Purpose This study identifies the determinants of livelihood diversification among rice farming households in climate-vulnerable areas of Central Vietnam by applying an integrated perspective drawn from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, Portfolio Theory, Risk Management Theory, and Household Decision-Making Theory. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 278 households randomly selected from a population of 5,194 rice farming households in Thua Thien Hue province. A binary logistic regression model examined how diversification participation is associated with livelihood capital endowments (human, natural, physical, financial, and social) as well as socioeconomic and contextual factors, including vulnerability (climate-change perception and idiosyncratic risks), transformation processes (transportation and urbanisation), and policy/institutional factors (extension services, government support, and credit access). Findings Diversification is associated with substantial welfare differentials, with income increasing by 54% for simple strategies and up to 371.5% for comprehensive multi-activity approaches. Diversification is more likely among households with higher education, better transportation access, greater mobility, and stronger exposure to urbanisation opportunities, while larger farm size, debt, and climate-change perception are associated with lower diversification likelihood. Research limitations/implications Cross-sectional design limits causal inference, though robust theoretical foundation enhances confidence in findings. Geographic scope is limited to Central Vietnam, but careful site selection ensures broader applicability to similar agro-ecological contexts facing climate vulnerability. Originality/value The study provides context-specific evidence on diversification determinants in climate-vulnerable rice systems in Central Vietnam and demonstrates the value of integrating multiple theoretical lenses to improve the policy interpretability of diversification participation under risk and constraints.
Sen et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: