling hydrological processes in created freshwater wetlands: An integrated system approach. Environ. Model. Softw. 2005, 20, 935–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Checkland, P.B. Information systems and systems thinking: Time to unite? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 1988, 8, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Checkland, P.; Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action; Wiley & Sons: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1999; p. 432. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nguyen, T.T.; Scognamillo, D.G.; Comer, C.E. Revealing community perceptions for ecological restoration using a soft system methodology. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2019, 32, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. R Core Team. R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. In R Foundation for Statistical Computing; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  52. R Core Team. Foreign: Read Data Stored by Minitab, S, SAS, SPSS, Stata, Systat, Weka, dBase,… R Package Version 0.8-59; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nightingale, A. The Nature of Gender: Work, Gender, and Environment. Soc. Space 2006, 24, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tschakert, P.; Machado, M. Gender Justice and Rights in Climate Change Adaptation: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Ethics Soc. Welf. 2012, 6, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chhetri, N.; Chaudhary, P.; Tiwari, P.R.; Yadaw, R.B. Institutional and Technological Innovation: Understanding Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in Nepal. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 33, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pahl-Wostl, C. A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Adaptive Capacity and Multi-Level Learning Processes in Resource Governance Regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 2009, 19, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chambers, R.; Conway, G. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. In IDS Discussion Paper; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 1991; Volume 296, p. 29. Available online: https://www.ids.ac.uk/download.php?file=files/Dp296.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  58. Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.; Huang, C.; Tan, R.; Cai, J. Measuring farmers’ sustainable livelihood resilience in the context of poverty alleviation: A case study from Fugong County, China. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. He, X.; Yan, J.; Yang, L.E.; Wang, J.; Zhou, H.; Lin, X. Linking smallholders’ livelihood resilience with their adaptation strategies to climate impacts: Insights from the Tibetan Plateau. Ecol. Soc. 2024, 29, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ellis, F. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; p. 292. [Google Scholar]
  61. Adger, W.N. Governing natural resources: Institutional adaption and resilience. In Negotiating Environmental Change; Berkhout, F., Leach, M., Scoones, I., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2003; pp. 193–208. [Google Scholar]
  62. 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]
  63. Smith, J.B.; Lenhart, S.S. Climate change adaptation policy options. Clim. Res. 1996, 6, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Barnett, J. Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: The problem of uncertainty. World Dev. 2001, 29, 977–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jost, C.; Kyazze, F.; Naab, J.; Neelormi, S.; Kinyangi, J.; Zougmore, R.; Aggarwal, P.; Bhatta, G.; Chaudhury, M.; Tapoi-Bistram, M.-L.; et al. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Clim. Dev. 2016, 8, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mohammed, K.; Batung, E.; Kansanga, M.; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H.; Luginaah, I. Livelihood diversification strategies and resilience to climate change in semi-arid northern Ghana. Clim. Change 2021, 164, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alam, G.M.; Alam, K.; Mushtaq, S.; Leal Filho, W. How do climate change and associated hazards impact on the resilience of riparian rural communities in Bangladesh? Policy implications for livelihood development. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 84, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cinner, J.E.; Barnes, M.L. Social dimensions of resilience in social-ecological systems. One Earth 2019, 1, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sajid, A.; Ayatullah, K.N.; Iqbal, S.; Abbas, S. Socio-Economic Constraints Affecting Sustainable Rural Livelihood. Arts Soc. Sci. J. 2018, 9, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ylipaa, J.; Gabrielsson, S.; Jerneck, A. Climate change adaptation and gender inequality: Insights from rural Vietnam. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Siddika, Z. Women’s Livelihood Resilience and Adaptation Options for Climate Change. Master’s Thesis, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  72. Liu, W.; Li, J.; Xu, J. Effects of disaster-related resettlement on the livelihood resilience of rural households in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 49, 101649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Aphane, M.; Dzivakwi, R.; Jacobs, P. Livelihood strategies of rural women in Eastern Cape and Limpopo. Agenda 2010, 24, 66–74. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mittra, P.K. Livelihood diversification pursued by rural women farmer: The case of Bangladesh. J. Agric. Food Environ. 2021, 2, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tohidimoghadam, A.; PourSaeed, A.; Bijani, M.; Samani, R.E. Rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change: A strategic analysis. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2023, 20, 100292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tran, P.T.; Nguyen, T.Q.; Huynh, C.V.; Pham, T.H.; Schinkel, U. A nuanced analysis on livelihood resilience of Vietnamese upland households: An intersectional lens of ethnicity and gender. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Huynh, P.T.; Resurreccion, B.P. Women’s differentiated vulnerability and adaptations to climate-related agricultural water scarcity in rural Central Vietnam. Clim. Dev. 2014, 6, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jaka, H.; Shava, E. Resilient rural women’s livelihoods for poverty alleviation and economic empowerment in semi-arid regions of Zimbabwe. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2018, 10, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Luftu-ul-Hasnaen, S.; Parvez, Z.; Syed, K. Empowering Rural Women through Skill Development: A Pathway to Sustainable Livelihoods. QJSS 2023, 4, 306–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. McNamara, K.E.; Buggy, L. Community-based climate change adaptation: A review of academic literature. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Béné, C.; Al-Hassan, R.M.; Amarasinghe, O.; Fong, P.; Ocran, J.; Onumah, E.; Ratuniata, R.; Tuyen, T.V.; McGregor, J.A.; Mills, D.J. Is resilience socially constructed? Empirical evidence from Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 38, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Orsatti, J.; Dinale, D. Livelihoods, work, women and climate change: Women’s voice in just transition. Labour Ind. 2024, 34, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Women’s household livelihood resilience conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Women’s household livelihood resilience conceptual framework.
Climate 13 00163 g001
Figure 2. Locations of the study sites in the MRD, Vietnam.
Figure 2. Locations of the study sites in the MRD, Vietnam.
Climate 13 00163 g002
Table 1. CATWOE analysis of rural women’s livelihood resilience.
Table 1. CATWOE analysis of rural women’s livelihood resilience.
ElementDescription
CustomerRural agrarian women, who are the primary beneficiaries and most affected by climate change and adaptation interventions.
ActorsWomen’s associations, local governments, neighbors, provincial authorities, and central agencies, who directly implement or mediate support activities.
TransformationsShifts toward greater household livelihood resilience through financial aid, peer advice, and social learning.
WorldviewsA widely held recognition that transformation is needed for stable livelihoods.
OwnersLocal government officials, husbands and male relatives, and neighbors, who influence or control key adaptation decisions.
Environmental ConstraintsLimited climate knowledge, difficulty identifying livelihood challenges, and restrictive gender norms limiting decision-making.
Table 2. Average scores of supporter contributions to livelihood resilience.
Table 2. Average scores of supporter contributions to livelihood resilience.
SupporterSoc Trang (n = 30)An Giang (n = 30)
Women’s associations5.545.00
Local government3.884.59
Neighbors4.044.41
Provincial authorities1.353.00
Central agencies1.123.17
Note: Scores range from 1 (least contribution) to 10 (greatest contribution). n = 30 participants per province.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tran, T.T.N.; Nguyen, T.T.N.; Ashton, E.C.; Aka, S.M. Support Needs of Agrarian Women to Build Household Livelihood Resilience: A Case Study of the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. Climate 2025, 13, 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13080163

AMA Style

Tran TTN, Nguyen TTN, Ashton EC, Aka SM. Support Needs of Agrarian Women to Build Household Livelihood Resilience: A Case Study of the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. Climate. 2025; 13(8):163. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13080163

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tran, Tran T. N., Tanh T. N. Nguyen, Elizabeth C. Ashton, and Sharon M. Aka. 2025. "Support Needs of Agrarian Women to Build Household Livelihood Resilience: A Case Study of the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam" Climate 13, no. 8: 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13080163

APA Style

Tran, T. T. N., Nguyen, T. T. N., Ashton, E. C., & Aka, S. M. (2025). Support Needs of Agrarian Women to Build Household Livelihood Resilience: A Case Study of the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. Climate, 13(8), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13080163

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop