sustainability
Article
The Impacts of COVID-19 on Returned Migrants’ Livelihood
Vulnerability in the Central Coastal Region of Vietnam
Le Thi Hoa Sen 1, * , Jennifer Bond 2 , Pham Huu Ty 1 and Le Thi Hong Phuong 1
1
2
*
University of Agriculture and Forestry, Hue University, Hue 530000, Vietnam
Gulbali Institute for Agriculture, Water and Environment, Charles Sturt University,
Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
Correspondence: lthsen@hueuni.edu.vn or sen.lethihoa@huaf.edu.vn
Abstract: This study investigated the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on livelihoods of households with migration workers, who returned home to the central coastal region during the peak
disease outbreak in Vietnam. Five hundred and twenty-nine households with returned migration
workers aged eighteen and above in the coastal areas of Quảng Bình, Quảng Trị, and Thừa Thiên Huế
provinces participated in this study. Results showed that the livelihoods of all studied households
were highly vulnerable due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, with almost 90% at moderate
or high risk according to the vulnerability index. All livelihood assets were negatively affected,
and financial, psychological, and social assets were the most affected, with Common Vulnerability
Score System scores of 3.65, 3.39, and 3.17, respectively. Male, younger workers, or those with a
lower education level and fewer social networks were found to be more vulnerable than others. This
study suggests that young laborers could aim to attain a higher level of education and/or practical
skills to be able to obtain stable employment with benefits such as social insurance if they desire to
out-migrate. Further, social programs which allow for migration workers at the destination to meet
each other may have positive impacts on their vulnerability.
Keywords: COVID-19; livelihood vulnerability; coastal population; migrant workers
Citation: Sen, L.T.H.; Bond, J.; Ty,
P.H.; Phuong, L.T.H. The Impacts of
COVID-19 on Returned Migrants’
Livelihood Vulnerability in the
Central Coastal Region of Vietnam.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15010484
Academic Editors: Yilmaz Bayar and
Ulas Akkucuk
Received: 26 October 2022
Revised: 7 December 2022
Accepted: 15 December 2022
Published: 28 December 2022
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1. Introduction
Since being discovered in Hubei province, China, in December 2019, coronavirus 2
(SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) has spread throughout the world and had severe impacts on
human life [1], the global economy, and poverty [1–4]. The pandemic critically impacted
the livelihoods of people in several respects, including socioeconomically, psychologically,
and physically [5]. These impacts have not been restricted to urban populations, but have
extended to rural communities [6], particularly those dependent on migrant workers [7].
Due to the contagious nature of the virus, numerous protection measures have been
adopted by various administrations (country, region, state/province, or district level), with
the “zero-COVID” approach (i.e., elimination strategy) undertaken by several countries (for
example, Australia, Cambodia, New Zealand, Iceland, and Vietnam) [8]. Measures adopted
under these elimination strategies severely restricted transportation, and production and
consumption within industries, which resulted in millions of enterprises ceasing activities
and millions of workers losing their livelihoods and incomes [9]. Vietnam is not the
exception in this sense. Almost all joint ventures, companies, and enterprises in Vietnam’s
main economic zones (such as Bắc Ninh and Bắc Giang provinces in the North and Bình
Dương, Long An, Tây Ninh, and Hồ Chí Minh City in the South) ceased operations during
2020 and 2021. These restrictions had serious socioeconomic implications, particularly
broken contracts with international partners, thousands of workers stranded in cities, and
subsequent waves of migration from urban areas to ancestral lands in rural areas.
Studies show that livelihoods of rural people have been affected by the COVID19 pandemic in various ways. For example, in rural areas of Ethiopia and Bangladesh,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010484
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
2 of 16
pandemic restrictions have limited farmers’ access to their fields, resulting in reduced
management, lost harvest, and reduced product sold [10,11]. The movement restrictions
also contributed to labor shortages within agriculture production, with severe food losses
along the value chain due to a lack of stakeholder engagement [12–14]. Additionally,
the case of rural Myanmar shows that farmers’ reduced income has led to reduced food
expenditure, while landless households have been severely impacted through lost non-farm
employment and lower remittances [15]. Gatto and Islam (2021) found that many rural
people in Bangladesh, particularly out-migration workers, developed a fear of sickness
when they travelled for livelihood activities. Rural people in Myanmar, Papua New Guinea,
and Nigeria have suffered a severe lack of access to diversified foods due to long movement
restrictions and an inability to afford to buy food to store for long periods [14–16]. The
movement of unemployed people to their ancestral lands also created challenges for food
security and income opportunities in those rural areas [17].
Within the coastal communities of central Vietnam, the picture of migration is an
interesting case. Since a critical marine pollution event in 2016 [18], the area has been
marked by out-migration of young laborers, resulting in the elderly and children left behind
and dependent on remittances (payment of money, often by family members working
elsewhere). However, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic saw waves of migration of
these laborers returning to these coastal communities [19]. While previous research has
analyzed the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s livelihoods [10,20], income,
food security, and psychology [14,21], these studies have not adequately considered the
entirety of households’ livelihood assets and their capacity to cope. COVID-19 impacts are
not the same for different groups of people who have different livelihood vulnerabilities
and capacities, and further research is required to unpack these nuances.
This study focuses on the livelihood vulnerability of the coastal communities of central
Vietnam, where since the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of migration workers have
left the urban areas and returned to their rural villages. This study uses a livelihood
vulnerability framework that considers all livelihood assets and capacities of the studied
communities, in the hope of providing insight for policy development.
Out-Migration as an Adaptation Strategy in the Central Coastal Region of Vietnam
The North central coastal region of Vietnam stretches approximately 700 km of coastline, characterized by a relatively high population density with a poverty rate greater
than 10% in 2020 [22]. It is among the most climate-vulnerable regions of Vietnam [23,24].
These communities have diversified livelihood activities, including crop cultivation, livestock keeping, aquaculture production, offshore fishing, aquatic resource processing (i.e.,
fish sauce), working as waged laborers, and out-migration. The central coastal communities are thus grouped into different household groups: fishing-based households,
agricultural-based households, and aquacultural-based households. However, due to the
land characteristics of white-sand dunes with poor fertility, the communities have been
increasingly more reliant on aquaculture and fisheries for livelihoods [22,25], although this
level of aquaculture and fisheries reliance depends on households’ livelihood sources and
capacity [22].
Recent studies show that these communities’ livelihoods are increasingly vulnerable to multiple stressors, such as climate change, exhausted aquatic resources, marine
environmental shocks, and unstable small-scale aquaculture production [26]. With this
background, the region is famous for both domestic and international out-migration. The
national or rural–urban migration has been increasing over time, mainly for young laborers,
with the peak wave of rural–urban migration in the region after the marine environmental
pollution shock in 2016 [26,27]. This wave of movement was considered as a livelihood
adaptation strategy for majority of small-scale fishing households most affected [27]. Many
of these households have kept their land resources and other livelihood capital at their
homeland for security when facing risk at the migration destination, while others sold
all their livelihood resources, such as land, house, fishponds, or fishing facilities before
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
3 of 16
migrating [26]. This may lead to different levels of livelihood vulnerability of the laborers
who have now returned due to COVID-19.
