DSpace at VNU: Socioeconomic Conditions and Perceptions of Environmental Risks in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Coastal Management

ISSN: 0892-0753 (Print) 1521-0421 (Online) Journal homepage: />
Socioeconomic Conditions and Perceptions of
Environmental Risks in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam
Danet Hak, Kazuo Nadaoka & Vo Le Phu
To cite this article: Danet Hak, Kazuo Nadaoka & Vo Le Phu (2016) Socioeconomic Conditions
and Perceptions of Environmental Risks in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, Coastal Management,
44:6, 585-605, DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2016.1233796
To link to this article: />
Published online: 04 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
/>Download by: [Athabasca University]

Date: 19 November 2016, At: 05:09


COASTAL MANAGEMENT
2016, VOL. 44, NO. 6, 585–605
/>
Socioeconomic Conditions and Perceptions of Environmental
Risks in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Danet Haka, Kazuo Nadaokaa, and Vo Le Phub
a

Department of Mechanical and Environmental Informatics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan;
Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology – Vietnam National
University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

b

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

This study investigates the effects of sociodemographic and economic
status on the differences in environmental awareness, risk perception,
and stewardship of the Mekong Delta residents based on a survey
conducted in person with 1,006 households across the delta system.
Spatial visualization and a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
were performed on the survey results to discover underlying factors of
the participants’ responses. The study results revealed that public
environmental awareness in the Mekong Delta is still limited. The level
of environmental awareness, risk perception, and understanding of
stewardship of local people varies by location. Furthermore, how the
Mekong Delta dwellers perceive environmental risks and behave
toward environmental protection is unlikely to be influenced by their
demographic profiles. However, they are significantly affected by the
economic status including income levels and sources. Poor economic
status was found to significantly hamper pro-environmental behavior of
Mekong Delta people regardless of their knowledge of environmental
degradation and the related consequences. These findings provide key

information to assist policymakers in developing a successful and
sustainable disaster risk reduction mitigation plan for the Mekong Delta
region. The implications may also be applicable for other coastal zones,
which are composed of similar sociodemographic, economic, and
environmental conditions.

coastal environment;
environmental risk
perception; mega delta

Introduction
The knowledge of public risk perception is essential in sociopolitical decision-making
(Leiserowitz 2006; Sj€oberg 2000; Slovic 1999), which determines the direction of socioeconomic development. In developing a successful and sustainable disaster risk reduction mitigation plan against known environmental risks, understanding public risk perception is
critical because it informs policymakers of how to appropriately evaluate the vulnerability of
a socioecological system to a particular hazard. However, public perception regarding environmental risk is often overlooked or otherwise underestimated given that human

CONTACT Danet Hak

Department of Mechanical and Environmental Informatics, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, W207, Ookayama West 8 Building, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan, 152-8552.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ucmg.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis


586

D. HAK ET AL.

perception is not easy to study. Different people may perceive an identical risk differently
depending on how they define that risk (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1982). The process by which a person perceives a risk is complex and relies on both cognitive and situational factors (Tobin and Montz 1997), which are interdependent. The cognitive factors

reflect the personality and psychological behavior (e.g., preference and emotion) of a person,
while the situational factors involve the level of awareness or experience of hazardous events,
the sociodemographic, and the economic profile of an individual (Bradford et al. 2012). Situational factors such as the sociodemographic profile and economic status of a population are
known to greatly influence public perception of environmental risk. People from different
demographic and economic backgrounds (e.g., age, gender, education, ethnicity, and economic group) perceive risk differently. For instance, one study found that American white
men tend to generally express a lower perception of risk compared to others (Melissa et al.
2010), while another study claimed that women, people who were not well educated, people
of low income, young people, and black people are groups that are likely to perceive a greater
level of risk (Savage 1993). Other studies investigated the effect of residential location on
environmental risk perception and found that the people who reside farther from the sites
where known hazards are most likely to occur generally perceive more risk than those who
live near the hazardous area (e.g., Lindell and Earle 1983; MacGregor et al. 1994; Roger
1984). In addition, the results of some other studies claimed that even cultural practices
(Fortner and Daun 2010) and political preferences (Carlton and Jacobson 2013) can affect
the way a person perceives environmental risks. The aforementioned descriptions portray
that understanding public perception of an environmental risk is problematic, but it is vital
and inevitable in developing mitigation plan against the impacts of environmental hazards.
The Vietnamese Mekong Delta is a highly populated mega delta in Asia that is most vulnerable to climate change (Woodroffe 2010; Yusuf and Francisco 2010). It is currently
threatened by complex environmental problems. To promote the sustainability of this mega
delta system, proper mitigation strategies and management plans are required. To that end,
understanding the public perception of current environmental threats in this deltaic region
is vital. Unfortunately, due to inadequate research, public perception remains poorly understood. In the present study, we examined the perception of a sample of the Vietnamese
Mekong Delta people toward existing environmental threats and investigated whether sociodemographic and economic factors had any effect on their environmental awareness, risk
perception, and willingness to protect the environment. The specific goals of this study were
to answer the following questions: (1) Are all Mekong Delta dwellers equally aware of the
environmental concerns in their region? (2) Do sociodemographic and economic factors
such as income level, income source, gender, and geographical location affect how the
Mekong Delta people perceive environmental risks? (3) Do sociodemographic and economic
factors affect the behavior of Mekong Delta people toward environmental protection?

