A total of 29 factors were selected from the 50 factors identified throughout three surveys in the research. The number of selected factors in the three components was commensurate. Ten factors in the exposure component represent the top 10 natural hazardous events in Quy Nhon city. There were nine factors in the sensitivity component, which expressed specifically susceptible groups to climate change, divided into two sub-components: demographic and socio-economic profiles. Ten factors in the adaptive capacity component were also grouped into five capitals and represented a wide familiarity of adaptive abilities at the household scale. Although these factors were only identified and selected by a small number of local experts and community leaders, they comprehensively reflected key elements associated with climate change issues in the case study. For example, the top four factors in exposure component generated from this study – including erosion, storms, floods, and droughts – were also found to be the most serious hazards in Quy Nhon city (Tien et al. 2010; IWE 2009; IMHEN 2009a) as well as in the coastal centre of Vietnam (WB 2010; MoNRE 2011). Besides these factors, some other selected factors were related to specialized characteristics of Quy Nhon city, such as sand drifts in the exposure component and salt manufacture in the sensitivity component.
All factors generated from this phase were explained in detail, including their conceptions, frequency in the past and future, and relationships. A high rate (24 factors of total 26 factors) satisfied the proposed consensus level in the Delphi survey. Furthermore, the diversity in stakeholders’ perceptions gathered through multiple means helped build a full picture of climate change issues in the studied areas.
An interesting issue revealed from the study was that participants normally paid more attention to visual elements associated with climate change issues. For example, local experts focused on climatic events which were happening daily, and tangible and serious, such as storms, floods and
changes of rainfall, but some others such as air humidity, evaporation, and monsoon were not
highlighted. This manner significantly affected the way this group identified and selected factors. This presented limitations in reflections about climate change, and this is expected to be a general limitation beyond the case study.
Simultaneously with the identification of 29 factors, 29 indicators were also suggested in the study. All of them reflected the ratio of households possessing a specific element to total studied households. These indicators were appropriate because they expressed the adaptive capacity of households, but also provide a community wide measure.
4.5 Summary
This chapter describes the outputs of Phase 2, the qualitative phase of the research, in which the factors and their indicators within three components of an SVI in Quy Nhon city were identified through a combination of three techniques, including a Delphi survey, in-depth interviews, and two focus group discussions. Local stakeholders were involved in the research process in order to propose specific elements of the case study.
The Delphi survey was designed in three rounds of surveys with the participation of 20 local experts from local academic institutes, university, and government offices. The expert panel represented a diversity of educational and occupational characteristics. All the experts had good education levels and most of them had jobs closely associated with climate change issues. In the first round of the survey, the expert panel suggested 26 factors, including 17 factors in the exposure component and nine factors in the sensitivity component. Some explanations were also offered to clarify each factor. The second round rated factors in each component based on their importance levels. These rates were confirmed and improved in the third round in order to enhance consensus. Practically, the consensus levels of all factors significantly increased from Round 2 to Round 3. There were only two of 26 factors which did not reach the proposed consensus level (70%), and these factors were rejected. Based on the rankings of factors generated from the Delphi survey, all of nine factors in sensitivity component and 10 of 17 factors in exposure component were selected as the main factors for calculating the SVI.
Fourteen experts who participated in the Delphi survey were invited to in-depth interviews. They were asked for detailed explanations of each of the selected factors, as well to propose their indicators. Based on experts’ perspectives, all selected factors were comprehensively described in their conceptions, occurrences, causes, and impacts. Furthermore, the tendency of each factor to occur – both in the past and the future – were also clarified. This information was important not only to develop an SVI, but also to propose adaptive strategies for responding to climate
change in the case study. Local experts suggested 17 indicators for 17 factors. Besides common indicators, some indicators represented particular characteristics of the case study.
Two FGDs were organised with the same content to discuss and propose factors and their indicators in five sub-components of adaptive capacity component, but with different participants. While the first one involved 10 local experts, the second included 10 village leaders. There were 24 factors which were suggested by experts and local leaders in the two FGDs (16 factors from the first FGD, and 17 factors from the second FGD), of which nine factors were in common. The differences in the number of factors among the five sub-components were significant. The two FGDs selected and proposed 10 factors and their indicators in this component.
The use of these techniques in the research revealed both advantages and disadvantages. These issues are discussed in depth in Section 4.4. The potential limitations of each method were analysed and addressed.