2. Methods
2.1. Livelihood Vulnerability Indexes
Vulnerability is understood as the capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover
from the impact of disaster or shock [28]. Vulnerability can be considered from different
perspectives, such as social vulnerability (social and demographic vulnerability at the
community level) [29] and environmental vulnerability (i.e., environmental change, often at
the scale of nation states) [30]. A third type, livelihood vulnerability, can be encompassing
of a range of relevant dimensions (i.e., sociodemographic, climatic, health) and focus on
the scale of the household [31], making it a useful indicator for development and relevant
to the present study. Household livelihood vulnerability to the COVID-19 pandemic is the
capacity of households to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on their livelihoods.
According to the Department for International Development (DFID, UK) framework,
sustainable livelihoods are built on five asset types: human, financial, physical, social, and
natural. When one of the asset types is disrupted, household livelihoods are subjected to
vulnerability. Thus, an assessment of livelihood vulnerability should consider all five of
these household asset types. Recent studies [11,32,33] investigated all livelihood dimensions and household head perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic, providing a relevant
background for this study. This study took point of departure in the vulnerability indicators
developed by Yazdanpanah et al. [33] and Paul et al. [32] and further developed these based
on community consultation with key informants, to suit the local conditions. In addition to
the five livelihood assets of DFID’s framework, this study included a psychology asset in
line with other studies [33] as this is a key component of COVID-19 vulnerability.
The financial asset dimension included six items related to losses of household income
due to the pandemic. The natural asset was formed with four items about effectiveness of
use of natural assets during the pandemic, the human asset was assessed with four items,
including health and education, the physical asset included four items regarding physical
protection from the infection, the social asset included seven items covering social issues
of the pandemic, and finally, the psychological asset covered four items about people’s
perceptions of risks of the pandemic. Table 1 presents the 29 assessment items (indicators)
covering 6 household asset dimensions, which will be used in this study to calculate the
vulnerability index. All items are measured by a 5-point Likert scale. The higher the
calculated score (1–5), the greater the vulnerability level.
Table 1. Household livelihood vulnerability indexes.
Livelihood Assets
Financial vulnerability
(6 items)
Assessment Item/Indicator
Source
COVID-19 pandemic has reduced household income from agriculture
[11,33]
COVID-19 pandemic has reduced household income from remittance
[15]
COVID-19 pandemic has reduced household income from off-farm activities
[15]
COVID-19 pandemic has pushed up food prices for households
[33,34]
COVID-19 pandemic has increase costs to rural households
[32,33]
If COVID-19 pandemic continues, poverty and inequality in rural communities
will increase
[32,33]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
4 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Livelihood Assets
Assessment Item/Indicator
Many farming activities delayed due to COVID-19 pandemic
Natural asset vulnerability
(4 items)
During COVID-19 pandemic, many natural and recreational facilities are unused
Due to COVID-19, agricultural outputs decreased
Due to COVID-19 pandemic, many land fields cannot be well-prepared for
planting crops
Human asset vulnerability
(4 items)
Physical asset
vulnerability (4 items)
Social asset vulnerability
(7 items)
[10,33]
[33]
[10,11]
[15]
COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of educational institutions: schools,
education centers, universities
[33,35]
Rural communities do not have adequate health information to reduce the risk of
COVID-19 infection
[5,33]
During COVID-19 pandemic, rural communities do not have adequate access to
medical staff (nurses and doctors)
[5,33]
Rural communities do not have sufficient counselling services to cope with effects
of COVID-19 pandemic
[33]
Rural communities do not have adequate access to the required disinfectants and
sanitary detergents (masks, gloves, washing gels)
[33]
Rural communities do not have adequate access to pharmaceutical items during
COVID-19 pandemic
[33]
The rural community is not able to fully comply with the principles of quarantine
and health needed for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic
[33]
Lack of reliable sources of information on the control and treatment of COVID-19
[33]
COVID-19 pandemic has decreased people’s trust in each other
[33]
During COVID-19 pandemic, I do not trust national media information
[33]
COVID-19 pandemic has caused the changing of traditions and customs:
meetings, religious celebrations
[33]
COVID-19 pandemic has changed the levels of social insecurity
[17]
COVID-19 pandemic has changed ways of living, social behavior (increase saving,
think of longer term and safety)
[33]
COVID-19 pandemic has caused social discrimination (poor, returned migration)
Perceptions of risks of
pandemic/Psychological
asset (4 items)
Source
[36]
COVID-19 pandemic has created food shortage for households
[14,33]
People have a lot of anxiety and worry about getting COVID-19
[14,16,33]
During COVID-19 pandemic, social tensions are very high
[15,33]
During COVID-19 pandemic, depression and neurological diseases increase
[15,33]
During COVID-19 pandemic, disappointment can be felt on the faces of farmers
[33]
2.2. Study Area and Sample Size
At the time of conducting this research, the COVID-19 pandemic was still a serious
issue in the study area, with a third wave of COVID-19 causing deaths and urban–rural
migration in Vietnam. With the appearance of Omicron cases in Vietnam at the beginning
of 2022, movement restrictions were in force in many parts of the country, including the
study provinces. Therefore, the selection of communes and households depended largely
on the accessibility of the research sites and households.
Communes and villages with “green” or “yellow” signs were accessible. Based on the
list of “green” and “yellow” communes provided by the Provincial People’s Committee of
the studied provinces, 11 coastal communes were selected for the research (4 communes in
Thừa Thiên Huế, 4 communes in Quảng Trị, and 3 communes in Quảng Bình province).
In total, 529 households were randomly selected from the list of households who had
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
5 of 16
migrant laborers aged 18 and above entering the provinces during the third wave of the
COVID-19 pandemic at the beginning of June 2021. This list was provided by the Provincial
People’s Committee of the three studied provinces. The location of the studied communes
is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Location of the studied communes.
2.3. Data Collection
Data for the study were collected from household surveys and focus group discussions.
A closed questionnaire covering 45 indicators focusing on household demographics, economic information, livelihood assets, and livelihood vulnerability indicators was designed.
