Environmental vulnerability and governance in the Red River Delta, Vietnam: analysis and strategic recommendations

Le résumé fourni par la source

Environmental vulnerability in deltaic regions is increasingly associated with governance failures rather than biophysical exposure alone. This study aims to examine how institutional arrangements shape household environmental vulnerability in Vietnam’s Red River Delta. An integrated mixed-methods approach was employed, combining household surveys (n = 1,000) across three provinces (Hanoi, Hung Yen, and Nam Dinh) using an adapted Household Vulnerability Assessment Tool (HVAT) with qualitative policy document analysis Results reveal that food security vulnerability (CVI2 = 0.245) is elevated across all income groups, while economic vulnerability concentrates among low-income households (CVI1 = 0.322). Psychosocial vulnerability ranks unexpectedly high overall (CVI5 = 0.185), particularly among high-income households (CVI5 = 0.220), while overall vulnerability is highest among low-income households (HVI = 0.210), followed by high-income (HVI = 0.181) and middle-income groups (HVI = 0.170), indicating that wealth alone does not eliminate environmental risks. Governance analysis identifies five institutional constraints associated with these vulnerabilities: subordination of environmental protection to economic development, procedural vagueness, exclusion of community participation, weak accountability, and implementation deficits. Each governance pattern corresponds to specific measured vulnerability outcomes, consistent with the proposition that institutional performance shapes environmental risk alongside biophysical exposure and economic resources. The recommendations indicate that effective vulnerability reduction in deltaic regions requires governance reforms prioritizing accountability mechanisms, community monitoring authority, and vulnerability-based policy frameworks rather than infrastructure investments alone.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.