Overview of the study area
The Mekong Delta region has a total area of about 39,500 km2. It is the most productive agricultural land and an important economic development zone in Vietnam
(Figure 1). It contributes to approximately 50% of the staple food crops and 60% of
fish production in Vietnam (Be, Sinh, and Miller 2007) and is home to 17.5 million
people, of which 80% live in rural communities (GSOV 2013). The average population


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

587

Figure 1. Location map of the study area showing the Vietnamese Mekong Delta, river network, and survey locations.

density in this delta system is approximately 431 inhabitants/km2, with a natural
increase rate of 0.83% per year (GSOV 2013). The highly populated zones are found
near the main stream of the Mekong River and tributaries (Figure 2), indicating the
importance of the river network to the delta people. The socioeconomic development
of this region depends heavily on its natural resources that include a dense hydrological
network, fertile alluvial soil, and a diverse ecological system, providing various economic opportunities. These resources are also responsible for the spatial variability of
socioeconomic activities across the entire delta region. Despite its beneficial natural
resource and its important role in the development of the Vietnamese economy, the
Mekong Delta is threatened by multiple environmental problems and is very sensitive
to the effects of climate change. For instance, the delta experiences seasonal floods,
saline intrusion, acidic soil, and riverbank erosion that are prevalent natural hazards,
posing challenges to the livelihood of the Mekong Delta community. In addition to
these natural factors, human activities such as improper waste management, excessive
use of agrochemical products, and over exploitation of natural resources (e.g., groundwater) are exacerbating the environmental degradation of this deltaic region. In future
climate change scenarios, these environmental threats are predicted to become more
severe, potentially putting the livelihood of the delta’s population at risk. However, the

588

D. HAK ET AL.

Figure 2. Distribution of population density in 2012.

level of risk might be spatially different depending on the geological setting and adaptive capacity of each subregion. Given this context, understanding the Mekong Delta
people’s perception of current environmental risks, their responsibility to become stewards for environmental protection, and factors affecting their perception will allow policymakers to prioritize key concerns, identify vulnerable groups, and properly pinpoint
the disaster risk reduction/mitigation strategies to deal with present and future environmental threats. To date, few studies have investigated public perception of environmental risks in the Mekong Delta. Nguyen et al. (2012, 2015) and Le Dang et al. (2013,
2014) investigated farmers’ perceptions of climate change impacts and their adaptations
in some parts of the delta. The results of their studies provide insight on climate
change awareness, risk perception, and adaptation practices among the groups of farmers and agricultural specialists who participated in the studies. These results are highly
useful for designing mitigation plans against climate change impacts. However, their
implications are limited to specific groups of people (e.g., farmers and agricultural specialist) and constrained to only a subregion, which make them insufficient to represent
the perception of the entire delta population. Furthermore, given the complexity of the
environmental problems in the Mekong Delta region, understanding public perception
on climate change alone is inadequate to identify proper management strategies for the


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

589

entire system. The present study attempts to fill this research gap by investigating the
awareness and risk perceptions of local people from various sociodemographic and economic backgrounds toward current environmental problems across the entire Mekong
Delta.

Questionnaire design and survey method
In order to answer the research questions introduced in the “Introduction” section, in-person survey was conducted in January 2015 at 33 sites (each site encompassing a buffer zone

of 2-km radius) across the entire Mekong Delta (Figure 1). During this survey, 1,006 households from various sociodemographic and economic backgrounds were interviewed following a predesigned questionnaire. The interviewed households were selected on-site using a
systematic random sampling method. Given the differences in demographics, within the
downtown area, every tenth household was interviewed, while on the outskirts of town, every
fifth household was selected. However, this rule was not applicable for a few cases due to the
unavailability of a household representative or a denial to participate in the study. For such
cases, the next household was interviewed instead (e.g., in the downtown area, the eleventh
household was interviewed if the tenth one was not approachable). In order to examine
whether the characteristics of the residential location contributed any effect to environmental awareness, risk perception, and sense of stewardship in the Mekong Delta community,
the interviewed households were categorized into three groups according to their residential
locations: flood-affected groups, city neighborhood groups, and saline-affected groups. These
groups were predefined based on the typical ecological characteristics of the survey location.
In particular, the flood-affected groups are located close to the main river in the upstream
delta where serious impacts of seasonal flooding are common. The city neighborhood groups
are those located in the central delta, close to the major road connecting Can Tho city and
Ho Chi Minh City and those residing in Can Tho city. These groups are typically less
affected by seasonal flooding and saline intrusion. Furthermore, owing to their proximity to
major urban areas, these groups also have more opportunities to engage in various economic
activities compared to people who live in the other regions. The groups designated as salineaffected are households located in the coastal provinces where the effect of saline intrusion is
dominant. The distribution of the three household groups is given in Figure 3. Due to time
and budget constraints, this survey was conducted only within and near the town or district
centers.
The questionnaire consisting of 31 questions was designed to acquire three types of information: (1) household socioeconomic and demographic information; (2) water resources
and perception of water quality for domestic and agricultural uses; and (3) environmental
risk, awareness, and stewardship. The last type contains questions about general awareness
of environmental hazards, risk perception of flood and water quality degradation (WQD),
and stewardship for environmental protection and conservation. Table 1 shows some of the
important questions aimed specifically at inquiring about public awareness, risk perception,
and environmental stewardship. The closed question format was used for all questions in
the questionnaire except for the questions regarding age and household size where the open
question format was employed. Unlike the open format questionnaire, a closed format questionnaire allows only a limited number of answer choices for each question, which makes it

easier to manage during the interview, makes the results easier to encode and analyze,


590

D. HAK ET AL.

Figure 3. Distribution of the respondent household groups (numeral attached to each location indicates
the number of respondents).

enables comparisons and quantification, is more likely to produce fully completed questionnaires, and avoids unrelated responses (Sarantakos 2005). In addition, ending terms such as
“Other, please specify,” “No idea,” and “Don’t know” were also included to minimize the
effect of limiting the respondents’ answer choices, which sometimes impairs the reliability of
survey results. The answer choices of each question in the entire questionnaire were given
only as nominal responses (categorical answers such as male, female, farmer, or non-farmer)
and ordinal responses (ranking format such as not affected, slightly affected, moderately
affected, or strongly affected).