The questionnaire included two parts, one for migration workers and the other for their
household head. In some cases, the migration worker was also the household head. The
questionnaire was pre-tested prior to the main survey and adjusted accordingly. Then,
3 group discussions were organized with the involvement of 36 key informants, including
return migrants and commune officers (12 key informants per group, 1 group discussion
per province). The group discussions focused on verifying vulnerability indices/indicators
due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.4. Data Analysis
Since all assessment items are measured by a Likert scale, Cronbach’s alpha test
was used to test the reliability of the assessment items. All assessment items needed
to have a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient greater than 0.7, otherwise they were removed
from the adjusted index [37]. Households’ livelihood vulnerability to the COVID-19
pandemic was scored through the mean of all asset items. The mean score was also
calculated for each asset. ANOVA was used to analyze the distribution of the effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic on livelihood assets, and the difference of vulnerability levels
among households in the three provinces. To assess the vulnerability level of the studied
households, this study adopted the Common Vulnerability Score System (CVSS) and
classified household livelihood vulnerability to COVID-19 within 4 groups [38]: Low:
A ≤ 2; Moderate: 2 < B ≤ 3.5; High: 3.5 < C ≤ 4; Critical: 4 < D≤≤ 5.
≤
To improve
adaptive capacity under the COVID-19 pandemic,
≤ households’ livelihood
≤
it is important to identify factors influencing their levels of vulnerability. An OLS linear
regression was applied to analyze factors shaping the level of livelihood vulnerability
of households. The dependent variable was the estimated vulnerability score of each
household and independent variables were households’ socioeconomic characteristics,
including family size, land areas owned, number of income sources, household income per
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
6 of 16
year, and demographic status of migrant workers such age, gender, education level, years of
out-migration, number of memberships of social organizations, social and health insurance
status, and province of origin. Thua Thien Hue province was the reference category of the
variable of province of origin.
3. Results
3.1. Description of the Studied Variables
Five hundred and twenty-nine migrant laborers aged eighteen and over who returned
home during the peak COVID-19 pandemic period in 2021 participated in this study. The
proportion of female migration workers involved in the study was higher than males (52.4%
and 47.6% for females and males, respectively) (Table 2). Respondents’ age ranged from
18 to 69 years old. The average age was in the range of 30–35 years and they had left their
home village for income generation activities for between 3.7 and 8.5 years. The education
level of migration workers was quite high as the majority had completed secondary school.
More respondents from Quảng Trị were female than male, and these respondents were
generally younger but had higher levels of education than respondents from Quảng Bình
and Thừa Thiên Huế provinces.
Table 2. Demographic information of migrant workers and their families.
Mean Value
#
Description Characters
Unit
Quảng Bình
(n = 122)
Quảng Trị
(n = 120)
Thừa Thiên Huế
(n = 287)
Sig.
Total
1
Age of migration laborer
Year
31.22 (10.29) *
30.14 (8.07)
35.18 (11.49)
0.000
33.12 (10.49)
Male
%
43.4
64.2
42.5
-
47.6
Female
%
56.6
35.8
57.5
-
52.4
Gender
2
3
Education level of
migration laborer
Class
9.84 (2.05)
10.66 (2.97)
9.34 (2.76)
0.000
9.76 (2.44)
4
No. of years of
out-migration
Year
3.7 (3.1)
6.0 (4.9)
8.5 (7.5)
0.000
6.58 (6.28)
5
Having health insurance
%
90.16
95.80
96.67
-
94.5
6
Having social insurance
%
39.80
26.67
38.33
-
32.8
7
Social network
Count
1.75 (0.95)
1.25 (0.92)
1.55 (0.98)
0.121
1.60 (0.96)
8
Family size
Person
3.66 (0.90)
4.21 (1.1)
3.89 (1.2)
0.001
3.91 (1.12)
9
Land area
Ha
0.13 (0.07)
0.21 (0.23)
0.22 (0.60)
0.000
0.18 (0.46)
10
Income sources
Count
2.93 (1.23)
2.54 (1.01)
3.21 (1.13)
0.036
2.78 (1.12)
11
Average annual income
level
Million/year
37.24 (41.37)
43.77
(64.04)
39.28 (32.68)
0.000
46.58 (45.90)
12
Responsible for finances
and income of the family
%
75.8
82.0
66.6
*: Number in parentheses is standard deviation.
Almost all migration workers (94.5%) had health insurance, but a much lower proportion had social insurance (a guarantee to replace or partially compensate an employee’s
income when his/her income is reduced or lost due to illness, maternity leave, work
accident, occupational disease, death, or retirement, based on contributions to the social
insurance fund). The proportion of migrant workers who had social insurance was significantly lower in Quảng Trị than the other two provinces. On average, each migrant worker
had 1.6 networks (i.e., a member of 1.6 networks or community organizations). The most
popular was the “origin” network (i.e., a network of people from the same place of origin).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
7 of 16
Quảng Trị had the lowest value (1.25) for the social network indicator, suggesting that
migration workers in Quảng Trị had fewer social contacts or social networks than migrant
workers from the other provinces.
The average family size of the migrant workers was 3.91 people. Annual income of their
families was around 44.58 million VND (approximately USD 1938, USD 1 ≈ 23,000 VND)
from 2.7 income sources, and each family had an average area of 0.18 ha for agricultural
cultivation. There were significant differences in land area, sources of income, and income
levels of studied households among the three provinces. Respondents from Quảng Trị
province had the highest number of income sources, family size, as well as income level.
3.2. Livelihood Vulnerability Components and Indicators for Migrant Laborers’ Families
As presented in the previous section, a set of 29 indicators (adopted from [33]) was
used to assess migrant laborers’ households’ livelihood vulnerability due to impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The indicator set was adjusted and reduced to 27 indicators after
a Cronbach Alpha test (2 indicators were removed, including “COVID-19 pandemic has
caused social discrimination” and “During COVID-19 pandemic, rural communities do
not have adequate access to medical staff”). Table 3 shows the results of calculating the
vulnerability score for each livelihood asset and related components, indicating that all
6 livelihood components had a vulnerability score in the range of 2.62 to 3.65. Among
them, the financial asset category had the highest vulnerability score, with 3.65, followed
by psychological vulnerability with a score of 3.39. The physical asset category had the
lowest vulnerability score (2.62). There was significant variation in vulnerability scores of
the studied households among the three provinces.
Table 3. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on livelihood assets of migration households.
Vulnerability Score
Quảng Bình
(n = 122)
Quảng Trị
(n = 120)
Thừa Thiên Huế
(n = 287)
Sig.
Total
(n = 529)
3.79 (0.52) *
3.86 (0.57)
3.50 (0.84)
0.000
3.65 (0.74)
COVID-19 pandemic has reduced household income
from agriculture
3.16 (1.17)
3.73 (1.14)
3.03 (1.25)
0.000
3.22 (1.23)
COVID-19 pandemic has reduced household income
from remittance
3.93 (0.93)
3.93 (1.03)
3.90 (1.16)
0.937
3.92 (1.08)
COVID-19 pandemic has reduced household income
from off-farm activities
3.93 (0.69)
3.78 (0.87)
3.97 (1.15)
0.228
3.92 (1.00)
COVID-19 pandemic has pushed up food prices
for households
3.99 (0.67)
4.05 (0.79).
