CONDICIONES GENERALES DE LOS SERVICIOS DE ALIMENTACIÓN COLECTIVA .1 Ubicación:

Having gained an understanding of the drivers of coping and adaptation and having depicted an approach to assess the quality of such strategies, not only a holistic view of “good” coping and adaptation is provided, but also a basis for systematically identifying the barriers to “good” strategies.

There already exists, as outlined in section 2.1.3, a growing scientific literature on the limits and barriers of adaptation. An analysis of barriers to “good” adaptation and coping has, in contrast, not explicitly been addressed so far. The following section will therefore depict a systematic approach to the question “What are the limits of and barriers to good coping and adaptation?” along the lines of the framework components outlined in the previous sections.

Figure 2.15: Depiction of an integrated framework for understanding and evaluating risk-related response mechanisms (Source: author, mainly based on Turner et al. 2003, Grothmann and Patt 2005, Jacob and Mehiriz 2012, UNFCCC 2010)

Based on the reviewed literature in the field of vulnerability (see section 2.1.3), limits are defined as absolute and insurmountable obstacles which relate to a set of immutable ecological, physical and

technological thresholds beyond which existing systems, states, valued objects and activities cannot be maintained or secured. Barriers are defined as subjective and socially constructed obstacles which can, in contrast, be overcome (Moser, Ekstrom 2010: 22026; Dow et al. 2013: 306; Adger et al. 2009:

335). In order to systematically analyse risk-related response mechanisms and identify their barriers and limits, the previously presented research approaches are linked and brought together in an integrated analytical framework (see Figure 2.15). It consists of three major components: (1) the social-ecological risk context, (2) individual decision-making processes, and (3) the manifestation of coping and adaptation strategies.

Taking on a social-ecological perspective allows for the integration of different dimensions, addresses diverse actors at various scales, and provides a good baseline to judge the complexity of outcomes and impacts of strategies. It is, as outlined in section 2.4.2, mainly based on the framework of Turner et al. (2003) and is conceptualised as a risk context in the current analytical framework (the risk context and its major analytical components are depicted at the right side of Figure 2.15). The lens of vulnerability is particularly pertinent to this research because it makes it possible to depict barriers and limits arising from multiple dimensions. It facilitates the detection and analysis of limits arising from the ecological system such as ecosystem thresholds beyond which the current livelihood system cannot be maintained. Hydrological limits, such as the availability of freshwater sources, might, for instance, rule out some - in other areas effective - coping options. Taking a look at the human side of the system too enables a grasping of barriers, especially economic, knowledge-related and institutional barriers. The individual endowment with financial resources, for instance, can hamper the capacity to take capital intensive adaptation measures; the lack of knowledge or skills of a farmer can deteriorate the quality of implementation substantially; and human conditions outside the place, such as an insufficient legal enforcement, might restrict private investments in more sustainable technologies (see Table 2.8 for an exemplary identification of barriers and limits along the lines of the three research components).

Looking at the subjective perception of risk in the consideration of individual goals, experiences and cognitive biases adds a more actor-centred view on the assessment of risk-related response mechanisms. The understanding of decision-making processes is mainly based on Grothmann and Patt’s (2005) socio-cognitive model (it is depicted as individual decision-making with its major analytical components in the upper right corner of Figure 2.15). The conceptual component

“objective vulnerability and hazard characteristics” in the socio-cognitive model of decision-making (see section 2.4.3) links the decision-making concept with the previously presented systemic concept of risk. This indicates the compatibility of two concepts acting on different scales and enables the possibility of making use of the advantages a decision-making model has for indentifying barriers and limits to “good” practices. In particular the understanding of priorities, the recognition of misperceptions, and the acknowledgement of stakeholder-specific perceptions adds often neglected aspects to the appreciation of strategies and their barriers. It is therefore possible to identify not only knowledge-related barriers but also cognitive barriers. Knowing about the preferences of different stakeholders might, for example, show that some adaptation options are not applied because they do not match the goals of an agent; and the appreciation of the role that other actors play can illustrate how the illusion of protection inhibits taking action by oneself (see Table 2.8 for an exemplary identification of barriers and limits along the lines of the three research components).

An analysis of the actual adaptation/coping process can finally facilitate a closer look at individual strategies. Being the product of an adaptation/coping intention, it is linked to the conceptual

“decision-making” component of the overall framework. The adaptation/coping process is conceptualised in accordance with “theories of change”, i.e. as the functional interaction of inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes and impacts (see the conceptual component “adaptation/coping process” depicted in the lower right corner of Figure 2.15; see section 2.4.5 for a definition of each of these components). The impacts act on the risk context and thereby connect the “adaptation/coping process” component with the systemic concept of risk introduced previously. Like the systematic

approach for identifying and organising barriers to adaptation by Moser and Ekstrom (2010), this research relies on a diagnostic identification of the barriers along the lines of idealised steps in the process of adaptation/coping. This enables, for example, a more in-depth analysis of the financial efficacy of a measure - a major barrier for many new and innovative adaptation options. Moreover, it allows an identification of governance failures such as corruption which often restrain taking beneficial actions. The analysis of the adaptation/coping process can also show where technological limits of adaptation options are reached and where a lack of access to or awareness of new technologies is a barrier to “good” practices (see Table 2.8 for an exemplary identification of barriers and limits along the lines of the three research components).

