Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal Zone of Soc Trang Province

 

Assessment of the Role of Women in Environmental Protection of the Coastal Zone

Charlotte Huang, Ira Lemm

Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal Zone of Soc Trang Province

Author Charlotte Huang, Ira Lemm

Cover Photo Pham Thuy Duong

© giz, October 2013

 

October 2013

Assessment of the Role of Women in Environmental Protection of the Coastal Zone

Charlotte Huang, Ira Lemm

i

About GIZ in Viet Nam

As a federal enterprise, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH supports the German Government in achieving its objectives in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development.

We have been working with our partners in Viet Nam since 1993 and are currently active in three main fields of cooperation: 1) Vocational Training; 2) Environmental Policy and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources; and 3) Energy.

We run projects commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). We also cooperate with the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the European Union (EU) and the Entwicklungsbank KfW, Germany.

For further information, please visit www.giz.de/viet-nam

ii

Executive Summary

The survey “To assess the role of women in environmental protection of the coastal zone” was implemented in 13 coastal villages in the districts Trần Đề, Vĩnh Châu and Cù Lao Dung, Soc Trang Province, Viet Nam in March 2013. 219 women were interviewed using a questionnaire with 29 questions.

The objectives of the survey were to (1) assess the knowledge of women about environmental threats and climate change; (2) identify the potential of women in the environmental protection of the coastal zone; and (3) identify obstacles that prevent women from actively participating in the environmental protection of the coastal zone. The overall goal of the study was to identify ways to empower women to play a more active role in the protection of the coastal zone.

The results showed that only about half of the interviewees were familiar with climate change or environmental threats and even less knew of adequate ways of mitigation or adaptation. Of the small amount of women who were aware of coping mechanisms and adaptation measures almost all had implemented at least one measure. The main way through which knowledge about climate change was communicated was television while communication through print media was extremely rare. Women with higher educational levels did not have more knowledge of climate change or environmental protection. The women who did have knowledge of climate change had generally high levels of concerns for its impacts. A large number of women had neither heard of climate change nor experienced it. About half of the interviewees knew of environmental protection projects linked to the protection of the coastal zone. The knowledge of and participation in environmental protection projects had a correlation with belonging to a village.

46% of households utilised the coastal zone for their livelihood but it was often not the primary source of income. 68% of interviewees were willing to take part in training activities linked to environmental protection. The most common motivating factors for participation in environmental protection were ‘protecting and improving the environment’ and ‘gaining knowledge and information’. Many interviewees suggested different forms of contribution by themselves or their family members to the environmental protection of the coastal zone. Flexible and not too physically challenging environmental protection measured were preferred concerning personal contributions. A great majority of interviewees was in favour of more environmental protection and had a desire to actively participate. Women had high levels of influence concerning their children, were often in control of the finances and generally had high decision-making power when it came to their households and decisions at village level. Women who did not have high decision-making power were often still involved in the decision-making process. If the land certificate was owned by husband and wife or just one of them, the desire to participate in environmental protection was extremely high. Ownership of the land certificate by another family member besides the interviewee and husband affected the desire to participate in environmental protection negatively. Village meetings were attended primarily by the woman of a household.

Women had high constraints on their time as they often worked and took care of household and children. The main reasons for lack of participation in environmental protection projects were time constraints and lack of information. The majority of households were poor and had a limited scope for investments in environmental measures. Awareness of environmental protection projects did not lead to higher participation rates. Attendance of village meetings was highly dependent on time available and was motivated by information provision and an invitation. Bookkeeping was only carried out in a few households which made the managing of finances less efficient.

   

Good ways to empower women are to focus on spreading information, providing training and responding to desires. Projects need to acknowledge the specific challenges that women face and integrate solutions in project design and its activities. Women have a great potential to play an active and vital role in the environmental protection of the coastal zone, but they need assistance in overcoming the obstacles outlined in this report. The women of Trần Đề, Vĩnh Châu and Cù Lao Dung can be the leaders of change concerning sustainable practices and environmental protection in the short and the long run, if their strengths are adequately utilised. 

iii

Table of Contents

 

About GIZ in Viet Nam .................................................................................................................................... i 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... ii 

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iii 

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... vi 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1. Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Goal of the Study .............................................................................................................................. 1 

2. Introduction to the Study Area .............................................................................................................. 2 

2.1. Geographical Location ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Population Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 3 

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 3 

3.1. Time Frame and Location ................................................................................................................ 3 3.2. Method .............................................................................................................................................. 3 

4. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 

4.1. General information (questions 1-8, annex 1) .................................................................................. 4 4.2. Dependence of women on the coastal zone for their livelihood (questions 9-10.2, annex 1) ......... 7 4.3. Environmental awareness and attitudes (questions 11-17, annex 1) ............................................ 10 4.4. General level of control or power ................................................................................................... 19 

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 25 

5.1. General information about surveyed households .......................................................................... 25 5.2. Dependence of women on the coastal zone for their livelihood..................................................... 26 5.3. Environmental awareness and attitudes ........................................................................................ 26 5.4. General level of control or power ................................................................................................... 28 

6. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 28 

6.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 28 6.2. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 30 

7. Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................................... 32 

 

List of Figures

Figure 1 Map of Vietnam and Soc Trang province ........................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Interviewer filling out survey ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 surveyed age groups ....................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4 Ethnicities ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 5 Family status ................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 6 Household size ................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 7 Occupation of interviewees ............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 8 Woman preparing rice cakes for sale.............................................................................................. 5 Figure 9 Onion harvest .................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 10 Main source of household’s income .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 11 Main income earner of household ................................................................................................. 5 Figure 12 Interviewees in their house with interviewer ................................................................................. 6 Figure 13 Average daily income of household .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 14 Highest educational level .............................................................................................................. 6

iv

Figure 15 Time lived in the area .................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 16 Is coastal zone used for livelihood ................................................................................................ 7 Figure 17 Coastal resources used ................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 18 Resource collectors in the coastal zone ....................................................................................... 7 Figure 19 Main use of resources ................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 20 Main use of resources by category ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 21 Who gathers the resources ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 22 Man with collected crabs ............................................................................................................... 8 Figure 23 Primary source of household’s income linked to coastal zone ..................................................... 9 Figure 24 Primary source of personal income linked to coastal zone ........................................................... 9 Figure 25 Has interviewee heard of climate change ................................................................................... 10 Figure 26 Means of communication for climate change .............................................................................. 11 Figure 27 Combination of media for climate change communication ......................................................... 11 Figure 28 Level of concern for climate change impacts .............................................................................. 12 Figure 29 Has interviewee experienced climate change ............................................................................. 12 Figure 30 Awareness of CCA or EP measures ........................................................................................... 12 Figure 31 Has interviewee implemented EPMs .......................................................................................... 12 Figure 32 Awareness of environmental protection projects ........................................................................ 13 Figure 33 Has interviewee participated in EPPs ......................................................................................... 13 Figure 34 Reasons for lack of participation ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 35 Have other family members participated in EPPs ....................................................................... 15 Figure 36 Willingness to take part in training .............................................................................................. 15 Figure 37 Motivating factors for participation in environmental protection .................................................. 16 Figure 38 Suggestions for improvement of environmental protection ......................................................... 16 Figure 39 Specific suggestions for improvement of EP .............................................................................. 17 Figure 40 Is more environmental protection desired ................................................................................... 17 Figure 41 Desire of interviewee to participate in EP ................................................................................... 17 Figure 42 Suggested family contribution to EP ........................................................................................... 18 Figure 43 Specific suggested family contribution to EP .............................................................................. 18 Figure 44 Specific suggested personal contribution to EP .......................................................................... 18 Figure 45 Responsibilities and tasks of interviewee ................................................................................... 19 Figure 46 Typical village housing ................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 47 Who owns the land certificate ..................................................................................................... 20 Figure 48 Fundamental changes in living conditions in past years ............................................................. 21 Figure 49 Young village boy ........................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 50 Who makes decisions concerning children’s education.............................................................. 21 Figure 51 Who spends the most time with children .................................................................................... 22 Figure 52 Who makes household decisions ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 53 Who makes emergency decisions .............................................................................................. 22 Figure 54 How often are important things discussed among family members ........................................... 22 Figure 55 Which family member participates in village meetings ............................................................... 23 Figure 56 How often are village meetings attended .................................................................................... 23 Figure 57 Reasons for attendance of village meetings ............................................................................... 23 Figure 58 Reasons for lack of attendance of village meetings .................................................................... 24 Figure 59 Who is in control of income ......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 60 Does the household practice bookkeeping ................................................................................. 24 Figure 61 Main use of income ..................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 62 Elderly interviewee in bedroom ................................................................................................... 25 Figure 63 Interviewee with daughter ........................................................................................................... 26 Figure 64 Group of interviewees with children ............................................................................................ 30

v

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparison of ethnicity with education and use of coastal zone .................................................. 10

Table 2 Comparison of education with knowledge of climate change ........................................................ 11

Table 3 Comparison between geographic location with knowledge of and participation in EPPs .............. 14 Table 4 Comparison of l land ownership with desire for environmental protection and participation ......... 20

Acronyms

CC Climate change CCA Climate change adaptation CCI Climate change impacts CLD Cu Lao Dung EP Environmental protection EPM Environmental protection measure EPP Environmental protection project GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit HH Head of household TD Tran De VC Vinh Chau VND Vietnamese Dong