3.74 (0.95)
0.001
3.87 (0.87)
COVID-19 pandemic has increased costs to
rural households
3.96 (0.78)
3.95 (0.86)
3.63 (1.09)
0.001
3.78 (0.98)
If COVID-19 pandemic continues, poverty and
inequality in rural communities will increase
3.80 (0.82)
3.73 (0.99)
3.47 (1.23)
0.007
3.61 (1.10)
Natural asset vulnerability (4 items)
3.61 (0.90)
3.47 (0.95)
3.19 (1.00)
0.000
3.35 (0.98)
Many farming activities delayed due to COVID-19
pandemic
3.24 (1.21)
3.37 (1.18)
3.15 (1.29)
0.295
3.22 (1.25)
During COVID-19 pandemic, many natural and
recreational facilities are unused
4.36 (0.89)
4.05 (1.00)
3.76 (1.28)
0.000
3.97 (1.17)
Due to COVID-19, agricultural outputs decreased (lack
of proper management and caring of farmers)
3.71 (1.22)
3.26 (1.3)
3.11 (1.22)
0.000
3.28 (1.26)
Due to COVID-19 pandemic, many land fields cannot be
well-prepared for planting crops
3.17 (1.07)
3.20 (1.36)
3.05 (1.24)
0.462
3.11 (1.23)
Assessment Item/Indicator
Financial vulnerability (6 items)
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
8 of 16
Table 3. Cont.
Vulnerability Score
Quảng Bình
(n = 122)
Quảng Trị
(n = 120)
Thừa Thiên Huế
(n = 287)
Sig.
Total
(n = 529)
Human asset vulnerability (3 items)
2.46 (1.10)
3.40 (0.90)
2.90 (1.02)
0.000
2.91 (1.06)
COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the closure of
educational institutions: schools, education
centers, universities
2.08 (1.29)
2.84 (1.41)
2.27 (1.30)
0.000
2.35 (1.35)
During COVID-19 pandemic, rural communities do not
have adequate access to medical staff (nurses
and doctors)
2.96 (1.22)
3.93 (0.91)
3.27 (1.19)
0.000
3.35 (1.19)
Rural communities do not have sufficient counselling
services to cope with effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
2.35 (1.28)
3.43 (1.06)
3.19 (1.32)
0.000
3.05 (1.31)
Physical asset vulnerability (4 items)
2.17 (1.06)
2.82 (1.02)
2.73 (1.13)
0.000
2.62 (1.12)
Rural communities do not have adequate access to the
required disinfectants and sanitary detergents (masks,
gloves, washing gels)
2.11 (1.27)
2.93 (1.21)
2.80 (1.33)
0.000
2.67 (1.33)
Rural communities do not have adequate access to
pharmaceutical items during COVID-19 pandemic
2.37 (1.06)
2.88 (1.16)
2.83 (1.34)
0.001
2.73 (1.25)
Due to the existing facilities and physical structure, the
rural community is not able to fully comply with the
principles of quarantine and health needed for the
containment of the COVID-19 pandemic
2.13 (1.23)
2.73 (1.20)
2.79 (1.34)
0.000
2.63 (1.31)
Lack of reliable sources of information on the control
and treatment of COVID-19
2.08 (1.24)
2.75 (1.20)
2.53 (1.40)
0.000
2.47 (1.33)
Social asset vulnerability (6 items)
2.85 (1.02)
3.50 (0.68)
3.17 (0.79)
0.000
3.17 (0.85)
COVID-19 pandemic has decreased people’s trust in
each other
2.68 (1.51)
3.69 (1.13)
2.90 (1.43)
0.000
3.03 (1.44)
During COVID-19 pandemic, I do not trust national
media information
2.13 (1.29)
2.71 (1.14)
2.65 (1.42)
0.001
2.54 (1.35)
COVID-19 pandemic has caused the changing of
traditions and customs: meetings, religious celebrations
3.07 (1.54)
4.15 (0.77)
3.78 (1.02)
0.000
3.70 (1.18)
COVID-19 pandemic has changed the levels of
social insecurity
2.66 (1.34)
3.29 (1.15)
3.25 (1.31)
0.000
3.12 (1.31)
COVID-19 pandemic has change lifestyle, ways of
living, social behavior (increased saving, think of longer
term and safety)
3.22 (1.13)
3.86 (0.97)
3.53 (1.28)
0.000
3.54 (1.20)
COVID-19 pandemic has created a food shortage for
households
3.43 (0.90)
3.31 (1.083)
2.99 (1.37)
0.001
3.16 (1.23)
Perceptions of risks of pandemic/Psychological asset
(4 items)
3.06 (1.22)
3.99 (0.67)
3.27 (0.94)
0.000
3.39 (1.02)
People have a lot of anxiety and worry about getting
COVID-19
3.16 (1.54)
4.37 (0.70)
3.76 (1.14)
0.000
3.76 (1.23)
During COVID-19 pandemic, social tensions are
very high
3.36 (1.63)
4.44 (0.70)
4.06 (0.89)
0.000
3.98 (1.14)
During COVID-19 pandemic, depression and
neurological diseases increase
2.94 (1.33)
3.61 (1.06)
2.88 (1.40)
0.000
3.06 (1.34)
During COVID-19 pandemic, disappointment can be
felt on the faces of farmers
2.81 (1.17)
3.54 (1.23)
2.56 (1.44)
0.000
2.84 (1.39)
Total vulnerability score
2.94 (0.60)
3.52 (0.56)
3.09 (0.63)
0.000
3.15 (0.64)
Assessment Item/Indicator
*: Number in parentheses is standard deviation.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
9 of 16
The financial asset category scoring the highest vulnerability index was due to a
reduction in all sources of income due to the application of strict prevention measures,
such as social distancing, lockdowns, and quarantining during COVID-19, particularly for
income from remittance and on-farm activities. Migration households of Quảng Trị had
significantly higher financial losses due to COVID-19 than those in the other two provinces
(p < 0.000). The losses in agriculture for Quảng Trị households were due to an inability
of farmers to sell their produce in the market due to lockdowns, despite the time being
peak harvest season. Additionally, these lockdowns encompassed the entire commune
in Quảng Trị and Quảng Bình provinces, unlike in Thừa Thiên Huế where smaller areas
such as communities or a group of households were affected. This meant that households
not only suffered more agricultural losses but also had increased household expenses due
to lockdowns.
The natural asset category for the study households also showed very high scores of
vulnerabilities due to the impacts of COVID-19. The results indicated that many natural
assets such as farmland and recreational facilities were unused due to the lockdown or
quarantine measures. In all three provinces, households’ natural assets also received a high
vulnerability score (3.35), and respondents of Quảng Bình province had a considerably
higher vulnerability score for this asset than respondents in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên
Huế (p < 0.000). Lack of use of the household’s natural and recreational facilities during the
COVID-19 pandemic was scored highly by respondents in Quảng Bình province (4.36).