Data analysis
All collected information was first compiled into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Questionnaires containing missing data were excluded from the data table, leaving 976 questionnaires
for further analysis. In order to identify the association between sociodemographic, economic factors, public environmental awareness, risk perceptions, and behavior toward environmental protection in the Mekong Delta region, the completed questionnaires were


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

591

Table 1. Summary of some core questions of the questionnaire aimed at inquiring about public awareness, perceptions, and stewardship toward environmental concerns in the Mekong Delta.
General awareness and experiences

Environmental risk perception and
stewardship for environmental
protection/conservation

1. Have you heard about any environmental concerns in your area?
2. What is the most serious environmental concern in your area?
3. Are you satisfied with the quality of your water for: (a) domestic use; (b)
agricultural use?
4. According to your observation, how has the water quality in the river/canals in
your area changed in recent years?
5. Do you think water quality degradation is a serious problem in your area?
6. What do you think are the causes of water quality degradation in your area?
7. How often does it flood in your area?
8. According to your observation, how has flooding in your area changed in
recent years?
9. Have you ever experienced water shortage for your farm?
10. How does flooding affect your livelihood?
11. Do you think water quality degradation affects your livelihood?
12. Who do you think should be responsible for environmental degradation in your
area?
13. In your opinion, how can local community help to minimize the risk of
environmental disaster in your area?
14. Do you think environmental education programs should be conducted in your
area?
15. Do you think environmental conservation can help to ensure the sustainability
of your livelihood (e.g., sustain source of income)?

subjected to a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), which is a multivariate descriptive
data analytic method. Using this method, the interrelationships between the levels of environmental awareness, risk perception, and environmental protection and conservation stewardship
were all revealed simultaneously. Because MCA is capable to analyze the relationship pattern

among categorical variables, which comprise several intra-variable levels, it is the most suitable
approach for this study (Abdi and Valentin 2007). A further advantage is that the analysis
results from the MCA can be presented as clouds of points in a low-dimensional space and
thus provide a global picture of the relationship patterns among the variables. The first step in
the MCA calculation is to convert the categorical variables to a binary format of 0 and 1, and
compile them in an indicator matrix, where rows represent questionnaire responses and columns contain artificial variables representing categories of the variables. Then, the standard
correspondence analysis process with an adjusted explained variance can be applied to the
indicator matrix to determine the principal factors (coordinates) that explain most of the data
variability and to identify the distributions of variables and variables’ categories along each factor dimension. The mathematical expression of this method is given by Abdi and Valentin
(2007). To facilitate the data preparation procedure and enhance the visualization of the
results, only the variables that directly infer sociodemographic, economic factors, level of environmental awareness, risk perception, and behavior toward environmental protection were
selected for this analysis. Table 2 provides a description of these selected variables.
In addition to the aforementioned statistical analysis, a spatial visualization technique was
also performed using mapping tools from Geographic Information System (GIS) software.
This spatial visualization illustrates the distribution and variability of the sociodemographic,
economic status, environmental awareness, risk perception, and the sense of stewardship of a
local community, representing the entire delta system. Understanding the spatial variability
of these parameters is very important for developing management strategies to avoid further
conflict among resource users from different subregions, while still meeting the needs of the


592

D. HAK ET AL.

Table 2. Variables used for identifying public awareness, perception, and stewardship toward environmental concerns in this study.
Variables
Socioeconomics factors

1. Gender

2. Age

3. Residential location
4. Income source

5. Income level
Awareness of environmental
issues

6. Awareness of general
environmental problem

Economic and environmental
risk perception

7. Flood risk perception

Environmental protection/conservation
stewardship

8. Water quality degradation (WQD) risk
perception
9. Perspective of environmental
protection responsibility
10. Perspective for environmental
conservation toward
sustainable livelihood

Category/level
Female

Male
20s
30s
40s
50 and above
Flood-affected group
City neighbor group
Saline-affected group
Small business
Livestock-based farmer
Crop-based farmer
Employee/factory and construction
worker
Other income source and
unemployed
Low income
Medium income
High income
Unaware
Slightly aware
Aware
Not perceived
Slightly perceived
Moderately perceived
Highly perceived
Perceived
Not perceived
Positive
Neutral
Negative

Positive
Neutral
Negative

entire delta population. However, despite this usefulness, this spatial visualization technique
has generally not been determined or presented in previous public perception studies.