 

vi

Acknowledgements

DARD staff Dương Tấn Trường Interviewer from: Women’s Union   Võ Thị Thiện and Thạch Thị Thanh Lai Trung Binh commune Women’s Union Trần Thị Mỹ Nhiên and Nguyễn Thị Thu Thảo Trần Đề town Women's Union Trần Thu Hương Mỏ Ó village Women's Union Nguyễn Thị Sự Mỏ Ó village Comanagement subgroup leader Lý Sanh Vice head of Cảng village Trần Văn Niên Cảng village Youth Union Huỳnh Minh Hùng Chợ village Youth Union Châu Tấn Đạt Head of Chợ village Thạch Chươl Vĩnh Châu town Women's Union Phạm Thị Hương and Nguyễn Hồng Tiên Lai Hòa commune Women's Union Lưu Thị Tú Anh Vĩnh Hải commune Women's Union Tăng Thị Út Bầu and Bùi Lệ Tuyết Vĩnh Tân commune Women's Union Lâm Thị Vân Ward 2 Women's Union Sơn Thị Chện Cà Lăng A Biển village Women's Union Thạch Thị Công Prây Chóp B village Women's Union Trần Thị Vinh Âu Thọ A village Women's Union Châu Thị Nươl and Lê Thị Nữ Tân Nam village Women's Union Lâm Thị Phước Nô Pôl village Women's Union Thạch Thị Dên District Women's Union Nguyễn Thị Tới An Thạnh Nam commune People's Committee Cô Trọng Nghĩa An Thạnh Nam commune Women's Union Đinh Thị Soi An Thạnh 3 commune Women's Union Trần Thị Thơm and Trần Thị Định Vàm Hồ A village staff Nguyễn Thanh Điện and Phạm Thị Hạnh Vàm Hồ village staff Nguyễn Văn Trí and Lư Vĩnh Phúc Võ Thành Văn village staff Nguyễn Bé Ba and Trần Văn Thành An Quới village staff Lê Thị Nhì An Bình village staff Lý Thị Tuyết Mai and Trần Thị Như Ý Kiểm Lâm driver Nguyễn Văn Chính Phạm Thùy Dương GIZ Project Officer Nguyễn Hồng Nhung GIZ Project Interpreter Nguyễn Ngọc Tường Vi GIZ Volunteer

1

1. Introduction

“Climate change is coming – and it will primarily affect the poorest regions of the world. Women in particular will feel its effects: long periods of drought lead to water shortages, soil degradation jeopardises the basic food needs of the family, and natural disasters often cause a greater number of female casualties. In addition, men and women are not on an equal footing when it comes to dealing with climate change: although women have many possibilities to actively protect themselves against the effects of climate change, such as developing alternative strategies to ensure food security, their knowledge often remains unutilised. How can this be amended?”1

In the following chapters, the background and objectives of the study carried out by the Vietnamese-German technical cooperation project (Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal Zone of Soc Trang Province) in 2013 will be outlined along with the methodology, the research findings and their analysis. This will assist in understanding the situation of women in the coastal communities of the Soc Trang province and in finding ways to empower women so that they can actively participate in the environmental protection along the coastline and adapt appropriately to climate change. The conclusion and recommendations chapter (chapter 6) will bring together the results of the surveys in regard to its objectives and give recommendations concerning the integration of gender issues in projects and further topics of research.

1.1. Objectives

The survey was guided by the following objectives:

Assess the knowledge of women about environmental threats and climate change Identify the potential of women in the environmental protection of the coastal zone Identify obstacles that prevent women from actively participating in the environmental protection

of the coastal zone

Objective 1 was aimed at determining the percentage of women who know of climate change (CC) and the means through which climate change was communicated to them. Furthermore, the knowledge of environmental projects reducing risk or fostering resilience as well as self-initiated and conducted measure of climate change adaptation (CCA) was assessed.

Objective 2 was aimed at outlining the potential of the women in the different communes to actively participate in environmental projects and CCA measures. The extent of their concern and their motivation to participate in projects and the level of control that each woman has concerning land, children, children’s education and the finances of the household was assessed.

Objective 3 drew both previous objectives together and assessed what factors prevented women from actively participating in environmental projects or CCA measures, especially concerning the women that had an understanding of the need and the motivation to be involved in environmental protection. This objective was aimed at outlining the obstacles, so that projects can aim at overcoming them in the future.

1.2. Goal of the Study

The overall aim of the survey was to identify ways to empower women to play a more active role in the protection of the coastal zone. This is in accordance with the GIZ policy on gender:

“Women and men face different realities and have different needs. We need to consider these different needs in order to work successfully. It is an integral part of our corporate values and a quality characteristic of our work to ensure consequent efforts for women´s and men´s equal enjoyment of opportunities are [being undertaken]. Through strengthening equal power relations between men and women, structural causes of social and political instability can be addressed, violent conflicts can be avoided and poverty reduction is more effectively.

                                                            1 http://www.giz.de/en/mediacenter/10796.html

2

Women and men should have equal access to project services and should be able to participate equally in the project design and development. Our projects target systematically several levels in order to establish good structures and framework conditions for gender equality.

GIZ’s gender strategy builds on the approaches applied and lessons learned by its three predecessor organisations and creates a uniform framework for the entire company. The strategy aims to strengthen gender equality both in the services we deliver and within GIZ itself. This means we will make continued and greater use of synergies between gender mainstreaming in our development measures and gender equality within GIZ.”2

It is therefore of crucial importance to assess whether coastal protection projects are undertaken in a way that in- or exclude women and what obstacles have to be overcome to ensure gender equity. It also links it back to the issues addressed in the introduction which outlined that women might be more vulnerable to climate change impacts (CCI) and might have different needs from men which need to be adequately addressed in projects, research, training activities and the like.

2. Introduction to the Study Area

2.1. Geographical Location

Soc Trang Province is one of thirteen provinces in the Mekong Delta region and is located south of the Hau River which is the southern-most of the nine arms of the Mekong that form in the delta. In Vietnamese the Mekong Delta is called Cửu Long which means nine dragons. The Province covers a total area of 331,176 ha, of which 205,748 ha are used for agricultural production land, 11,356 ha for forestland covered by trees and 54,373 ha for water surface land for aquaculture3.

The province has one city (Sóc Trăng), one district-level town (Vĩnh Châu) and nine districts: Kế Sách, Long Phú, Cù Lao Dung, Mỹ Tú, Mỹ Xuyên, Thạnh Trị, Ngã Năm, Châu Thành, Trần Đề. The coastal zone has a length of 72 km which makes up the project target area and encompasses three districts Vinh Chau, Tran De and Cu Lao Dung (see figure 1).

                                                            2 http://www.giz.de/Themen/en/897.htm 3 http://czm-soctrang.org.vn/en/About%20the%20project.aspx?ID=103

Figure 1: Map of Vietnam and Soc Trang Province

3

2.2. Population Characteristics

The population of Soc Trang province was 1,213,400 in 2004, with a density of 380 people per km2. The ethnic groups in the province consist primarily of Kinh (64.8 percent), Khmer (29.2 percent) and Hoa (5.9 percent). Within the survey area the population characteristics vary, with higher poverty rates in Vinh Chau District, especially in the western part of Vinh Chau District (Vinh Tan, Lai Hoa) with more than 35 percent of the households considered poor (less than 200,000 Vietnamese Dong (VND) per person per month in 2006)4.

3. Methodology

3.1. Time Frame and Location

The surveys were conducted from 12.03.2013 to 15.03.2013 in 13 coastal villages in the districts Trần Đề, Vĩnh Châu and Cù Lao Dung:

Trần Đề District: Mỏ Ó in Trung Bình Commune Chợ in Trung Bình Commune Cảng in Trần Đề town

Vĩnh Châu District: Prey Chop B in Lai Hòa Commune

Mô Thum in Vĩnh Tân Commune Tân Nam in Vĩnh Tân Commune Cà Lăng A Biển, Ward 2, Vĩnh Châu town Âu Thọ A in Vĩnh Hải Commune

Cù Lao Dung District: Vàm Hồ A in An Thạnh Nam Commune Vàm Hồ in An Thạnh Nam Commune Võ Thành Vân in An Thạnh Nam Commune An Quới An in An Thạnh 3 Commune An Bình in An Thạnh 3 Commune

All villages are in immediate proximity to the coast.

3.2. Method

The women’s role in the environmental protection of the coast was assessed using a questionnaire with 29 questions which was filled out by an interviewer. Interviewees were a total of 219 women from 13 coastal villages.

The questionnaire consisted of four sections:

General information (e.g. age, educational level and income)

Dependence of women on the coastal zone for their livelihood (e.g. which resources are used for what purpose)

Environmental awareness and attitudes (e.g. climate change, environmental protection measures, willingness to participate in projects, etc.)

General level of control or power (e.g. decision-making, finances, etc.)

                                                             4 http://www.soctrang.gov.vn/wps/portal/

Figure 2: Interviewer filling out survey

4

4. Results

4.1. General information (questions 1-8, annex 1)

Figure 3 illustrates that the age of all interviewees which varied between 18 and 84 years was mostly between 30 and 53 years (144 interviewees) with an average age of 44 years (question 1). Question 2 addressed the ethnicity of the interviewees. The majority of interviewees were Kinh (53.5%), closely followed by Khmer (43.3%) and only seven interviewees belonged to the Hoa group (3.2%) (see figure 4).

 

A great majority of 85.3% were married with children, followed by divorced and widowed (both 6.4%), single (1.4%) and married without children (only one; equal to 0.5%) (figure 5; question 3). Question 4 asked for the household size. The most common household size was between three and four household members (47%) and the most uncommon household sizes were either one to two household members (6.4%) or eight or more household members (5%). Five to six household members accounted for almost a third and seven to eight household members for slightly more than a tenth of the interviewees’ answers (see figure 6). 

In question 5 interviewees were asked to state their occupation. Occupations were: small business (54), farming (43), hired labour (42), housewife (32), fishing (19), farming and small business (6), aquaculture (3), and other (20).

As one can see in figure 7, the most common profession among the interviewees was working in or running a small business (54 women), sometimes in combination with farming (6), agricultural activities alone were carried out by 43 of the interviewees, followed by 42 working as hired labour and 32 housewives. 19 interviewees gained income through fishing and three women worked in aquaculture with a notable 20 women who did not state an occupation of any sort.

Figure 5: Family status (Sample size: 217)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Divorced Marriedwith

children

Marriedwithoutchildren

Single Widowed

Figure 6: Household size (Sample size: 219)

Figure 4: Ethnicities (Sample size: 217) Figure 3: Surveyed age groups (Sample size: 218)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

18‐29 30‐41 42‐53 54‐65 66‐77 77‐88

Age ofintervieweesin years byage groups

5

Figure 10: Main source of household’s income (Sample size: 219)

Figure 11: Main income earner of household (Sample size: 219)

Figure 7: Occupation of interviewees (Sample size: 219)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Question 6.1 was about the main source of income for the entire household. The main source of income was hired labour for 67 households, followed by farming (49), small business (43), fishing (36), aquaculture (5) and other sources (19) (see figure 10).

Figure 8: Woman preparing rice cakes for sale Figure 9: Onion harvest

6

Figure 12: Interviewees in their house with interviewer

Figure 13: Average daily income of household (Sample size: 219)

The comparison of the results of question 5 and 6.1 displayed in figures 7 and 10 leads to the conclusion that the main income earner of the household was more often not the interviewee herself. This was confirmed by the results of question 6.2 which asked for the main income earner of the household. For the majority of 114 (52.1%) the main income earner was the husband, followed by the interviewee and the husband in a collective effort (17.3%) and the interviewee solely (16.9%). For 7.3% the children were the main income earners and for 2.3% it was either the children and the husband or the children and the interviewee. This means that in 72.6% of the cases the husband is either the most important provider for the family or he is at involved in income gaining (see figure 11).

Question 6.3 assessed the average daily income. The interviewees were asked to estimate their daily income in Vietnamese Dong (VND) despite seasonal changes. The answers were afterwards categorised into five different income categories: 6,000 to 19,000 VND, 20,000 to 49,000 VND, 50,000 to 89,000 VND, 90,000 to 119,000 VND and more than 120,000 VND (no answers accounted for eight interviewees or 3.7%). The relative majority of women stated that their household lives on 50,000 to 89,000 VND per day (44.3%) with the average income at 80,000 VND daily. The minority of 8.7% earned less than 20,000 VND per day, 16.9% earned between 20,000 and 49,000, 16% between 90,000 and 119,000 VND and only 10.5% of households had more than 120,000 VND in income a day (figure 13).

Question 7 focused on the education of the interviewees. The interviewees were asked to state the highest form of education they had received. 128 women (58.4%) did not attend or graduate from a school higher than primary school, this was followed by 20.5% (45) who attended secondary school and 18.7% (41) who were illiterate. A small minority of four women (1.8%) attended high school and only one (0.5%) graduated from college (see figure 14).

The time that interviewees had lived in the area was explored in question 8. Based on the answers four time groups were created: one to 20 years, 21 to 41 years, 42 to 62 years and 63 to 83 years spent in the area. Most women lived in the area for more than 20 and less than 42 years (98 women), the second largest group had lived in the area for one to 20 years (82 women), 31 interviewees had spent between 42 and 62 years in the area and a small minority of five women had spent more than 62 years in their village (three answers missing) (see figure 15). The maximum time spent in the area was 70 years which compared to the age groups addressed in question 1 and displayed in figure 3 means that there are women who have not spent their entire lives in the village that they currently live in. Most likely they have relocated when they got married and in some circumstances they might also have evacuated/relocated for environmental reasons (which will be assessed in questions 12.1 and 12.2). 61% of women have

7

spent 21 years or more in the area where they are currently living, working and bringing up their children which indicates that they know the area fairly well. Whether this has led to lifestyles which are more dependent on the specific coastal environment, more awareness of climate change or knowledge of environmental protection or climate change adaptation measures will be assessed in the following chapters.

4.2. Dependence of women on the coastal zone for their livelihood (questions 9-10.2, annex 1)

When women were asked in question 9.1 whether they utilise the coastal zone for their livelihood, the majority of 119 (54.3%) said no and 100 (45.7%) stated that they do use the coastal zone in one way or another (figure 16).

The 100 women who answered yes to question 9.1 were asked in a follow-up question (9.2) to elaborate which resources the use specifically. The 166 answers5 were: fish (64); shrimp (27); wood (26); crab (24); water (9); squid (8); clam (6); and snail (2) (figure 17).

Another follow-up question for the 100 women who used the coast for resources (9.3) focused on what the collected resources were used for. Interviewees were given five possible answers of which they could select as many as applied: food source, fuel, shelter (=building material), source of income and other (they were asked to specify ‘other’ further). No ‘other’ uses were named. The outcome was ten different combinations of usages. The answers were as follows: income (40); food and income (18); food (14); food and fuel (14); fuel (6); fuel and income (3), shelter (2); food, fuel and income (2); food, fuel and shelter (2); and food, income and shelter (1). The distribution is illustrated in figure 19 by uses and in figure 20 by aggregated categories of food, fuel, income and shelter.                                                             5 A total number of 166 answers were provided since multiple answers were possible.

19%

58%

21%

2%

0%

Illiterate

Primary School

Secondary School

High School

College

Figure 14: Highest educational level (Sample size: 219)

Figure 15: Time lived in the area (Sample size: 219)

0

1

Figure 16: Is coastal zone used for livelihood (Sample size: 219)

Figure 17: Coastal resources used (Sample size: 100; number of answers: 166)

8

Figure 19: Main use of resources. (Sample size: 100; number of answers: 102)

Figure 20: Main use of resources by category. (Sample size: 100; number of answers: 147)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

income food fuel shelter

Figure 18: Resource collectors in the coastal zone.

Question 9.4 assessed who in the family is the main resource gatherer among the households which use the coastal zone for their livelihoods. Out of the 87 answers given 43 women said that their husband is the main resource gatherer. 16 stated that they collect resources together with their husband and in 18 households (nine each) it was either the interviewee or the children of the household who gather resources. In a few cases it was the husband and the children (4), interviewee and children (3), the whole family (2) or the grandchildren (1) who used the coastal zone for resource gathering (see figure 21). 

Figure 21: Who gathers the resources (Sample size: 87)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 22: Man with collected crabs

9

28%

72%

yes

no

Figure 23: Is primary source of household’s income linked to coastal zone (Sample size: 219)

Figure 24: Is primary source of personal income linked to coastal zone (Sample size: 219)

In question 10.1 interviewees were asked whether their household’s primary source of income is linked to the coastal zone. Out of the 219 women, 62 (28.3%) confirmed that it is and 157 (71.7%) denied any linkages (see figure 23).

Question 10.2 asked interviewees if their personal primary source of income is linked to the coastal zone. The results were similar to those of question 10.1. The majority of women (75%) stated that their primary source of income is not linked to the coastal zone, while 23% said that a link between their primary income source and the coastal zone exist (see figure 24).

The findings of question 10.1 and 10.2 concur with the findings of 5 and 6.1 shown in figure 7 and 10. Figure 10 displays that fishing and aquaculture were not too common sources of income for the households hence the primary source of income is more often not linked to the coastal zone (165 vs. 51 households whose primary source of income was linked to the coastal zone) (figure 23). Hired labour (a common source of income) is often linked to agricultural production and not fishing or aquaculture which further reduces the link. Furthermore, the results of question 5 revealed that among the interviewees fishing and aquaculture were not common occupations (only 22 women or 10%); hence it was less likely that their main source of income would be linked to the coastal zone. However, in some cases the primary source of income could be linked to the coastal zone even if fishing or aquaculture are neither the interviewee’s nor their husband’s profession (e.g. the interviewee is a tailor specialised in fishing nets).

Despite that the coastal zone is in most cases not linked to the main source of income, the research findings of question 9.3 displayed that resource collection is most commonly done to raise income (44%) (see figure 20). This is followed by using resources for food (35%), fuel (18%) and shelter (=building material) (3%).

In table 1 the ethnicity is cross-referenced with education, use of coastal zone and use of the coastal zone for livelihood. The table displays that the Kinh people had the highest proportional use of the coastal zone (with half of them using it in general and nearly a third of the households depending on the coastal zone as a primary income source). Although the Hoa had the highest illiteracy rate6 they depended less often on the coastal zone for income (only 14%) and used it less often (only 29%) than Kinh (50%) or Khmer (40%).

                                                            6 Only a small number of people from the Hoa community were polled, hence realities might differ.

Since the Kinh group has the highest literacy rate and also uses the coastal zone and depends on it more often and the Hoa group which had the highest illiteracy rate but depended less often on the coastal zone for their livelihood, it can be argued that illiteracy does not appear to be a factor leading to a higher dependency on the environment. 

Although the coastal zone is not important as a primary source of income for most resource collectors, it does provide income, food, fuel and shelter for 46% of the surveyed households (compare question 9.1). 

10

Ethnicity No. of inter-viewees

Education Coastal zone used for livelihood

Household’s primary source of income linked to coastal zone

Illiterate Primary school

Secondary school

High school

College Yes No Yes No

Hoa 7 3

(42.9%) 4

(57.1%) -

(0%) -

(0%) -

(0%) 2

(28.6%) 5

(71.4%) 1

(14.3%) 6

(85.7%)

Khmer 94 23

(24.5%) 53

(56.4%) 17

(18.1%) -

(0%) 1

(1%) 38

(40.4%) 56

(59.6%) 23

(24.5%) 71

(75.5%)

Kinh 116 15

(12.9%) 70

(60.3%) 27

(23.3%) 4

(3.4%) -

(0%) 58

(50%) 58

(50%) 36

(31%) 80

(69%)

Other 2 -

(0%) 1

(50%) 1

(50%) -

(0%) -

(0%) 2

(100%) -

(0%) 2

(100%) -

(0%)

Total 219 41

(18.7%) 128

(58.4%) 45

(20.5%) 4

(1.8%) 1

(0.5%) 100

(45.7%) 119

(54.3%) 62

(28.3%) 157

(71.7%)

4.3. Environmental awareness and attitudes (questions 11-17, annex 1)

Questions 11 to 17 were aimed at environmental awareness and attitudes. Question 11.1 started these topics with general knowledge of climate change. It was only asked whether the interviewees had ever heard of the term climate change and not what in-depth knowledge they had about the concept behind the term. As shown in figure 25, the majority of 116 interviewees had heard of climate change. Yet a significant number of 103 women had never come across the term climate change.