Human asset and physical asset categories had lower vulnerability scores than other
categories (only 2.91 and 2.62, respectively), although respondent households did not have
adequate access to medical staff, had insufficient counseling services to cope with the effects
of the COVID-19 pandemic, and had a lack of reliable sources of information regarding the
control and treatment of COVID-19. COVID-19 significantly influenced social tensions and
psychological assets of migration workers and their family members.
Psychological assets were also shown to be significantly affected by the pandemic
due to COVID-19 infection spread, exposure, and related health risks. It was hard for
respondents to access hospitals and receive advice for treatment, despite most respondents
having health insurance during the period of high daily infection rates and death.
Both migration workers and their family members in their homelands were found to
have high social vulnerability during the pandemic (3.17). For migration workers, it was
revealed that the pandemic was a shock, and they were in a situation of high social risks and
social insecurity at the destination (prior to returning to their rural home) because of a lack
of information, lack of income, and reduced food access during periods of strict movement
regulations of unknown duration (was not clear when the movement restrictions would be
eased). Due to lockdown measures, respondents stated that they stayed with other migrant
workers (in the destination place prior to returning to their rural homes) in rented houses
for many weeks in very poor conditions, such as: small rooms (most migration workers
shared a room with others to save money), poor facilities for food storage, drinking water,
and other daily necessities, and people had to wait for others to supply them with food and
were unsure when they would receive the food. Many migrant workers did not receive
any support from their workplace, and they did not know where and who they should call
for help during the lockdown period. Some of the interviewees reflected that they did not
experience these social insecurity problems and unsafe life until the COVID-19 pandemic.
At the place of origin (i.e., rural homeland) during the peak COVID-19 pandemic,
people also faced social problems, such as a lack of reliable information, an inability to
visit and take care of relatives, and an inability to attend social events such as funerals,
weddings, traditional festivals, and family meetings. Respondents stated that in many
cases, there was social tension and disappointment as people did not trust each other in
providing support, information, and obeying the COVID-19 regulations.
The pandemic significantly disrupted traditions and customs, such as funerals, weddings, traditional group meetings, visiting, and taking care of relatives, leading to the
respondents’ perceived high social vulnerability (3.70). This was particularly the case in
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
10 of 16
Quảng Trị province, with the score of 4.15. Anxiety, worry about getting COVID-19, and
social tensions contributed to a very high vulnerability score (3.98). Quảng Trị respondents
again had a higher score of anxiety and social tension than those in Quảng Bình and Thừa
Thiên Huế province (p < 0.000). This might be due to the number of studied households
in Quang Tri with male migration workers, who traditionally have greater responsibility
for the family’s livelihood, being much higher than the other two provinces. Additionally, more migrant workers in Quảng Tri than in the other two provinces did not have
social insurance and were in unstable employment (no written contract) at the destination.
However, additional studies are needed to investigate this relationship further.
Overall, according to the CVSS classification, livelihoods of a very large proportion
of migrant workers and their families in the studied region were highly vulnerable to
the impacts of COVID-19. Up to 10.2% of respondents and their families were at critical
vulnerability and 42.7% were at moderate vulnerability (Table 4). Among the three studied
provinces, Quảng Trị had the highest percentage of households at high (55.0% > 43.6% and
41%) and critical vulnerability (18.3% > 5.7% and 8.7%).
Table 4. Distribution of vulnerability level among livelihood assets.
Frequency (%)
Household
Groups
Low: A ≤ 2
Moderate: 2 < B ≤ 3.5
High: 3.5 < C ≤ 4
Critical: 4 < D ≤ 5
Quảng Bình
0
53.3
41.0
5.7
Quảng Trị
0
26.7
55.0
18.3
Thừa Thiên Huế
2.8
44.9
43.6
8.7
Total
1.5
42.7
45.6
10.2
Factors shaping the livelihood vulnerability level of migration workers and their
families are presented in Table 5. The results show that the age and education level of
migration workers, province, number of social memberships, livelihood responsibility,
household land area, household’s income sources, and household’s average annual income
were significant determinants of the level of livelihood vulnerability of migration workers
and their families due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results indicated that
keeping all other variables constant, a one-year age increase of a migrant worker would
reduce their and their family’s livelihood vulnerability score by 0.011. Migration workers
with an increase of one year of education would lead to a reduction of 0.031 in their family
livelihood vulnerability score. Being a member of one extra social network would result
in a decrease of 0.11 for their livelihood vulnerability score. Responsibility of migration
workers for the livelihood of their family indicated the importance of remittances to ensure
their financial assets and resilience of the family at the home village. Migrant workers who
were responsible for the livelihood of their family at home had a higher vulnerability score
than those who were not (by 0.275). Among the three provinces, migrant workers and their
families from Quảng Trị province were significantly more vulnerable than those in Quảng
Bình and Thừa Thiên Huế provinces (p < 0.000).
Table 5. Factors shaping the levels of COVID-19 impacts on livelihood (dependent variable: level of
vulnerability, a higher vulnerability score indicates higher vulnerability of the household).
Variables
Age of migration laborer (year)
Gender (male = 0)
Education level of migration worker (class/year)
Family size (person)
Land areas (ha)
Coefficient (B)
STD
t-Value
−0.011 ***
0.002
−4.731
0.005
0.047
0.109
−0.031 **
0.010
−3.139
0.010
0.020
0.494
−0.581 ***
0.109
−5.320
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
11 of 16
Table 5. Cont.
Variables
Coefficient (B)
STD
t-Value
−0.214 ***
0.023
−9.195
Having health insurance (0 = No)
−0.001
0.001
−1.772
Having social insurance (0 = No)
−0.003 *
0.100
−0.029
0.057
0.052
1.111
−0.11 **
0.004
−2.940
−0.142 ***
0.025
−5.609
Responsible for livelihood of people at home (No = 0)
0.275 ***
0.052
5.238
Quang Tri
0.658 ***
0.062
10.601
Quang Binh
0.074
0.061
1.216
Constant
4.386
0.184
23.818
Income sources (#)
Number of years of out-migration (years)
Number of social organizations as a member
Household income per year (million VND)
R square
56.0
***, **, and * Represent 99%, 95%, and 90% significance levels, respectively.
4. Discussion
This study investigated the livelihood vulnerability of households that had a migrant
laborer return home due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the associated
factors affecting their level of vulnerability. It is the first research investigating livelihood
vulnerability of returned migration workers and their households in the north central
coastal communities of Vietnam. Findings showed that almost all returned migration workers (98.5%) and their families had livelihoods at moderate or high levels of vulnerability
due to COVID-19. A high percentage (67.2%) of returned migrant workers did not have
social insurance, indicating that many of them had no stable or long-term contract job at the
destination. Almost all migrant workers lost their job and had no income for many months
and fell into critical financial vulnerability as a consequence of the COVID-19 prevention
measures, such as extensive lockdowns, quarantine, social distancing, and traffic and commercial restrictions. These preventative measures also significantly reduced family incomes
through reduced farm productivity (unable to manage their farm properly), reduced product quality (farm products could not be harvested on time, creating significant losses), and
reduced market opportunities. This finding was consistent with previous research in other
parts of the Vietnam [5,20], as well as in India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Further, our
research found that there were no interventions from related agriculture departments and
the local governments to help locked-down or quarantined households. The impacts of
the pandemic may not have been so severe on households if agricultural departments and
local governments (i.e., commune and village leaders) could have collaboratively managed
agriculture fields with farmers and distributed goods and agriculture products throughout
the country to reduce food shortages and avoid increased living costs.
Results showed that the working environment and life for migrant workers at the
destination place were socially unsafe/insecure and led to critical social vulnerability
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which had indirect impacts on their families. The
third wave of COVID-19 was a serious outbreak, with thousands of severe new cases
and hundreds of daily deaths that pushed many people, particularly migrant workers
and the poor, into psychological vulnerability. The score of 3.39 (Table 3) indicated a
relatively high psychological vulnerability of migrant workers and their families due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents worried about getting COVID-19 experienced
increasing depression and psychological strain, as well as other social tensions such as
shortages of food, living in isolation from relatives (lonely) when infected, and difficulties
accessing hospitals or medical services. These findings support the results of previous
research in Vietnam and other countries [5,35,39]. It was also found that migrant workers
without social insurance were more vulnerable than those who had social insurance, as
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
12 of 16
those with social insurance normally have a stable job with a long-term contract. Many
migrants were able to become a long-term resident and setup their family at the destination
place, without considering returning home. A large number of migration workers who
decided to leave their migration destination for home during the crisis do not think of
remigration/out-migration again. They prefer to seek out a living on their marginal farms
or find work in their nearby town [40].
The regression results highlighted that the age of migration workers was an important
deciding factor of households’ livelihood vulnerability. The older the migration workers
were, the less they perceived social vulnerability. Older migration workers felt happy with
their return to their rural home and did not feel vulnerable, as they perceived they would
have a safe and stable life with their family members, taking care of each other during
and after the pandemic. The results section showed that, almost all migrant workers who
returned home during the COVID-19 pandemic did not have stable jobs or worked in
unorganized sectors without written contracts at their destination place. Their purpose of
migration was to earn money to send home for their family members. Respondents stated
that they considered returning to their home village with their family members: “when
we get older, we think more about returning home. Many of us considered the COVID-19
pandemic as a good time to decide to return home”.
A high education level is a pre-condition to obtain a long-term contract and higher
wages. With more education, workers not only have more job opportunities but are
also more proactive in accessing job information and a better income, and thus are less
vulnerable to crises than those with low education [41]. The migrant workers with a lower
education level, thus, were more vulnerable to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic than
those with higher education. This finding confirmed results of previous studies [5,42].
Further, the regression results also showed that migration workers’ networking plays a
very important role in reducing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participating in diversified networking or being a member of diverse social organizations, such as the
origin association (group for people who have migrated from the same place), classmates,
or living communities (i.e., roommate or job mate), workers can access more socioeconomic
information and job opportunities, engage in reciprocal relationships, and help each other
when any members are in trouble. A migration worker in Thừa Thiên Huế said that: “I was
able to be confident and felt less stress during the COVID-19 outbreak than others thanks to
the support of people within the origin association, my child’s parental group, and youth
union at the destination place. We had formed Zalo groups for information during the
COVID-19 crisis. I was always informed and shared information, supported with food and
necessary living stuff during lockdown period. These Zalo groups are very valuable for all,
particularly for who still stay at the destination [due to some reasons, they couldn’t return
to their homeland]. Without membership of such networks and organizations I would have
been very stressed”. However, many respondents, particularly from Quảng Trị province,
expressed that they did not have time to join groups, or did not know about these groups
prior to the pandemic as they focused on alternative ways to earn money and worked extra
hours to send money home. Therefore, they were not connected to these groups at the onset
of the pandemic. These respondents experienced greater psychological tension returning
to their homeland because they think other villagers see them as jobless or a source of
COVID-19 for the community. This led to mistrust and influenced the traditional ways of
living and treating others among community members. This indicates the importance of
participating in community networks and social activities to increase social integration and
resilience.
For migrant workers’ households, the results of the livelihood vulnerability indexes
showed that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted negatively on all households’ livelihood
assets. The levels of vulnerability varied among asset types. The linear regression analysis
showed that land resources were among the important natural assets that significantly
decided the level of a household’s livelihood vulnerability due to the impacts of COVID-19
(p < 0.001). The results indicated that the larger the agricultural land areas owned by
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
13 of 16
households, the lower their overall livelihood vulnerability score. It was explained by
respondents and key informants that those households who owned more agricultural land
were more vulnerable in relation to financial assets due to the loss in farm income due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, however larger agricultural land helped migrant workers
and their family members have less social and psychological vulnerability. With larger
agricultural land, they feel more secure in the long term and they have more alternative
livelihood options than landless farmers. This finding is consistent with the results of
some studies [10,35], but contradicts others [43] that state that the COVID-19 pandemic
reduced availability and increased costs of farm labor, which in turn resulted in a decline
in land area cultivated. However, quite a large number of respondents in this study sold or
rented out their agriculture and/or aquaculture land to others when their main laborers
out-migrated. Others kept land unused or unproductively used, but as they still owned the
land, they were less social and psychologically vulnerable than those who had already sold
their land.
Household income per year was found to strongly influence livelihood vulnerability
due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of group discussions pointed out that
households with a high annual income might have had more financial vulnerability due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, but they may have had less social tension and psychological
vulnerability than those who had a lower annual income thanks to their savings and
livelihood capacity (particularly earning capacity). Many respondents also believe that
losses were just temporary, and that they are capable of adjusting their farming to adapt to
the situation. This finding differs from the results of studies from South Wollo and Oromia
zones of Ethiopia, where the effects of COVID-19 not only temporarily paused income
sources but have also ceased livelihood activities on an enduring basis [10]. However, this
study’s respondents’ perceptions and beliefs helped to release social tension regarding food
shortages or psychological stress from a disappointing farming output.
Diversification of income sources helps rural households build resilience to shocks
and crises [44]. A number of studied households had relatively diversified income sources,
including agriculture, handicraft, aquaculture, fish processing, and remittances, while
many others depended heavily on one or two sources, particularly remittances. These are
households with old people and children staying at home, while the main laborers have
out-migrated to earn a living. With the lack of a labor force, these households could not
farm or undertake aquaculture. They then had to rent out lands or aquaculture ponds, or
even sell all their farming equipment. The livelihood vulnerability of this household group
was shown to be negatively and significantly affected when the migrant laborer(s) stopped
sending remittances and returned home. The study also showed that migrant workers with
more responsibility for the livelihoods of people at the home village were more affected
by the pandemic. According to the survey, those who have greater responsibility for their
family in the home rural village were more likely to experience a greater fear of job loss due
to COVID-19 and stress from no longer being able to send remittances to their family. This
may lead to significant impacts on their mental health. This study confirms the research
of Bui et al. [5] in other parts of Vietnam that workers who decided to out-migrate for the
family livelihood now experience a fear of themselves becoming dependent on the family
due to their job loss.