Results and discussion
Characteristics of the respondents
In general, the respondents who participated in this survey were aged from 20 to over
50 years with the majority being in their 40s and older. Of the total respondents, 45.43%
were women and 54.57% were men, with different sociodemographic and economic profiles
based on residential location, household size, and income levels and sources. Specifically,
56.46% of the respondents belonged to medium-sized families (4–6 members), 32.50% were
from small families (1–3 members), and only 10.04% belonged to large families where there
were at least 7 family members. About 70.09% of the respondents reported that they had
resided in the Mekong Delta since before 1980, while only 7.53% of them were relatively
new residents who started living in the Mekong Delta between 2010 and the present. This
indicates that the majority of the households were non-migrant residents who have likely
lived in this area since birth or since their parents’ generation. Details of the aforementioned


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

593

Figure 4. Household characteristics of the respondents.

demographics are presented in Figure 4. About 41.05% of the respondents lived in lowincome households, and 34.92% lived in medium-income households. Monthly income was
in the range of 2–5 and 5–10 million Vietnam Dong (M.VND), respectively. High-income

households reported a monthly income of 10–20 M.VND and accounted for 10.19% of the
respondents. The very high-income households (monthly income >20 M.VND) accounted
for only 1.88%. At least 11.97% of the respondents were from very low-income families,
reporting monthly incomes of less than 2 M.VND. The definition of income levels used in
this study are in accordance with the per capita poverty threshold defined by the government
of Vietnam for the period of 2011–2015 and personal knowledge of the authors regarding
current living standards in the Mekong Delta region. In addition to income levels, respondents also differed in income sources. The majority of income sources included small businesses (family businesses such as leasing rooms, variety stores, and food stalls), employee
(i.e., construction and factory workers, cashiers, saleswomen, salesmen, and technicians),
crop cultivating, raising livestock (including both animal husbandry and aquaculture production), transportation service (providers), and product dealers. About 23% of the respondents reported having more than one job to support their households. In addition, at least
1.19% of the respondents were unemployed, and 14.21% were dependent on pension money
and support from relatives. Figure 5 illustrates the details of the reported income sources
and income levels.
Sociodemographic and economic spatial patterns and corresponding environmental
risk perceptions and stewardship
Spatial pattern of sociodemographic and economic conditions
As illustrated in Figure 6, there was no significant difference in sociodemographic factors
among different parts of the Mekong Delta. In contrast, economic situations vary drastically
across the deltaic system. Small- to medium-sized households are dominant in all parts of
the delta region, with a small proportion of large households present in areas closer to the
coastline (Figure 6a). Economic activities vary spatially across the delta region. Small business is the major economic activity in most of the surveyed areas. However, as most of the


594

D. HAK ET AL.

Figure 5. Economic characteristics of the respondents: (top) household average monthly income; (bottom)
household income sources (23% of the households had more than on source of income).

survey locations were within or in proximity to the town and district center where businesses

are more profitable compared to other economic activities, this result may not indicate that
small business is the livelihood for majority of the people in the Mekong Delta. Livestock
raising (mostly aquaculture), more developed in the coastal provinces compared to other
parts of the delta (GSOV 2013), is the livelihood in most of the saline-affected zones and in
a few of the flood-affected zones. Crop-cultivating farmers exist in every part of the delta system in different proportions, although they tend to be more numerous in the upper part of
the central delta than in any other locations. Economic groups such as employees, which
include factory and construction workers, tend to be located in coastal provinces and the
central delta rather than in the upper delta region. The details of this spatial trend in income
sources are outlined in Figure 6b. Household income levels are significantly different from
one part of the delta region to another (Figure 6c). Those residing in the city neighborhood
or the central delta in proximity to Can Tho and Ho Chi Minh cities comprise the highest
income groups since they have more access to business opportunities. In addition, the influence of natural phenomena such as floods and saline intrusion also affect this group less.
The income levels of the flood-affected groups and saline-affected groups are comparable,
with slight variations from site to site (Figure 6c). Similar to the variation in income levels,
livelihood perception is also spatially different across the delta system (Figure 6d). In general,
Mekong Delta residents described their current livelihoods as neutral (livelihood conditions
remain the same compared to past periods), or otherwise negative (have worsened) rather


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

595

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of the socioeconomic status across the Mekong Delta region: (a) proportion
of respondents by household size; (b) proportion of respondents by income source; (c) spatial trend of
public perception regarding their current livelihood status in comparison to the last five years; and (d) spatial trend of average monthly income [value in Vietnam Dong (VND)].

than positive (have become better). The proportion of residents who had positive livelihood
perceptions was quite high in the flood-affected zone but was unusually low in salineaffected zones with a few exceptions. This trend indicates the effects of recent hydrological
development and flood protection projects that have reduced the negative impacts of seasonal floods, hence improving living conditions of the upper delta residents. In contrast,

these changes have put more pressure on the livelihood of saline-affected groups as reducing
river discharge can increase the intensity of salt-water intrusion.
Spatial pattern of public perception of domestic and agricultural water quality
In general, a large proportion of the respondents said that they were satisfied with the
quality of water for both domestic and agricultural use (Figure 7b and d). More specifically, people residing in the city neighborhood zones tended to be more satisfied with
water quality compared to those living in the flood-affected and saline-affected areas.
For satisfaction with domestic water quality, this spatial trend can be explained by the
differences in the sources of the water supply for each residential location. As shown in


596

D. HAK ET AL.

Figure 7. Spatial pattern of public perception regarding domestic and agricultural water quality in the
Mekong Delta: (a) source of domestic water; (b) perception of domestic water quality; (c) source of agricultural water; and (d) perception of agricultural water quality.