Table 2 compares the level of education with the knowledge of climate change. There is no significant difference between the knowledge of climate change amongst illiterate, primary school

and secondary school graduates. The findings are even counter-intuitive as secondary school graduates knew less often of climate change than illiterate and primary school graduates. The only significant differences can be found for the four high school graduates of which three had heard of climate change (=75%) and the one college graduate which also knew of climate change (=100%). Yet these five people might be too few to draw final conclusions from.

For the interviewees who had heard of climate change a follow-up question (11.2) assessed the means through which climate change was communicated. The most common medium of communication was television (for 67 interviewees), followed by a combination of various media (19), radio (13), meetings such as village or women’s union meetings (8), friends and/or family and other (3). Newspaper and leaflets alone were not named as a medium through which climate change knowledge was spread (see figure 26).

Table 1: Comparison of ethnicity, education and use of coastal zone

Figure 25: Has interviewee heard of climate change (Sample size: 219)

53%47%

yes

no

From the results of the comparison of the larger amount of people with education levels below high school with the knowledge of climate change it can be concluded that formal education does not generally contribute to a higher climate change awareness. 

11

Figure 26: Means of communication for climate change (Sample size: 116)

Figure 27: Combination of media for climate change communication (Sample size: 19; number of answers: 44)

Figure 27 shows the combination of media that 19 interviewees stated as their source of knowledge concerning climate change. Again, television accounted for the biggest part (17), followed by meetings of all sorts (9), radio (8), newspaper (5), family and/or friends (4) and leaflets (1).

Another follow-up question for those interviewees that had heard of climate change assessed their level of concern about the implications of climate change (question 11.3). Of the 116 questioned women, 64 (55.2%) stated that they were very concerned. 26 (22.4%) said that they were a little bit concerned, 18 (15.5%) were not concerned and 8 (6.9%) gave no answer (see figure 28).

Education Illiterate Primary school

Secondary school

High school College Total

Yes, have heard of CC

21 (51.2%)

71 (55.5%)

20 (44.4%)

3 (75%)

1 (100%) 

116 (53%)

No, have not heard of CC

20 (48.8%)

57 (44.5%)

25 (55.6%)

1 (25%)

0 (0%) 

103 (47%)

Total 41 (18.7%) 

128 (58.4%) 

45 (20.5%) 

4 (1.8%) 

1 (0.5%) 

219 (100%)

Table 2: Comparison of education with knowledge of climate change

These research findings suggest that print media are less important for the communication of climate change and visual or audible media along with face-to-face communication are the main sources of “knowledge” (it is still unclear what is associated with the mere term of climate change) when it comes to climate change. 

12

30%

67%

3%

yes

no

no answer

Figure 30: Awareness of CCA or EP measures (Sample size: 219)

Figure 31: Has interviewee implemented EPMs (Sample size: 66)

The 103 women who stated in question 11.1 that they had not heard of climate change before, were asked in question 11.4 whether or not they had experienced changes in the climate. The results were that slightly more than half, 54 to be exact, had experienced changes, while 30 said that they were not aware

of any notable changes. A high number of 19 interviewees could not answer this question. It is possible that these women were unsure about the adequate answer at the time of questioning and they might have thought of experienced changes in climate if they had been given more time. See figure 29 for the distribution of answers.

Question 12.1 asked the interviewees if they were aware of any climate change adaptation or environmental protection measures. As illustrated in figure 30, a majority of 146 women (66.7%) did not know of any coping mechanisms concerning climate change or environmental threats. 66 interviewees (30.1%) had an idea of climate change adaptation or environmental protection measures and the remaining seven interviewees (3.2%) did not answer this question. The 66 interviewees that claimed to know of coping mechanisms were asked to specify what they found to be appropriate measures. There were a total of 76 answers7 which were categorised into 14 different suggestions: plant trees (18); clean up and keep clean (12); build wells (9); protect the forest (8); relocation and evacuation (5); store water (5); use an umbrella (3); watering crops (3); build dyke (2); fortify house (2); cover crops with plastic when raining (1); no use of chemicals (1); and sustainable water and energy use (1).

The most common environmental protection measures (EPMs) and CCAs named were planting trees (27.3% of the

women who answered this question found this to be appropriate), clean up and keep clean (18.2%), building wells (13.6%) and protecting the forest (12.1%).

                                                            7 Multiple answers were possible.

52%

29%

19%

yes

no

no answer

Figure 29: Has interviewee experienced climate change (Sample size: 103)

22%

55%

16%

7%a litte bitconcerned

very concerned

not concerned

no answer

Figure 28: Level of concern for climate change impacts (Sample size: 116)

Although it was not asked what the interviewees associated with climate change impacts, this means that the general level of concern is high among the women who have heard of climate change. 

13

Figure 34: Reasons for lack of participation (Sample size: 57)

A follow-up question (12.2) addressed whether the women who had knowledge of coping mechanisms had actually implemented any CCA or EP measures. Out of the 66 interviewees, 57 (86.4%) said that they had implemented at least one measure and only 9 (13.6%) interviewees denied any implementation.

If they had not implemented any measures they were asked in question 12.3 for the reason behind a lack of implementation. The reasons for this were: no money (4); no time (2); no interest (1); no land (1); and no specific reason (1).

Question 13.1 targeted the knowledge of conservation projects related to the environmental protection of the coastal zone. 112 of the 219 women (51.1%) had not heard of any environmental protection projects while 97 (44.3%) were aware of such conservation projects and ten women (4.6%) gave no answer (see figure 32).

Question 13.2 followed-up on question 13.1 and asked the 97 interviewees who had knowledge of conservation projects whether they had personally participated in such a project. The majority of 57 (58.8%) stated that they had not participated; meanwhile 38 women (39.2%) had been actively involved in at least one conservation project related to the environmental protection of the coast (figure 33). 

As a follow-up question to 13.2, question 13.3 asked the interviewees who had knowledge of environmental protection projects (EPPs) but had not participated in one for the reason(s) behind the lack of participation. The answers were: no time (24); no information (13); no interest (4); no money (1); and other reasons (7). Eight interviewees out of the 57 (14%) did not answer this question (figure 34).

Figure 32: Awareness of environmental protection projects (Sample size: 219)

Figure 33: Has interviewee participated in EPPs (Sample size: 97)

Some of the answers given concerning appropriate climate change adaptation or environmental protection measures (e.g. ‘use an umbrella’) display that the understanding of climate change and environmental threats differs greatly among the interviewed. 

The results suggest that money is an important factor when people are asked to implement CCA or EP measures by themselves. 

14

Table 3: Comparison between geographic location with knowledge of and participation in EPPs

Table 3 provides a comparison between the geographic location, in the sense of belonging to a certain village, and the knowledge of and participation in environmental protection projects. As a reminder, the average knowledge of EPPs was 44.3% (51.1% unaware of EPPs) and the average participation in them was 39.2 % (58.8% with no record of participation) among the women who knew of EPPs. This translates to an average participation rate of 19.6% (80.4% with no previous participation) for all interviewees. As visible in table 3, there are two villages (An Binh, CLD and Prey Chop B, VC) where nobody has participated in environmental projects and villages like Mo O (TD), No Pol (VC) and Vo Thanh Van where the participation rates were significantly above average. Likewise, in some communes the knowledge of environmental projects is significantly above the average such as in Cang (TD), Cho (TD) and in Mo O (TD). Although this is not represented in the participation of the woman of the villages which are all situated in the Tran De district, it indicates a spatial relation between belonging to a village and knowledge of environmental protection projects.

The percentages by village illustrate how deceiving the average can be with percentages for knowledge of EPPs ranging between 21.1 and 68.4% and participation rates between 0 to 40%.

Village No. of inter-

viewees

Have heard of environmental protection projects

Have participated in environmental protection projects

Yes No Yes No

An Binh (CLD) 18 8

(44.4%) 10

(55.6%) -

(0%) 18

(100%)

AQ (CLD) 16 8

(50%) 8

(50%) 1

(6%) 15

(94%)

Au Tho A (VC) 15 4

(26.7%) 11

(73.3%) 2

(13.3%) 13

(86.7%)

Ca Lang A Bien (VC)

15 7

(46.7%) 8

(53.3%) 5

(33.3%) 10

(66.7%)

Cang (TD) 19 13

(68.4%) 6

(31.6%) 4

(21.1%) 15

(78.9%)

Cho (TD) 20 12

(60%) 8

(40%) 6

(30%) 14

(70%)

Mo O (TD) 20 13

(65%) 7

(35%) 8

(40%) 12

(60%)

No Pol (VC) 15 6

(40%) 9

(60%) 6

(40%) 9

(60%)

Prey Chop B (VC)

17 5

(29.4%) 12

(70.6%) /

(0%) 17

(100%)

Tan Nam (VC) 15 4

(26.7%) 11

(73.3%) 1

(6.7%) 14

(93.3%)

Vam Ho (CLD) 14 5

(35.7%) 9

(64.3%) 1

(7.1%) 13

(92.9%)

Vam Ho A (CLD)

19 4

(21.1%) 15

(78.9%) 3

(15.8%) 16

(84.2%)

Vo Thanh Van (CLD)

16 8

(50%) 8

(50%) 6

(37.5%) 10

(62.5%)

Total 219 97

(44.3%) 122

(55.7%) 43

(19.6%) 176

(80.4%)

Comparing these research findings to the ones of question 12.3, it can be argued that the implementation of environmental protection or climate change adaptation measures is mostly associated with financial contributions while the participation in environmental protection projects is perceived as time-consuming and could often be triggered by providing more and better information about how people can contribute 

15

23%

76%

1%

yes

no

no answer

Figure 35: Have other family members participated in EPPs (Sample size: 219)

68%

18%

14%0%

yes

no

maybe

no answer

Figure 36: Willingness to take part in training (Sample size: 219)

The last question targeting participation in environmental protection projects was question 13.4. In this question interviewees were asked whether other household members had participated in any conservation project. Similar to the findings of 13.2 for personal participation a total of 50 interviewees stated that someone in their family had participated while 167 said that they were not aware of such participation. Two women did not answer this question (figure 35).

Question 14 asked interviewees whether or not they would be willing to take part in trainings related to environmental protection. As visible in figure 36, the great majority of 148 women said they would be willing to, 31 might be willing to and only 39 said that they had no interest in trainings whatsoever. Although this willingness accounts for 68% of the interviewees and hence exceeds greatly the 39% average participation in environmental projects it should not be compared without consideration of various factors. First, the knowledge of environmental projects was not a given while it can be assumed that everybody has an understanding of training to some extent. Second, comprehensions of training might vary among the interviewed. Some might associate training with being taught about measures they can implement themselves guaranteeing a direct benefit to the participant (the personal benefit of EPP might yet be unclear) which would lead to more willingness. Third, training might be associated with less physical activity which would make it less dependent on good health (some of the interviewees claimed that old age or bad health were contributing factors to their lack of participation in EPPs) and it would take less energy away from people living of physical labour. Fourth, willingness alone is only an indication for participation. Actual participation rates are dependent on many more factors such as time and date, location, content of training, costs, duration, etc.

The motivating factors behind general participation in the environmental protection of the coastal zone were assessed in question 15. The interviewees contributed a total of 140 motivating factors which were categorised in 12 categories: protecting and improving the environment (48); gain knowledge and information (44); higher quality of life (now and in the future) (17); safety concerns (8); climate change adaptation (7); enjoying social activities (4); disaster prevention (3); responsibility (3); guidance provided (2); livelihood dependent on environment (2); meaningful (1); and governmental call for action (1).

There is a spatial factor to the knowledge of and participation in EPPs which should not be left unattended when pursuing awareness raising measures or aiming to increase participation in environmental conservation projects in the coastal zone. Furthermore, there seems to be no strong correlation between the knowledge of and the participation in environmental protection projects. I.e., if a higher percentage of people knew about the existence of conservation projects, they did not automatically participate more often in them. The additional factors that lead to higher participation rates hence still need to be determined through further research 

16

34%

66%

suggestions

no suggestions

Figure 38: Suggestions for improvement of environmental protection (Sample size: 219)

Figure 37: Motivating factors for participation in environmental protection (Sample size: 140)

As shown in figure 37, the factor ‘protecting and improving the environment’ accounted for about a third of the answers (48; 34.3%), closely followed by ‘gain knowledge and information’ which 44 interviewees (31.4%) found highly motivating. The answers of 17 women (12.1%) reflected a focus on a higher quality of life for them personally or for future generations. While a lot of the answers summarised under ‘protecting and improving the environment’ also had a focus on a “clean” environment which can be argued would also benefit the residents, there was no explicit mention of personal benefit but a good environment seemed to be a goal on its own. Only two women (1.4%) stated that their livelihoods (and presumably that of their families) depended on the environment which is surprising in so far as 100 women (45.7% of the 219 interviewees) answered to question 9.1 that they use the coastal zone for their livelihood (even if they do not depend on it exclusively). This is in no way reflected in the findings of question 15 where livelihood was only explicitly mentioned twice. Further research should address what the main focus of ‘protecting and improving the environment’ is in the interviewees’ perceptions and whether or not there is a correlation to livelihoods.

In question 16 interviewees were allowed to make suggestions for the improvement of environmental protection of the coastal zone. 74 women had ideas about how to improve EP while 145 did not state any ideas or suggestions (figure 38). The 84 suggestions8 were assigned to 10 categories afterwards: planting trees (31); improved waste management (e.g. waste collection) (24); forest protection (8); provide training on environmental matters (5); raising environmental awareness (4); sustainable resource use (e.g. limit use of plastics) (3); building dyke (3); pro-poor environmental protection and management (2); sanitation latrine (2); and zonation for improved management (2) (figure 39).

                                                            8 Multiple answers were possible.

17

Question 17.1 assessed the desire for more environmental protection at the village level. The great majority of 160 women (73.1%) wished for more EP, 24 (11%) were unsure and 31 (14.2%) did not feel the need for more EP in their village (four women, 1.8%, did not answer the question) (figure 40). Then the interviewees were asked in question 17.2 if they personally would like to participate in the environmental protection that they might have wished for in question 17.1. The findings were very similar with the great majority of 169 (77.2%) in favour of personal participation and equal numbers of 24 (11% each) unsure or opposed to personal participation (two answers, >1%, missing) (figure 41).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 39: Specific suggestions for improvement of EP (Sample size: 74; number of answers: 84)

73%

14%

11%2%

yes

no

maybe

no answer

Figure 40: Is more environmental protection desired

77%

11%

11% 1%

yes

no

maybe

no answer

Figure 41: Desire of interviewee to participate in EP

Comparing this seeming discrepancy of more people wanting to participate in than people wishing for environmental protection with the findings of 15 it becomes clear that even though people might not see the need for EP they might still be willing to participate in it (e.g. because they enjoy the social aspect of such activities). 

18

Figure 43: Specific suggested family contribution to EP (Sample size: 153; number of answers: 166)

Figure 44: Specific suggested personal contribution to EP (Sample size 156; number of answers: 182)

The interviewees were also asked for suggestions in what way the other members of their family could participate (question 17.3). Out of the 166 suggestions9 made by 153 interviewees (69.9%, see figure 42) ten categories were formed: cleaning up/ improving garbage management (102); plant trees (30); general participation/ follow governmental instructions (12); forest protection (10); burning garbage (3); mobilise people/raise awareness (3); building sanitation latrine (2); using resources sustainably (2); building dyke (1); and educate children on environmental protection (1) (figure 43).

Question 17.3 asked for suggestions concerning personal contributions. This time 156 interviewees (71.2%) made 182 suggestions10 which indicates that the interviewees had more ideas when it came to their personal contribution than if they had so suggest activities for their family members. Nine categories were built from the answers. The category that was

missing from the former research results of question 17.2 was ‘building dyke’. Presumably, this activity is associated with a lot of strength and physical activity and none of the women assumed that they could contribute greatly to this sort of activity or found men more suitable.

The nine categories are as follows: cleaning up/ improving garbage management (106); mobilise people/ raise awareness (16); plant trees (16); using resources sustainably (10); general participation/follow governmental instructions (9); forest protection (9); burning garbage (7); educate children on environmental protection (6); and building sanitation latrine (3) (figure 44).

When comparing figure 43 and 44, it becomes clear that although the suggestions for contribution are almost the same, the interviewees saw themselves better fit for certain activities like cleaning up,

                                                            9 Multiple answers were possible. 10 Multiple answers were possible.

70%

30%

suggestion

no suggestion

Figure 42: Suggested family contribution to EP (Sample size: 153; number of answers: 166)

It is notable that in both questions there is an explicit mentioning of the forest (either its protection or enlarging) which reflects that a lot of people are aware of its importance and possibly take a future-oriented approach. Yet there are also suggestions of environmentally harmful practices like burning garbage which signify a lack of understanding of environmental processes. 

19

Figure 45: Responsibilities and tasks of interviewee HH= head of household. (Sample size: 219)

Figure 46: Who owns the land certificate (Sample size: 219)

mobilising people or planting trees, while ‘mobilise people/ raise awareness’ only came sixth as a suggested contribution of their family members. Even though some of the interviewees assigned themselves a communicative capacity, only six saw a feasible personal contribution in educating children on environmental protection.

4.4. General level of control or power (questions 18-29, annex 1)

Questions 18 to 29 aimed at assessing the overall level of control and power that the interviewed women possess concerning different aspects of daily life. 

The first question (18) asked the women about their tasks and responsibilities within the family. Most women were working and a housewife at the same time (76; 34.7%), followed by housewives (63; 28.8%), working (49; 22.4%), working and head of the household (14; 6.4%), housewife and head of the household (6; 2.7%), no tasks or responsibilities (2; 0.9%) and working, housewife and head of the household (1; 0.5%). Eight women (3.7%) did not answer this question (see figure 45). This means that women are seldom the head of the household in the researched area, but it does not say whether or not they have a generally high or low level of control over household decisions.

Question 19 focused on who in the family owned the land certificate for the land occupied or used. As illustrated in figure 46, more than half of the households (121; 55.3%) in the villages did not own a land certificate, for 34 households (15.5%) it was the husband owning the land certificate, for the same number of households it was someone other than the interviewee or husband, in 17 families (7.8%) it was both the interviewee and the husband whose names were on the land certificate and in only 13 cases (5.9%) it was the interviewee who owned the land.

Most interviewees appear to focus on garbage management and cleaning up, illustrating that they are eager to deal with present issues which are perceived and felt first. The degradation of the environment due to insufficient garbage collection along with deterioration in the overall appearance is something that the interviewees experience every day. Garbage collection is also a task that is relatively easy and can be done by adults and children, and for short periods of time (unlike big building projects). It might hence be the activity that participants associate with the most visible impact and the most amount of flexibility for the participants.

20

Figure 47: Typical village housing

Comparison between land ownership with desire for environmental protection and participation (table 4) shows that there is no correlation between the ownership of the land certificate and the desire for more environmental protection at village level. Yet there is a very strong correlation when it comes to the desire to participate in environmental protection. In the cases where the interviewee owned the land certificate (either by herself or together with her husband), the desire to participate was over 90% (compared to a maximum of 79.3% with no land certificate). Furthermore, the desire for environmental protection and participation were the lowest when someone other than the husband and interviewee owned the land certificate, even lower than when there was no land certificate in the family at all.