Table 2.8: Exemplary identification of barriers to “good” coping/adaptation based on the conceptual framework Conceptual

Env. influences outside the place Ecological and physical limits/barriers

Place-based human conditions Lack of financial resources

Coping/adaptation of other agents Lack of institutional support Individual

decision-making

Perception of risk Cognitive barriers Knowledge barriers

Accessibility of weather data Cognitive biases & heuristics Misperception of own skills

Goals & preferences Adaptation option not accepted

Source: author, arrangement based on the major conceptual components presented above In conclusion, the literature review in the fields of risk, vulnerability, socio-cognitive decision-making and evaluation has provided a pertinent basis for developing an innovative framework which can contribute to both scientific and practice-oriented debates. It builds a conceptual guideline to arrive at a more holistic understanding of vulnerability and its co-dependent relationship with coping and adaptation strategies. This understanding has provided a foundation for analysing what “good”

practices are and why these “good” practices are restrained. In consequence, this approach permits a systematic and integrated way to identify, understand, and overcome barriers to “good” adaptation and coping. In order to understand “good” practices and its barriers in the specific thematic and regional context, the subsequent chapter will present the characteristics of and trends for rural livelihoods, water-related hazards and vulnerabilities in the Mekong Delta, based on a literature review.

3 The Mekong Delta: A geographical and thematic contextualisation

Having outlined the theoretical framing of this research, the specific geographical and thematic context will be outlined as a next step along the way toward reaching the goals of this research. This regional contextualisation is important for several reasons: firstly, it shows what has been researched so far and reveals the gaps which are to be filled in the future. The review of the literature thereby points out relevant research foci for this PhD work. Secondly, it provides an understanding of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. This is of importance because not only do facts not “speak for themselves” if divorced from theory (Sowell 2007: 6) but they are also “mere isolated curiosities” if observed independently from the overall context. Knowing about the research context can provide explanations for observed structures and processes on site; the data can be put in relation to developments in the region; and the implications of the findings can be discussed against the background of their wider relevance. It is these aspects which make an understanding of the Mekong Delta so central in the current research context.

This chapter begins with the Mekong River. Its waters “are the lifeblood of Southeast Asia” (Osborne 2000: I) weaving over a course of more than 4,900 km through China, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam (Stewart, Coclanis 2011; MRC 2010). Before entering the South China Sea, the mighty river splits into nine tributaries fanning out over the most of south-western Vietnam and giving the Mekong Delta the name “Đồng bằng Sông Cửu Long“, i.e.“Nine Dragon River Delta". The nine river branches are the lifelines of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. They have created its distinct topography and hydrology, have been the keystones of its unique and diverse ecosystems, and have shaped the livelihoods of more than 20 % (17 million people) of Vietnam’s population (Garschagen et al. 2012: 87; Le Anh Tuan et al. 2007: 19). Nevertheless, the nine powerful “dragons” are not only vital sources of life but are also closely linked to water-related risks in the region. Both sides have been shown to be subject to a multitude of social and ecological changes in the past and are also expected to pursue a transformative path in the future (Käkönen 2008: 205). All these aspects make it a pertinent region for studying the nature and quality of social responses to changing water-related risks – the thematic foci of this research.

Regionally, this thesis has focused on Tra Cu district in Tra Vinh province. It is a coastal region in the central south of the Mekong Delta. The Tien River, the Hau River and the South China Sea enclose Tra Vinh province. Tra Cu district borders the Hau River and is located in the south-western part of the province, around 20 km from the sea. The research area represents both the closely intertwined relationship with water and the dynamic nature of social and environmental developments in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta.

The following section will provide an overview of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta, Tra Vinh province and Tra Cu district and of the features most relevant to the research project. Firstly, rural livelihoods are characterised against the background of transformation (section 3.1); in a subsequent section the most important water-related hazards are outlined with regard to past and expected future changes (section 3.2). In the following pages, a closer look at the vulnerability of rural households to these hazards will be taken (section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). This provides the basis for characterising coping and adaptation mechanisms in this risk-prone environment (section 3.3.3 and 3.3.4). The last part of this chapter will then review existing evaluations and analyses of risk-related practices (section 3.3.5).