Figure 7a, almost all the residents in the city neighborhood areas get water from a
water supply company for their domestic use. Water from this source has undergone
some treatment practices before being distributed to households; hence, it is commonly
cleaner compared to water from other sources. In contrast, in the areas where water
from other sources such as rivers, canals, and deep wells are also used for domestic
consumption, the proportion of households not satisfied with domestic water quality
was notably higher (Figure 7a and b).
In the case of water for agricultural activities, the variation in perceptions of water quality
seems to be influenced by the type of activity rather than the source of the water. As can be
identified in Figure 7c and d, there seems to be no correlation between the source of agricultural water and public perception of its quality. Moreover, despite the fact that a remarkable
proportion of residents in the downstream part of the delta and in the area close to Ho Chi
Minh City claimed that WQD is an issue of greatest concern in their residential area
(Figure 8b), they were still generally satisfied with the quality of water available for agricultural use.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT

597

Figure 8. Spatial pattern of public opinion and awareness of current environmental concerns in the
Mekong Delta area: (a) awareness of current environmental problems; (b) problem of greatest concern; (c)
opinion about the current status of water quality (WQ) compared to the last 5 years; and (d) opinion about
causes of WQ degradation.

Spatial pattern of current environmental concerns, environmental awareness, risk
perception, and stewardship
Figure 8 shows the trend of general environmental concerns and awareness of the Mekong
Delta communities regarding current environmental problems in their residential location.
Generally, most of the people who live in the flood-affected and saline-affected zones were
more aware of current environmental concerns than those who live in the city neighborhood
zones (Figure 8a). This is because the city neighborhood zones are commonly less affected by
major environmental events such as seasonal flooding and saline intrusion. Moreover, being
mostly from the higher income groups (Figure 6c), those who live in the city neighborhood
regions are less involved in agricultural activities, and thus, their livelihoods are less sensitive
to the effects of environmental changes. More specifically, the residents of the flood-affected
zones tended to have more concerns about storms, floods (especially seasonal ones), and soil
erosion, while those who live in the saline-affected zones were more concerned about sea
level rise, saline intrusion, and WQD compared to other problems (Figure 8b). Generally,


598

D. HAK ET AL.

the residents of these two regions also identified climate change (in general) as the most
important concern in their residential area, although the proportion of the concerned population is very small, except in the western part of the saline-affected zone and one site of the
flood-affected zone near the central delta (Figure 8b). Interestingly, those who were concerned about soil erosion in their residential location were people living along the main river
in flood-affected zones and those in the western and southwestern saline-affected zones
(Figure 8b), indicating that the problem of soil erosion is greater in these areas compared to
that in other parts of the delta.
On the other hand, the majority of the city neighborhood residents seem to be more concerned about climate change and WQD (in general) rather than other environmental problems although a large proportion of residents in the central delta are also very concerned
about seasonal flooding (Figure 8b). While the residents of the flood-affected and salineaffected zones expressed their issues of greatest concern in very specific terms (i.e., soil erosion, storm, saline intrusion, seasonal flood), city neighborhood residents described their
concerns in broader terms (i.e., climate change and WQD). This variation is consistent with
that of public awareness (Figure 8a) and indicates that being less sensitive to environmental
changes causes the people in the city neighborhood zones to pay less attention and be less
aware of environmental concerns in their residential area.
Figure 8c and d describes the spatial variation of public opinion about water quality
changes in the Mekong Delta region. In general, city neighborhood residents (except those
in Can Tho city) were less sensitive to water quality changes than people living in the floodaffected and saline-affected zones (Figure 8c). Moreover, people living in the southwestern
part of the saline-affected zones where aquaculture is more intensive tended to be more
affected by WQD than others (Figure 8c). Most people in this area described how water
quality in their area has become polluted, instead of just saying that it has become salty or
turbid (Figure 8c). This could be an indicator that intensive aquaculture may be a serious
trigger for WQD in this particular region. Tho, Merckx, and Ut (2013), for example, found
that water quality in areas surrounding aquaculture ponds in this part of the delta contained
much higher salinity and organic loads in comparison to other sites. Apart from these
responses, Mekong Delta people in this survey tended to have different opinions and ideas
about the causes of WQD in the places where they live. Most people who think that WQD
happens because there is no environmental regulation live in areas far away from major cities, such as in the uppermost part of the flood-affected zones and the saline-affected zones
(Figure 8d). This may indicate that either there is actually no environmental regulation in
these regions or that there is regulation, but people are unaware of it due to inadequate promotion on social media or poor local government implementation. This problem is quite
common in remote regions. On the other hand, a large proportion of the residents in this
study, especially those living in the central delta and in the southwestern and western parts

of the saline-affected zones, thought that WQD occurs because local residents are unaware
of water quality degradation and do not respect environmental regulation (Figure 8d). This
indicates that at least some proportions of the Mekong Delta population are aware of their
responsibility regarding environmental concerns in their residential areas. Therefore, it
might be possible to convince them to take part in environmental protection activities.
Figure 9a and b illustrates the spatial pattern of public risk perceptions of major environmental concerns such as flooding and WQD. Most of the residents in the saline-affected
zones did not perceive or only slightly perceived flood risk given that the area where they


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

599

Figure 9. Spatial pattern of public opinion and perception of current environmental risk in the Mekong
Delta area: (a) perception of flood risk; (b) perception of water quality (WQ) degradation risk; (c) opinion
on how they can help to protect the environment; and (d) perspective of the effect of environmental conservation on livelihood sustainability.