Question 20 addressed whether the households of the interviewees had undergone any fundamental changes concerning their living conditions in the past years. The majority of 124 (56.6%) said that there were no changes, while 57 (26%) claimed things had changed for the worse and 33 (15.1%) that things had changed for the better (no answer accounting for 5 or 2.3%) (see figure 48).

Land ownership

No. of house-holds

More environmental protection at village level desired

Desire to participate in environmental protection

Yes No Maybe n/a Yes No Maybe n/a

Interviewee 13 10 (76.9%)

1 (7.7%)

2 (15.4%)

- 12 (92.3%)

- - 1 (7.7%)

Interviewee and husband

17 13 (76.5%)

3 (17.6%)

1 (5.9%)

- 16 (94.1%)

1 (5.9%)

- -

Husband 34 25 (73.5%)

4 (11.8%)

3 (8.8%)

2 (5.9%)

24 (70.6%)

8 (23.5%)

2 (5.9%)

-

Other 34 21 (61.8%)

8 (23.5%)

5 (14.7%)

- 21 (61.8%)

9 (26.5%)

4 (11.8%)

-

No certificate

121 91 (75.2%)

15 (12.4%)

14 (11.6%)

1 (0.8%)

96 (79.3%)

7 (5.8%)

18 (14.9%)

-

Total 219 160 (73%)

31 (14.2%)

25 (11.4%)

3 (1.4%)

169 (77.2%)

25 (11.4%)

24 (11%)

1 (0.4%)

Table 4: Comparison of land ownership with desire for environmental protection and participation

It is more often not the interviewee who has control over the land. In general, the rate of land ownership by any family member is low and this has implications for environmental protection (e.g. evacuation can be preferred over investments in EPMs where land is not owned). 

Overall, the answers indicate that life has become harder for about a quarter of the interviewees and their families. 

21

Figure 48: Fundamental changes in living conditions in past years (Sample size: 219)

Among the more specific answers to this question were reasons such as less income, more difficult working conditions, husband and main income earner passed away and worse weather conditions.

In question 21 interviewees were asked to explain who makes the decisions concerning the children’s education. In most cases (95) it was the interviewee together with her husband, followed by the interviewee on her own (63), the husband (34) and other family members (6) (see figure 50).

Question 22 looked at time spent with the children. Different from the results of question 21 it was mainly the interviewee who spent the majority of time with the children. In 168 of the 219 surveyed households (76.7%) it was the mother who spent the greatest amount of time with the children. In 26 families (11.9%) it was the mother and father who spent equal amounts of time with their children and in only three cases (1.4%) it was the husband alone. For six interviewees (2.7%) there were other family members who take care of the children and although this answer was possible there was no one who stated that their children spend most of their time with their peers (see figure 51).

Figure 49: Young village boy Figure 50: Who makes decisions concerning children’s education (Sample size: 219)

The findings of question 21 and 22 indicate that although women might not have the total control over the decisions concerning their children, they often spend the most time with their children and hence exercise a great amount of influence on them. 

22

Question 51 assessed general decision-making power. The women were asked to indicate who makes decisions regarding how to run the household (what to buy, what to plant, what needs to be done around the house, what fuel to use for cooking, etc.). The results were very different from those of question 21 with most decisions being made by the interviewees independently (92), interviewees in agreement with their husbands (90), husbands by themselves (25) and other family members (9) (see figure 52).

It is hard to estimate who has the deciding vote when decisions are made between interviewee and husband, but the findings generally suggest that women have a high level of control and influence in a lot of cases and are seldom just subject to someone else’s decision.

Question 24 targeted household emergency decisions. Unlike the previous findings, for decisions necessary in cases of emergency (e.g. flooding) it is foremost the husband (78) who is responsible, closely followed by the interviewee and the husband together (75), the interviewee independently (52) and other family members (11) (figure 53).

Similar to the findings for general household decisions, in 127 households (58%) it is the interviewee alone or together with her husband who makes decisions in emergency situations. Although 42% of interviewees are hence not involved in making these sorts of decisions, the average level of decision-making power is high and further forms of influences available to those left out of decision-making need to be addressed.

Figure 51: Spends the most time with children Figure 52: Who makes household decisions

Figure 53: Who makes emergency decisions (Sample size: 219)

Figure 54: How often are important things discussed among family members (Sample size: 219)

23

Figure 55: Which family member participates in village meetings (Sample size: 219)

Figure 56: How often are village meetings attended (Sample size: 219)

Figure 57: Reasons for attendance of village meetings (Sample size: 219)

One of the forms of influence on decision-making mentioned is participating in discussions with other family members. Question 25 asked the interviewees whether larger or important decisions are discussed between family members. In 166 families this was always the case (75.8%), it was sometimes the case for 37 households (16.9%), rarely for three (1.4%) and never for 11 families (5%) (‘no answer’ accounted for 2 or 0.9%) (see figure 54).

This indicates that even though some women might not be the primary decision maker, they can still be involved in family discussions and it is based on their arguments and rhetoric skills as to how much their opinion influences the ultimate decision. 

Question 26.1 addressed the participation of the interviewee’s household in village meetings. When asked about who in the family participates in village meetings, 117 women (53.4%) said that is was primarily them, 50 (22.8%) said it was their husband, 28 (12.8%) participated together with their husband, for five (2.3%) it was another family member and for a total of 12 families (5.5%) it was nobody that participated (see figure 55). Village meeting attendance rate

assessed in question 26.2 was generally high. 131 interviewees (59.8%) claimed that village meetings were attended regularly, in 48 cases (21.9%) they were attended sometimes, 13 women (5.9%) stated that they attended meetings rarely and only four (1.8%) said that they never attended (see figure 56).

A follow-up question asked those who participated regularly or sometimes (total of 176; 80.4%) about the reasons for participating (question 26.3). Several different answers were given11 and categorised into four main groups (with an extra group for ‘other’): get information (116); invitation (38); responsibility (4); participation (2); and other (19) (figure 57).

                                                            11 Multiple answers were possible; no answers accounted for four.

24

45%

12%8%

5%

30% no time

no invitation

no interest

other

no answer

Figure 58: Reasons for lack of attendance of village meetings (Sample size: 28; number of answers: 40)

17%

79%

4%

yes

no

no answer

Figure 60: Does the household practice bookkeeping (Sample size: 219)

Figure 59: Who is in control of income (Sample size: 219)

For those who said that they attended only rarely or never, the follow-up question 26.4 asked for their reasons for lack of regular participation. This question applied to 17 people (7.8%) who gave 40 answers12 which were categorised in three main groups (and ‘other’): no time (18; 45%); no invitation (5; 12.5%); no interest (3; 7.5%); and other (2; 5%).

As visualised in figure 58, no time was the primary reason why women only attended village meetings rarely or never and the interest to participate and get some information through village meetings was high. Hence eliminating time constraints should lead to higher attendance rates.

Question 27 focused on control over and monitoring of the available income. As displayed in figure 59, for the majority of the households (148; 67.6%) it was the interviewee who was in control of the finances. For 41 households (18.7%) the interviewee and husband managed the finances together, while in only 21 families (9.6%) it was the husband alone who was in charge of available income. For six households (2.3%) it was another family member who was in control.

Question 28 asked whether the interviewees kept track of the income, the expenditures and the savings of the household. For the great majority of 79% (172) this was not the case. Only 17% (38 interviewees) said that bookkeeping existed and 4.1% (9) could not answer this question (figure 60).

The last question (29) was concerned with the main use of income. The 283 answers13 were afterwards categorised in eight groups. The categories were: food (136; 48%); daily expenses (55; 19.4%); children’s education (45; 15.9%); business investments (13; 4.6%); social activities and events (11; 3.9%); medicine (7; 2.5%); household goods (3; 1.1%); and savings (2; 0.7%).

                                                            12 Multiple answers were possible; no answers accounted for 12. 13 Multiple answers were possible; no answers accounted for 11.

To summarise the findings of question 26, it can be said that the overall regular attendance of village meetings is high and in a lot of cases it is the woman of a household who participates to get information, and answer to an invitation. In cases where the participation is low or non-existent it is mostly due to time-constraints and only seldom is there explicitly no interest in attending or participating in village meetings 

25

Figure 61: Main use of income (Sample size: 219; number of answers: 283)

As can be seen in figure 61, interviewees and their families spent their income primarily on food (48%), followed by daily expenses (19.4%) and their children’s education (15.9%). It appears as if there are not too many families which are capable and/or willing to save up money.

Comparing these findings to the findings of question 9.3 (figures 19 and 20) it also indicates that some of the households could be more dependent on the coast than they assume. They use coastal resources for income and food while they use income primarily for food. If resource gatherers were not able to collect resources anymore

or could only collect less of them, they would hence have less income and food and would need to substitute for income losses and increase their expenditures on food.

5. Discussion

5.1. General information about surveyed households

The survey included 219 women from 13 coastal villages between the ages of 18 and 84. The majority of women were Kinh and Khmer with seven others belonging to the Hoa group. Most of the women had lived in the area between 21 and 41 years, meaning that a lot of interviewees should be fairly familiar with their environment and had the chance to observe changes of it.

The great majority was married with children and had a low educational level. This implies that they are less likely to have been introduced to climate change or environmental protection topics through school and institutes of higher education, that they often had been out of school for years and that they spend a considerable amount of time taking care of their children. The time restraints of the women in the researched communities are further increased through working. The great majority of the interviewees are either running or supporting a small business, farming, both, working as hired labour or gaining income through fishing and aquaculture whereas only 32 (14.6%) stated ‘housewife’ as their main occupation. The combined number of women working in aquaculture and fishing was 22.

This shows that the coastal zone is often not the direct generator of income for the local women.

For slightly more than a fifth of the households fishing and aquaculture are the main sources of income which means that the coastal zone is crucial for their livelihoods, but not linked to the main income source for the rest of the households. Since the majority of all the households were poor and living on less than

Figure 62: Elderly interviewee in bedroom

26

90.000 VND per day, they are more vulnerable and have fewer funds to invest in environmental protection measures and climate change adaptation measures.

5.2. Dependence of women on the coastal zone for their livelihood

Although the coastal zone seemed to be less important for the main income and personal income of most women and their households, 46% stated that they utilise the coastal zone for their livelihood. In most cases they used the coastal zone to collect resources to generate income, followed by utilisation for food, fuel and building material. Women had answered in the first section of the questionnaire that the main source of income for the household was not linked to fishing or aquaculture in 78% of cases, yet 28% stated later that the household’s primary source of income is in fact linked to the coastal zone. This discrepancy can possibly be explained through a misunderstanding of the term ‘fishing’ which might have been understood as excluding resource gathering. This is very likely as the categories of coastal resources used also include wood and water as well as other coastal species besides fish. Therefore, just over a quarter of the households depend on the coastal zone for their livelihood.

More often occupations like hired labour, farming and running small businesses provide for the households and the coastal zone is utilised in support of livelihoods. Nevertheless, there are numerous indirect links between the coastal zone and other professions, such as tailors who specialise in fishing nets or small businesses that buy from and sell to resource collectors etc. which fosters indirect dependencies. Furthermore, for a lot of households (100) gathering resources provides income, food, fuel and material for housing. Even if their main source of income is not generated from the coastal zone, their dependency might be greater than they realise since if they would not be able to gather resources, their income and their food, fuel and house building supplies would be negatively affected, meanwhile they would need to generate more income to buy food, fuel and building material. It was not assessed in detail how much money determines the main income of the surveyed households and hence it is impossible to say how important the additional income and resource supply is. Yet it can be argued that for the 46% of the interviewees who stated that they utilise the coastal zone for their livelihood, the dependency might vary from household to household and also depends on seasonal changes (e.g. harvesting season can decrease the dependency).

The findings from cross-referencing ethnicity and education with the use of the coastal zone for livelihood and the household’s primary source of income being linked to the coastal zone suggest that illiteracy is not a factor that leads to higher dependency on the coastal environment and that there is a significant difference in the utilisation of the coastal zone between ethnicities (with the Kinh group utilising and depending on it more often than people belonging to the Khmer and Hoa groups).

5.3. Environmental awareness and attitudes

Even though the research findings showed that the majority of interviewees had heard of climate change, answers to follow-up questions revealed that CC implications and adequate adaptation and mitigation strategies were not well understood. This can be due to the broadcast media functioning as the main source of information on topics like climate change and environmental threats while engaging with these topics via print media, talking to friends or through school was less common. The cross-referencing of educational level with knowledge of climate change showed that there was no difference between the educational levels up to high school concerning their knowledge of climate change. By far the most common media through which climate change information was received was television, but in which form

Figure 63: Interviewee with daughter

27

(e.g. documentary vs. short news feature) was not assessed which might be of interest for further research.

Most of the women who had heard of climate change stated their concern for climate change from little (22%) to very concerned (55%). This indicates that there is an awareness of climate change as a threat to people and the environment, yet it does not specify which implications the interviewees associated with climate change and how threatened they felt (e.g. if they feared for their livelihood or health). Of the 103 women who had not heard of climate change, 54 had at least experienced changes in the climate14 and 19 were unsure if they had. This leaves room for speculation as to why a number of women had never come across the term CC nor experienced any changes at all (e.g. increased frequency of extreme weather events over time). Since it was not assessed what women associated with climate or changes in climate it is possible that they simply did not link certain factors to climate change (storms could be seen as extreme weather events and not climate change for example). They could also have been too young to have long-term experiences of changes in climate, they might perceive climate changes as something normal (which of course it is to a certain extent) or perceive weather and climate as generally unpredictable. Further research in this area should help to clarify this.

Furthermore, the great majority of interviewees did not know of climate change adaptation or environmental protection measures and those that did had different ideas about appropriate coping mechanisms, ranking from using and umbrella to planting trees (the most common answer). Many of the knowledgeable interviewees stated that they had implemented EPMs and for those that had not, money was the essential limiting factor. This shows that a more or less substantial knowledge of environmental processes is required to raise concern and the desire to engage in practices and projects fostering sustainability and environmental protection. Moreover, if risks and appropriate adaptation measures are not known, then families will be unable to plan and carry out measures themselves and might show less inhibitions when it comes to destructive practices (e.g. cutting down mangroves). A few good measures were suggested to foster environmental protection (e.g. litter collection), but some environmentally damaging practices (e.g. burning garbage) displayed a lack of understanding when it comes to environmental processes.

Unlike with climate change, the majority of women (51%) had not heard of environmental protection projects while 39% of those who had heard about EPPS had actually participated in at least one EPP related to the protection of the coastal zone. For the ones who were aware of EPPs but had not participated the crucial factor appeared to be time, followed by no information and only one person named no money as a reason for lack of participation. This leaves room to suggest that in order for more women to participate in EPPs, projects need to be designed in a way that they are not too time-consuming or can be integrated into the daily life of women so they do not interfere with other tasks. More participation could also be triggered by providing more and better information of and through projects. Since the television is the preferred media for a lot of the interviewees, it would be wise to find a way to utilise it to spread environmental awareness.

Awareness about and participation in environmental protection projects did not have the expected causality (more awareness does not lead to more participation), but they had a correlation with the geographic location. Depending on the community, awareness and participation rates fluctuated greatly. It should therefore be determined through future research what the additional factors are which lead to higher participation rates so that they can be integrated in the project design process. Surprisingly, the desire to take part in environmental protection projects was higher than the desire for environmental protection. This could be explained by arguing that other factors attract people to participate in projects no matter of their outcome. As there is a spatial dimension to the participation rates, it can be speculated that the social aspect of projects is an important motivating factor- in that sense the communities with stronger

                                                            14 It must be noted that experiencing changes in climate is often a perception which is related to changes in weather (weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere in terms of temperature, moisture content and air movements and can be directly perceived by people) rather than climate (climate cannot be directly perceived by people; climate is a scientific concept; it deals with statistics, such as averages of weather events over a 30 year period).

28

coherence are prone to higher participation rates. Future research needs to further clarify these correlations.

The survey outlined that there is a high desire to take part in trainings linked to environmental protection. This is supported by the two motivating factors for environmental engagement which were named most often: protecting and improving the environment and gaining knowledge and information. Satisfying both desires could be achieved through an effective combination of training and EPPs. In addition, the high desire for more environmental protection at village level and participation in environmental projects needs to be utilised in projects that are designed so that they eliminate the factors which hinder women from participating (e.g. lack of time).

5.4. General level of control or power

Although women are often not the head of the household and do not own the land certificate in those cases where the land certificate was actually owned by a member of the household, they make most general decisions concerning the household and decide together with the husband about their children’s education. Even though decisions about children are commonly made by the interviewee and husband, a significant majority of women stated that they were the ones spending most time with their children. Hence, women have a tremendous influence on the children which should be integrated in public awareness raising measures. If women are the ones that spend most time supervising and teaching the children and leading by example (especially in cases where they do not attend school) then teaching children through their mothers would be a great way to pass on knowledge of CC and EP.

Generally, it can be said that the decision-making power of women is high. Even where women claimed that their husband is in charge of essential or emergency decisions, most of the times a discussion among family members takes place before solutions are found and decisions are made. In other words, even though women might not be the deciding vote in some scenarios they often have the possibility to influence the outcome of the decision-making process.

When it came to the household participation in village meetings it was mostly the interviewees who took part with a very high regular attendance rate. Again, those who did not or only rarely participated in village meetings claimed time constraints as the main factor for their lack of participation, while getting information was the essential factor drawing them to the meetings. Hence, in organising village meetings provisions should be made so that meetings can easily be integrated in the schedule of women (who are often working and taking care of the children) and do not require too much time, if women are to gain more influence in village decisions.

In most households it is the women who manage the finances, although they rarely keep track of the income, expenditures and savings. This indicates another high level of control and power, but also the shortcomings in bookkeeping need to be kept in mind when looking at the estimates given by the interviewees for income and expenses. Also, the shortcomings in control over the land need to be assessed and overcome. It is possible that the lack of land ownership makes investments in EPMs less likely and evacuation or relocation as a response to environmental threats more favourable. Interestingly, if someone besides the interviewee and her husband owned the land certificate in the household, the interviewees were also less likely to participate in environmental protection. The significance and peculiarity of this correlation needs to be addressed by future research.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

The survey answered a lot of questions about the knowledge of women about environmental threats and climate change (number 1 of the objectives stated in chapter 1.1) and raised a few others.

29

Only about half of the 219 interviewees in the 13 coastal villages were familiar with climate change or environmental threats and even less knew of adequate ways to respond and foster resilience.

The main source of information concerning climate change is television. Print media were least effective in communicating climate change. Higher educational levels do not mean that women have more often heard of climate change or

environmental protection. The women who have heard of climate change had generally high levels of concern about its

implications. A substantial number of women have neither heard of climate change nor experienced it. 67% of interviewees had no knowledge of climate change adaptation or environmental protection

measures. Almost all of the relatively small number of women who knew of coping mechanisms and

adaptation measures had implemented at least one measure. Only about half of the interviewees were aware of environmental protection projects linked to the

protection of the coastal zone. The knowledge of and participation in environmental protection projects had a correlation with

belonging to a community.

The survey identified a great potential for women to get involved in the environmental protection of the coastal zone (number 2 of the objectives stated in chapter 1.1).

46% of women utilise the coastal zone for their livelihood and are therefore more inclined to protect it.

68% of women stated that they would be willing to take part in training activities linked to environmental protection.

The most common motivating factors for participation in environmental protection were ‘protecting and improving the environment’ and ‘gaining knowledge and information’.

Many interviewees had suggestions concerning contributions by themselves or their family members to environmental protection of the coastal zone.