live is not a flood-prone area (Figure 9a). Despite seasonal floods causing prolonged inundation in flood-affected areas, the majority of the residents living there did not report high perceptions of flood risk. This response may indicate a desensitization to flood risks arising
from repeated experiences and survival of flood events. A small proportion of these residents
did perceive some level of risk from flooding, suggesting that public perception regarding
flood risk in the Mekong Delta is more likely to depend on how obviously floods can affect
their livelihood resources rather than the magnitude (how deep and how long) of the floods
themselves. Apart from the perception of flood risk, public perception of WQD is also spatially varied. Generally, a large proportion of Mekong Delta residents perceived WQD as
risky, except some proportion of residents in the central and downstream delta (Figure 9b).
Moreover, regardless of the reality that the impact of WQD on livelihoods is generally less
obvious or less acute compared to that of flooding, and that the majority of residents are satisfied with the water quality in their residential areas (Figure 7b and d), Mekong Delta residents tended to perceive WQD as more risky than flooding. This odd trend in perception


600

D. HAK ET AL.

may be because people are more aware of the effects of WQD than those of flooding. Unlike
flood impacts, which are experienced only by people who actually encounter flood episodes,
the impacts of WQD affect a wide range of population. This is because the direct health
effects of WQD are usually broadcasted in local media (e.g., waterborne diseases).
Figure 9c illustrates the spatial pattern of the Mekong Delta people’s opinion on how they
can help to protect the environment in their areas. It is interesting to see that a majority
(82.31%) of residents, especially those in the flood-affected and saline-affected zones (mostly
in the southwestern and western part), are willing to respect environmental regulations and
cooperate with governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to protect the
environment and conserve natural resources. However, at least 20.38% of the residents had
no idea about what they could do to protect the environment in their areas. This group of
residents seems to be more concentrated in the areas where flooding and WQD are unlikely
to be perceived as risky phenomena (Figure 9a–c). This may indicate that people who did
not perceive environmental risk are likely to pay less attention to environmental problems
in surrounding areas. Moreover, although some proportion of the residents in most parts of
the delta mentioned that they could help to protect the environment by teaching their children about environmental degradation issues, only a small proportion of them said that they
would take part in environmental protection by helping to raise local awareness about environmental degradation (Figure 9c). This trend may indicate that Mekong Delta communities
tend to be unaware about the value of information sharing among local people regarding
environmental protection. Therefore, raising the awareness of local people about the importance of information sharing can be identified as an important goal in developing sustainable
environmental protection stewardship in this delta system.
In examining perspectives of the impacts of environmental conservation on their livelihoods, the majority of residents expressed a positive perspective that environmental conservation may help to sustain their livelihood resources (Figure 9d). However, some of them,
especially people living in the city neighborhood zones of the central delta, expressed the
belief that environmental conservation has no impact on the sustainability of their livelihoods. Additionally, a significant proportion of residents (24.40%), particularly in the
saline-affected zones, were not sure of whether environmental conservation could help to
sustain their livelihood resources. This is yet another indicator of the limited awareness
among the Mekong Delta people regarding the advantages of environmental protection and
conservation.
Based on the aforementioned results, the sociodemographic factors of the Mekong Delta

people are uniformly distributed in all parts of the delta system, but economic conditions,
public awareness, risk perception, and environmental stewardship vary significantly from
one location to another. City neighborhood residents tend to be less involved in agricultural
activities and have better livelihoods compared to people in the flood-affected and salineaffected zones. Additionally, the city neighborhood group also seems to be less aware of environmental concerns and perceives less risk of environmental degradation compared to the
flood-affected and saline-affected residents. The majority of Mekong Delta residents seem to
be aware of the environmental degradation in their residential locations and are likely to participate in environmental protection activities organized by the government or other relevant
organizations. However, a considerable proportion of residents remain unaware of how they
can help to protect the environment, and some others (especially those who are less involved
in farming activities) do not find environmental conservation as advantageous for sustaining


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

601

their livelihoods. Aside from the above, information sharing is likely to be overlooked by the
majority of residents despite its great potential in raising local awareness regarding any type
of public issue. Hence, it is an important matter to be considered when developing effective
policies and successful implementation of mitigating strategies.

Influence of sociodemographic and economic factors
The “Sociodemographic and economic spatial patterns and corresponding environmental
risk perceptions and stewardship” section examined the related spatial trends in depth. In
this section, the underlying relationships among the issues are discussed and graphically
illustrated in an MCA symmetric plot (Figure 10). This symmetric plot displays the distribution of variables and each variable’s categories instantaneously, according to their corresponding factor scores on the first two MCA components. As shown in Figure 10, the first
two components, F1 and F2, represent 66.56% of the total data variability in which F1
accounts for 55.92% and F2 contributes for only 10.63%. As a result, for most of the variables, the intra-variable categories seem to be distributed better along the F1 dimension. The
interpretation of this symmetric plot was therefore conducted primarily based on the

Figure 10. Symmetric plot of the multiple correspondence analysis results showing relative positions of

the socioeconomic, public awareness, environmental risk perceptions, environmental protection stewardship variables, and variables categories along the first and second principle factors (dimensions F1 and
F2); the distribution of points along each dimension and their relative distances indicate the relationship
pattern among variables and variables categories; color labels (red, purple, blue, green, and light blue) are
the variables describing the sociodemographic and economic conditions of the respondents; (D), (¡), and
(C) indicate different categories of environmental protection stewardship variables meaning neutral, positive, and negative, respectively.


602

D. HAK ET AL.

dispersion of the variables along the F1 dimension. The relative distances between the variables indicate their similarity.
According to Figure 10, gender is relatively distributed along F2, but not dispersed
well in F1. In contrast, age is more evenly dispersed along F1 than in F2. These trends
indicate that gender differences of the surveyed respondents are unlikely to have influenced other variables in the study such as environmental awareness, risk perception,
and stewardship, which are distributed along F1 dimension. However, the variations in
the ages of the respondents may have had some influence according to the plot. The
group of young residents in their 20s and 30s are located on the left side of the axis,
closer to the group that is aware of current environmental concerns and the group that
has a positive perspective on environmental conservation compared to respondents in
their 40s or 50s and above. This indicates that younger residents are likely to be more
aware of current environmental concerns and have a more positive perspective on environmental conservation compared to older residents.
Interestingly, economic variables such as income sources, income levels, and residential location are considerably dispersed in both F1 and F2 dimensions, as are the variables of environmental awareness, risk perception, and environmental stewardship.
These dispersion patterns indicate how the range of differences in economic conditions
of the local citizenry can strongly affect their levels of environmental awareness, risk
perception, and pro-environmental protection behavior. The saline-affected group is
dispersed on the left side of the figure, near the origin of the F2 dimension. This group
appears in shorter distances to the farmers (both livestock-based and crop-based), and
low-income respondents compared to the flood-affected and the city neighborhood
groups, which both disperse on the right side of the figure. These results demonstrate

that the saline-affected residents are likely to be the poorest and most involved in farming activities among the Mekong Delta dwellers. The figure shows the city neighborhood group in the upper-right side closest to the group of high income and farthest
from the farmers. These people are probably the richest and less involved in farming
among all the Mekong Delta population. In relation with environmental awareness, risk
perception, and stewardship variables, the saline-affected group appears closer to the
group of respondents who were aware of environmental concerns and pro-environmental conservation, perceived the risk of WQD, but slightly perceived or not perceived the
risks of flooding. This group is also located closer to those who gave negative responses
regarding taking responsibility for environmental protection. On the other hand, the
city neighborhood group was proximal to the group that is unaware of current environmental concerns, did not perceive the risks of WQD, expressed a moderate perception
of flood risks, and was just neutral toward environmental conservation. Yet, the city
neighborhood dwellers were closer to the group that had positive behavior for environmental protection. From the aforementioned trends, it can be deduced that people living in saline-affected areas are likely to be the most aware of current environmental
concerns discussed herein and perceive highest environmental risks in the Mekong
Delta region. From this perspective, it makes sense that they are also likely to have the
most positive outlook on the advantages of environmental conservation as it has serious
impacts on their livelihoods. Surprisingly, however, these residents do not seem to
acknowledge that they bear some level of accountability to contribute to environmental
protection. Conversely, the city neighborhood residents with their lower perceptions of


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

603

environmental risk and less awareness of actual environmental threats are the ones
most likely to acknowledge that people have a responsibility to participate in environmental protection. One cannot help but wonder why they respond so positively to this
issue when they also responded that they do not see how environmental conservation
would have any positive impacts on their livelihoods. Finally, we can see that it is the
flood-affected group that holds the middle ground between the saline-affected and city
neighborhood groups in all aspects, except for the perception of flood risk and perspectives on the value of environmental conservation.
These results confirm that environmental awareness, risk perception, and positive regard
toward environmental stewardship are unlikely to be affected by sociodemographic factors

(excluding age), but in fact, are highly dependent on economic factors such as income level
and sources. The low-income residents are more likely engaged in farming activities, and
therefore, most sensitive to environmental risks and changes compared to respondents living
in other economic conditions.

Conclusions
Despite its important role in the economic development of Vietnam, the Mekong Delta
region is faced with various environmental hazards and climate-related risks. However, the
perception of local communities about these issues is different from community to community depending on their economic situations. The variations in environmental awareness,
risk perception, and stewardship of the Mekong Delta people are less likely to be affected by
demographic factors, yet depend highly on economic factors such as income level and
income sources. The low-income group tends to be more involved in farming activities and
therefore is more sensitive to environmental changes, more aware of environmental concerns, and perceives higher environmental risk compared to other groups. Still, this group is
unlikely to acknowledge their responsibility for environmental protection. In contrast, highincome residents are more likely to acknowledge their responsibilities to protect the environment although they are less aware of environmental risks and do not view the conservation
of natural resources as advantageous for their livelihoods. These variations are evidence that
economic factors have significantly affected the sense of participation in environmental
stewardship of the Mekong Delta people. More specifically, poor economic status hampers
positive perceptions and actions toward environmental awareness and protection of the
Mekong Delta residents.
Because local awareness regarding the causes and effects of environmental degradation as
well as the advantages of environmental conservation is still very limited, there is an obvious
need to start raising environmental awareness in this deltaic region. However, increasing
environmental awareness alone may not be sufficient to promote sustainable community
environmental stewardship. Given that poverty is a significant factor constraining the positive behavior toward environmental protection, the linkage between poverty reduction and
environmental conservation should be clearly addressed. Moreover, spatial patterns of public
concerns, awareness, and risk perceptions should be properly taken into account when
developing environmental management strategies, as spatial variations in the aforementioned issues are significant in this delta region.
The aforementioned findings suggest that the strategy to promote environmental
stewardship in this delta system should be carefully prepared to meet specific