Most women favoured environmental protection measures such as cleaning up which provide a lot of flexibility.

A great majority was in favour of more environmental protection and had a desire to participate. Children spend the most amount of time with their mothers and women therefore have a high

level of influence on them. Women have a generally high decision-making power and manage the household’s finances in

most cases. Most women are involved in the decision-making process even if they do not make the final

decision. If the land certificate is owned by the woman, her husband or both, the desire to participate in

environmental protection is extremely high. It is primarily the women who participate in village meetings and are therefore informed and

included concerning decisions or processes at village level.

They survey outlined the main obstacles which are hindering women in actively participating in environmental protection (number 3 of the objectives stated in chapter 1.1).

Women are often working and taking care of household and children which leaves little time for other activities.

A lot of women are lacking sufficient information concerning climate change, environmental threats and appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures.

Some women have never experienced climate change and might hence not be interested in adaptation.

30

The level of concern for a smaller number of interviewees who had knowledge of climate change was very low or not existent.

The majority of households are poor (the average household lives on 50.000 to 89.000 VND per day) which results in limited scope for investments in environmental protection or climate change adaptation measures.

54% stated that they do not utilise the coastal zone for their livelihood which may contribute to their limited interest in environmental protection.

51% of women were not aware of environmental protection projects. Women stated that the main reasons for lack of participation in environmental protection projects

were time constraints and lack of information. Awareness of environmental protection projects does not necessarily lead to more participation. Belonging to a community can in- and decrease awareness of and participation in environmental

protection projects. Certain tasks associated with hard physical work and inflexibility are unfavourable for personal

contributions to environmental protection (e.g. building a dyke). Ownership of the land certificate by another family member besides the interviewee and husband

can affect the desire to participate in environmental protection negatively. Attendance of village meetings is primarily dependent on time available and motivated by

information provision and an invitation. Bookkeeping exists only in a few households which makes the managing of finances and

investments less efficient.

6.2. Recommendations

The general findings of the survey were that the first step in improving the efficiency of and participation in environmental projects and climate change adaptation and mitigation measures has to be awareness raising. People (not just women) need more information on what climate change implies, what environmental protection means and how they can participate in fostering resilience on a small scale.

Figure 64: Group of interviewees with children

31

Other factors, besides the desire for environmental protection, influence participation in environmental protection projects. These factors need to be assessed so that they can be addressed properly in project designs.

The means of communication to spread environmental information need to be customised to reach more people. Films displaying e.g. what deforestation does to the coastline or how projects can make a difference would be more effective than print media and can be tailored to the audience.

In special regard to women, it would be a good idea to design films that women can watch together with their children (meaning that they would not have to have someone else take care of them and that this might encourage an exchange between mothers and children afterwards). Such films should be explanatory without going too much into detail and, with regard to the high illiteracy rate, should require as little reading as possible.

Projects and trainings are the best ways to teach people about getting involved hence they need to be better designed and advertised (e.g. on the radio instead of through leaflets). This can be for example through identifying the individuals in a community with a lot of influence or social connections and having them spread the idea and giving feedback about people’s concerns.

For women, the projects need to be specifically designed so they do not take too much time away from their chores or can be combined with them (e.g. parallel event for children so they are taken care of).

Finally, it cannot be established if the findings are always gender specific or just specific to the population of the area. While specific issues certainly represent the challenges or privileges specific to women, men may have a similar lack of awareness of climate change and other environmental issues. Because the survey (see annex 7.1.) combined several terms and concepts, further research will need to investigate the underlying definitions and perceptions to draw a clearer picture and more focus has to be put on women’s specific conditions and needs as opposed to men’s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the overall goal of the study (to identify ways to empower women to play a more active role in the protection of the coastal zone), it can be established that good ways to empower women are to focus on spreading information and training and responding to desires. Projects need to acknowledge the specific challenges that women face and integrate solutions in project design and its activities. Women have a great potential to play an active and vital role in the environmental protection of the coastal zone, but they need assistance in overcoming the obstacles which this report outlined. The women of Trần Đề, Vĩnh Châu and Cù Lao Dung can be the leaders of change concerning sustainable practices and environmental protection in the short and the long run, if their strengths are adequately utilised. 

32

7. Questionnaire

The role of women in environmental protection of the coastal zone

Questionnaire

Date of interview:………………………….Form no.:……………………………………………… Interviewer:……………………………………………………………………………………………. Interview location: Village:……………….Commune:…………………..District:………………… General Information

1. Age:

2. Ethnic group:

Cham Khmer Chinese Kinh Other

3. Family status: Single Married without children Married with children Divorced children living with me children living with my husband Widowed 4. How many family members are living in this household? ……………………………… of which are …. children, ……. men, ……. women. 5. Occupation: …………………………………………… 6.1. What is the main source of income of the household? ……………………………………… 6.2. Who is the main income earner of the household? …………………………………………. 6.3. Average monthly income of the household? …………………………………………………. 7. Education level: Illiterate Primary school Secondary school High school

Vocational college University

8. How long have you lived in this area?..……. years

Dependence of women on the coastal zone for their livelihood

9.1 Are you utilising the coastal zone and/or its resources (e.g. water, wood, fish etc.) for your livelihood? Yes No If YES 9.2. What resources do you use? …………………………………………………………...

9.3. What do you use them for? Food source Shelter (building material) Fuel Source of income Others (Please specify: ………………………………………………….)

9.4. Who in your family is in charge of gathering resources? …………………………………………………………………………………….........

33

10.1. Is your household’s primary source of income directly linked to the coastal zone? Yes (Please specify: ……………………….…………………………….....) No 10.2. Is your personal primary source of income directly linked to the coastal zone? Yes (Please specify: …..…………………….…………………………….....) No

Environmental awareness and attitudes

11.1 Have you heard of climate change? Yes No

If YES 11.2. Through what means have you heard of climate change?

Television Radio Newspaper Leaflets Family/Friends

Others (Please specify) 11.3. How concerned are you about the implications of climate change?

Very concerned A little concerned Not concerned at all

If NO 11.4. Have you experienced any changes in the climate? Yes No I don’t know

12.1. Are you aware of any climate change adaptation or environmental protection measures?

Yes (Please specify: ………………………………………………….……….) No If YES

12.2. Have you implemented any of these measures? Yes (Please specify: ….………………………………………………………) No If NO

12.3. Why haven’t you implemented any of these measures? No time No money No interest

Other (Please specify: …….…………………………………………………)

13.1. Have you ever heard of any conservation projects related to the environmental protection of the coastal zone?

Yes (Please specify: ……………………………………….…..……..…….) No

If YES

13.2. Have you participated in any conservation projects related to the environmental protection of the coastal zone?

Yes (Please specify: …………..…………………………….…..……..…….) No If NO

13.3. Why haven’t you participated in any conservation projects related to the environmental protection of the coastal zone?

No time Lack of information No interest

Other (Please specify: ………………………………………………………)

34

13.4. Has any other member of your family participated in any conservation projects related to the environmental protection of the coastal zone?

Yes (Please specify: ………………………………………………………) No 14. Given the chance, would you participate in training programs advocating environmental

protection? Yes No

Maybe

15. Which factors would allow or motivate you to participate in the environmental protection of the coastal zone? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16. Do you have any ideas/suggestions regarding the improvement of the environmental protection of the coastal zone? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

17.1. Do you think more should be done for environmental protection in your village?

Yes No Maybe

17.2. Would you personally like to participate more in environmental protection?

Yes No Maybe

17.3. What do you think could your family contribute to environmental protection? …………………………………………………………………………………………………….……

17.4. What do you think you personally could contribute to environmental protection? General level of control or power

18. What are your tasks and responsibilities within the family? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19. Do you or your family own the land on which you are living?

Yes, only my name is on the land certificate. Yes, my husband’s and my name are on the land certificate. No, only my husband’s name is on the land certificate.

No, others in my family own the land certificate. (Please specify: …………………………………………………..……..……...) No, we don’t own land.

20. Has your or your family’s living condition undergone some fundamental changes in the past years? Yes (Please specify: ………………………………………………………………) No

21. Who in your household is responsible for making decisions regarding the children’s education (e.g.

should they go to school, which school should they go to etc.)? Me Husband

My husband and me Others (Please specify: ……………..………………………………………...…)

22. With whom do your children spend most of the time?

Me Husband My husband and me His/her peers Others (Please specify: ……………………………………………...………...…)

35

23. Who in your family makes decisions regarding how to run the household (what to buy, what to plant, what needs to be done around the house, what fuel to use for cooking, etc.)?

Me Husband My husband and me

Others (Please specify: ……………..…………………………………….…...…) 24. Who in your family makes decision in case of an emergency (storm surge, flooding etc.)?

Me Husband My husband and me

Others (Please specify: ……………..…………………….…………………...…) 25. Are larger/important decisions being discussed between family members?

Yes, always Sometimes No

26.1. Who in your family participates in village meetings?

Me Husband My husband and me Others (Please specify: ……………..…………….…………………………...…) None of this family attends village meetings (then move to 4.8.2)

26.2. How often do you/the family members attend the village meetings? Regularly Sometimes Rarely

If regularly or sometimes:

26.3 Why do you/family member participate in village meetings? …………………………………………………………………………………………………...

If rarely or never: 26.4. Why don’t you/the family members regularly participate in village meetings? No time No interest Other (Please specify: ……………………….……….……………………………)

27. Who in your family controls/monitors the available income?

I control the available income. My husband controls the available income.

We control the available income together. Other (Please specify: ………………………………………………………………)

28. Do you keep books about your income, expenditure and savings?

Yes No

29. What do you use the majority of your income for? ………………………..……………………………  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal Zone of Soc Trang Province 134 Tran Hung Dao Street, Soc Trang City, Vietnam T + 84 79 3622164 F + 84 79 3622125 I www.gtz.de I www.czm-soctrang.org.vn