604

D. HAK ET AL.

characteristics of the range of residents. In particular, the knowledge gained regarding
the advantages of environmental conservation in protecting livelihood resources as well
as indirect impacts of environmental degradation on economic development should be
widely disseminated among the high-income groups living in urban areas and city
neighborhood regions where economic development is less sensitive to environmental
changes. Among the low-income residents and poor farmers, the linkage between environmental conservation and poverty reduction should be explained in greater detail.
Moreover, the sociocultural and economic value of environmental protection action
must be promoted among all residents. Efforts should also be made to stimulate the
culture of information sharing regarding environmental issues to increase the circulation of environmental awareness among local residents, specifically among people with
low- and very low-income status and poor farmers who may not have access to the
information through social media. These activities could be the grassroots foundation
of a greater movement to protect natural resources at regional and national levels.
The results of this study may provide some initial guidelines for local authorities and policymakers engaged in developing disaster risk reduction mitigation plans. These may then
lead to greater promotion of environmental conservation and sustainable development not
only for the Mekong Delta region but also for other coastal zones with similar conditions.
This research may also serve as a model for further research efforts to investigate environmental risk perception in other mega delta systems.

Acknowledgments
We thank a group of Vietnamese students from Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology – VNU
for their kind assistance in conducting the questionnaire survey for this study.

Funding
This study was supported by the ASEAN University Network of Southeast Asia Engineering Education Development Network Project (AUN/SEED-Net)-JICA program and the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Core-to-Core Program (B. Asia-Africa Science Platforms), and Grant-in-Aid
for Scientific Research (A) (No. 24246086 and 25257305) of JSPS.

References
Abdi, H., and D. Valentin. 2007. Multiple correspondence analysis. In Encyclopedia of measurement
and statistics, ed. N. Salkind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Be, T. T., B. T. Sinh, and F. Miller. 2007. Challenges to sustainable development in the Mekong delta:
Regional and national policy issues and research needs. The sustainable Mekong research network
(Sumernet), Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 11–12.
Bradford, R. A., J. J. O’Sullivan, I. M. Van Der Craats, J. Krywkow, P. Rotko, J. Aaltonen, M. Bonaiuto,
S. De Dominicis, K. Waylen, and K. Schelfaut. 2012. Risk perception—Issues for flood management
in Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 12:2299–2309.
Carlton, S. J., and S. K. Jacobson. 2013. Climate change and coastal environmental risk perceptions in
Florida. Journal of Environmental Management 130:32–39.
Fortner, R., and H. Duan. 2010. A cross-cultural study on environmental risk perception and educational strategies: Implications for environmental education in China. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education 1:1–19.


COASTAL MANAGEMENT

605

GSOV. 2013. Statistical yearbook of Vietnam 2013. Statistical Documentation and Service Centre General Statistics Office Of Vietnam. Ha Noi, Vietnam.
Le Dang, H., L. Elton, N. Ian, and B. Johan. 2014. Farmers’ perceived risks of climate change and influencing factors: A study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environmental Management 54:331–345.
Le Dang, H., L. Elton, B. Johan, and N. Ian. 2013. Farmers’ perceptions of climate variability and barriers to adaptation: Lessons learned from an exploratory study in Vietnam. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2014:1–18.
Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77:45–72.
Lindell, M. K., and T. C. Earle. 1983. How close is close enough: Public perceptions of the risk of
industrial facilities. Risk Analysis 3 (4):245–253.
MacGregor, D., P. Slovic, R. G. Mason, J. Detweiler, S. E. Binney, and B. Dodd. 1994. Perceived risk of
radioactive waste transport through Oregon: Results of a statewide survey. Risk Analysis 14:5–14.
Melissa, L. F., P. Slovic, C. K. Mertz, J. Flynn, and A. S. Theresa. 2010. Gender, race and perceived risk:
the ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk and Society 2:159–172.
Nguyen, A. L., T. H. Minh, A. J. V. Johan, L. Rik, H. B. Roel, and S. D. S. Sena. 2015. Exploring the climate change concerns of striped catfish producers in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. SpringerPlus
(2015) 4:46.

Nguyen, V. K., A. T. Tran, V. H. Tran, D. T. Vo, T. P. Le, X. L. Tran, and V. T. Nguyen. 2012. Climate
change: Local perception, impacts and adaptation of agrarian communities in the coastal provinces
of the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. Paper presented at the 2nd Practical Responses to Climate
Change Conference, May 1–3, Canberra, Australia.
Rogers, G. O. 1984. Low-probability/high-consequence risk analysis: Issues, methods, and case studies,
507–520. New York: Plenum Press.
Sarantakos, S. 2005. Social research, 2nd ed. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Savage, I. 1993. Demographic influence on risk perception. Risk Analysis 13:413–420.
Sj€
oberg, L. 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20:1–11.
Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk assessment battlefield. Risk
Analysis 19:689–701.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis 2:83–93.
Tho, N., R. Merckx, and V. N. Ut. 2013. Impacts of saline water irrigation and shrimp pond discharges
on the surrounding waters of a coastal district in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Environmental
Earth Sciences 71:2015–2027.
Tobin, G. A., and B. Montz. 1997. Natural hazard: Explanation and integration. New York: The Guilford Press.
Woodroffe, C. D. 2010. Assessing the vulnerability of Asian mega-deltas to climate change using GIS.
In Coastal and marine geospatial technologies, ed. D. Green, 379–91. London: Springer.
Yusuf, A. A., and H. Francisco. 2010. Hotspots!Mapping climate change vulnerability in Southeast
Asia. In: Economy and environment program for Southeast Asia. Singapore: EEPSEA.