In this research, the households’ origin (province) was found to be very important to
their livelihood vulnerability due to COVID-19 impacts. Respondents from Quảng Trị were
more vulnerable than those of the other two provinces. Socioeconomic capacity and culture
may be the main characteristics creating this difference among provinces. No previous
studies have clearly addressed these factors, except for a report published by UNESCO [36],
which indicates that culture and social relations are very important for reducing social tension and psychological vulnerability of individuals and communities during the COVID-19
outbreak. Key informants discussed the history of people in Quảng Trị province suffering
greatly during the war (i.e., this was the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)) and how the coastal
areas of the province continue to experience multiple stressors, including extreme weather
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
14 of 16
and climate change (e.g., extremely hot and dry southwest wind, flood, drought, typhoon),
poor and exhausted natural resources (including marine environmental pollution), as well
as the more recent disappointment of job and income loss and subsequently becoming
dependent on their family. In addition, the social activities of many workers, particularly
Quảng Trị respondents, at their destination place depended largely on their origin association, and they had less diverse networks than respondents from Quảng Bình and Thừa
Thiên Huế provinces, and thus did not integrate into society at the destination during
the crisis. Consequently, they were more socially vulnerable and suffered more from the
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study has been able to provide key data in the area of livelihood vulnerability
of returned migrant workers and their families in the central provinces of Vietnam. It
should be noted, however, that this was a cross-sectional study and conducted during a
severe period of the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore there were some restrictions on
methodology, such as not being able to capture the variation of households’ livelihood
vulnerability over time and grouping all migration workers and their households for
analysis. Future research could build on this work by grouping households by the level
of dependence on remittances, such as: high dependence, moderate dependence, and
low dependence, or by household income strategy, such as: fishing-based households,
aquaculture-based households, and agricultural-based households.
5. Conclusions and Implications
Similar to other studies, this research has shown that livelihoods of migration workers
and their families at the place of origin were highly vulnerable due to the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic. This study employed the livelihood vulnerability index and found
that almost 90% of migrant workers and their families were at moderate or high vulnerability. While all livelihood assets were negatively affected, the degree of vulnerability
varied significantly among assets. Financial assets were the most affected, followed by
psychological and social assets. Alternatively, physical assets and human assets were the
dimensions that respondent households were least vulnerable to.
Further, younger workers or those with a lower education level and fewer number
of social networks were found to be more vulnerable than others. This suggests that to
improve financial asset of the households, young laborers could aim to attain a higher
level of education and try to participate in social insurance programs if they desire to
out-migrate. Additionally, local governments should formulate appropriate polices to help
promote education for young laborers, offering diversified types of continuous trainings
and education on social skills and life skills for young laborers who intend to out-migrate.
Related departments should formulate appropriate policies to promote the effective use
of natural assets, particularly agricultural and aquaculture land available at the studied
sites to ensure household income and reduce households’ dependence on remittances. To
improve social and psychological assets, more social programs which allow for migrant
workers, particularly younger migrants, to meet each other at the destination place may
have positive impacts on their vulnerability. This implication stems from the findings that
respondents from Quảng Trị were more vulnerable than respondents from Quảng Bình and
Thừa Thiên Huế provinces, and these provincial differences are rooted in social network
membership in the destination place.
Finally, future research could aid in further unpacking these social dynamics by
comprehensively investigating social networks, migration assimilation behaviors, and job
opportunities for rural laborers who may be more sensitive to social upheaval.
Author Contributions: Methodology, J.B.; Resources, P.H.T.; Writing—original draft, L.T.H.S.;
Writing—review & editing, L.T.H.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is funded by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology
Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number: 04.2021/ÐX.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
15 of 16
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful for the funding by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science
and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number: 04.2021/ÐX. We also thank the
local residents from communes in Thua Thien Hue, Quang Binh, and Quang Tri provinces for all
their valuable support during our field surveys.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Ciotti, M.; Massimo, C.; Alessandro, T.; Wen, C.J.; Cheng, B.W.; Sergio, B. The COVID-19 pandemic. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2020,
57, 365–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jing, G.; Xing, L.F.; Xiao, H.W.; van Ijzendoorn, M.H. Coping with COVID-19: Exposure to COVID-19 and negative impact on
livelihood predict elevated mental health problems in Chinese adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3857. [CrossRef]
World Bank. The Global Economy: On Trach for Strong But Uneven Growth as COVID-19 Still Weighs. 2022. Available
online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/06/08/the-global-economy-on-track-for-strong-but-unevengrowth-as-Covid-19-still-weighs (accessed on 12 June 2022).
UNCTAD. Global Economy Could Lose Over $4 Trillion Due to COVID-19 Impact on Tourism. 2021. Available online: https:
//unctad.org/news/global-economy-could-lose-over-4-trillion-due-covid-19-impact-tourism (accessed on 12 June 2022).
Bui, H.T.T.; Duc, M.; Thanh, Q.P.; Tolib, M.; Anh, T.M.B.; Quang, N.L. COVID-19 Stressors on Migrant Workers in Vietnam:
Cumulative Risk Consideration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8757. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
OECD. COVID-19 and the Food and Agriculture Sector: Issue and Policy Responses. 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd.
org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-and-the-food-and-agriculture-sector-issues-and-policy-responses-a23f764b/ (accessed on 25 March 2022).
CGAP. COVID-19 and Disruptions to Vulnerable Rural Livelihoods in the Sahel: COVID-19 Briefing, 9 pages. 2020. Available online: https://www.cgap.org/research/covid-19-briefing/covid-19-and-disruptions-vulnerable-rural-livelihoods-sahel (accessed
on 10 July 2022).
Aghion, P.; Patrick, A.; Miquel, O.B.; Bary, P. Aiming for Zero COVID-19 to Ensure Economic Growth. 2021. Available online:
https://voxeu.org/article/aiming-zero-covid-19-ensure-economic-growth (accessed on 10 July 2022).
WHO. Impact of COVID-19 on People’s Livelihoods, Their Health and Our Food Systems. 2020. Available online: https://www.
who.int/news/item/13-10-2020-impact-of-covid-19-on-people%27s-livelihoods-their-health-and-our-food-systems (accessed
on 10 July 2022).
Asegie, A.M.; Samuel, T.A.; Amogne, A.E. The effects of COVID-19 on livelihoods of rural households: South Wollo and Oromia
Zones, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2021, 7, e08550. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gatto, M.; Islam, A.H.M.S. Impacts of COVID-19 on rural livelihoods in Bangladesh: Evidence using panel data. PLoS ONE 2021,
16, e0259264. [CrossRef]
Barrett, C.B. Actions now can curb food systems fallout from COVID-19. Nature Food 2020, 1, 319–320. [CrossRef]
Elleby, C.; IDomínguez, P.; Adenauer, M.; Genovese, G. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global agricultural markets.
Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020, 76, 1067–1079. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Funmilayo, F.; Olayinka, S.I.; Aanuoluwapo, A.A. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on food losses in the agricultural value
chains in Africa: The Nigerian case study. Public Health Pract. 2021, 2, 100087. [CrossRef]
Lambrecht, I.; Ragasa, C.; Mahrt, K.; Aung, Z.W.; Wang, M. Monitoring the impact of COVID-19 in Myanmar: Agricultural
production and rural livelihoods in two irrigation schemes—August 2020 survey round. Food Policy Res. Inst. (IFPRI) 2020, 36.
[CrossRef]
Gounder, R. Economic Vulnerabilities and Livelihoods: Impact of COVID-19 in Fiji and Vanuatu. Oceania 2020, 90, 107–113.
[CrossRef]
Ajaero, C.K.; Onokala, P.C. The Effects of Rural-Urban Migration on Rural Communities of Southeastern Nigeria. Int. J. Popul.
Res. 2013, 2013, 1–10. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, N.T.; Cao, T.T.; Nguyen, V.T.; Phuong, L.T.H. Impact, response and results of livelihood restoration of fishermen near the
coast of Thua Thien—Hue province after the marine environmental incident (Formosa) 2016. J. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2020, 9, 142–150.
IOM. IOM and KOICA Launch Emergency COVID-19 Response Project in Central Vietnam. 2021. Available online: https:
//vietnam.iom.int/en/news/iom-and-koica-launch-emergency-covid-19-response-project-central-viet-nam (accessed on 10
July 2022).
ADB. Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on Smallholder Farmers and Vulnerable Rural People in Vietnam. 2020. Available
online: https://nardt.org/images/ACC_1/files/Tai%20lieu/bao%20cao%20dai%20dich%20covit%2019%20TA.pdf (accessed
on 10 July 2022).
Chowdhury, M.B.; Minakshi, C. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Migrant Workers and Remittances Flow to Bangladesh. South
Asian Surv. 2021, 28, 38–56. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 484
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
16 of 16
Nguyen, H.S.; Le, N.; Le, P.C.L.; Phan, A.H.; Nguyen, T.Q. Sustainable Livelihood Model to Reduce Vulnerability to Climate Change in
Coastal Communes in Binh-Tri-Thien Area; Hue University Publishing House: Hue, Vietnam, 2020.
Phuong, L.T.H.; Robbert, B.G.; Le, T.H.S.; Arjen, W. Understanding smallholder farmers' capacity to respond to climate change in
a coastal community in Central Vietnam. Clim. Dev. 2018, 10, 701–716. [CrossRef]
Truong, T.V.; Melissa, M.; Nguyen, V.T.; Georgina, A.; Mark, A.; Phuong, L.T.H. Household recovery from disaster: Insights from
Vietnam’s fish kill. Environ. Hazards 2021, 21, 1–16. [CrossRef]
Phuong, L.T.H.; Robbert, B.G.; Le, T.H.S.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Phan, V.L.; Arjen, W. Increasing Vietnamese smallholder farmers'
adaptive capacity to respond to climate change. Local Environ. 2018, 23, 879–897. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, N.T.; Tran, C.U.; Nguyen, V.T. Diversity of livelihoods with resilience after the 2016 Formosa marine pollution incident
for fishermen near the coast of Thua Thien Hue province. Hue Univ. Sci. J. 2021, 4, 2075–2084.
Huynh, T.A.P.; Le, D.N.; Le, T.H.S.; Nguyen, X.H. Vulnerability of Fishery-Based Livelihoods to Climate Change in Coastal
Communities in Central Vietnam. J. Coast. Manag. 2021, 49, 275–292. [CrossRef]
Madhuri, T.H.R.; Bhowmick, P.K. Livelihood vulnerability index analysis: An approach to study vulnerability in the context of
Bihar. J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2014, 6, 1–13. [CrossRef]
Flanagan, B.; Gregory, E.; Hallisey, E.; Heitgerd, J.; Lewis, B. A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management. J. Homel.
Secur. Emerg. Manag. 2011, 8, 0000102202154773551792. [CrossRef]
Kaly, U.; Briguglio, L.; McLeod, H.; Schmall, S.; Pratt, C.; Pal, R. Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) to Summarise National
Environmental Vulnerability Profiles; SOPAC: South Orange, NJ, USA, 1999.
Hahn, M.B.; Riederer, A.M.; Foster, S.O. The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: A pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate
variability and change—A case study in Mozambique. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 74–88. [CrossRef]
Paul, A.; Nath, T.K.; Mahanta, J.; Sultana, N.N.; Kayes, A.S.M.I.; Noon, S.J.; Jabed, M.A.; Podder, S.; Paul, S. Psychological
and livelihood impacts of Covid-19 impacts on Bangladeshi lower income people. Asia-Pac. J. Public Health 2021, 33, 100–108.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yazdanpanah, M.; Maryam, T.M.; Moslem, S.; Tahereh, X.; Stefan, S.; Katharina, L. The Impact of Livelihood Assets on the Food
Security of Farmers in Southern Iran during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5310. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Shah, K.U.; Dulal, H.B.; Johnson, C.; Baptiste, A. Understanding livelihood vulnerability to climate change: Applying the
livelihood vulnerability index in Trinidad and Tobago. Geoforum 2013, 47, 125–137. [CrossRef]
Alahmad, B.; Hussam, K.; Kyle, C.; Janvier, G.; Jacqueline, A.; Mary, F.A. COVID-19 stressors on migrant workers in Kuwait:
Cumulative risk considerations. BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e002995. [CrossRef]
UNESCO. The Socio-Cultural Impact of COVID-19: Exploring the Role of Intercultural Dialogue in Emerging Responses. 2020.
Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374186 (accessed on 18 July 2022).
Subedi, B.P. Using Likert Type Data in Social Science Research: Confusion, Issues and Challenges. Int. J. Contemp. Appl. Sci. 2021,
3, 36–49.
Mantha, B.Y.J.; García, D.S.B. Implementation of the Common Vulnerability Scoring System to Assess the Cyber Vulnerability in
Construction Projects. Creat. Constr. Conf. 2020, 117–124. [CrossRef]
IOM. Socioeconomic Impact of COVID-19 on Migrant Workers in Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar
and Thailand. International Organization for Migration—IOM, Thailand. 2021. Available online: https://publications.iom.int/
system/files/pdf/Socioecono-mic-Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Migrant-Workers.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2022).
Khanna, A. Impact of Migration of Labour Force due to Global COVID-19 Pandemic with Reference to India. J. Health Manag.
2020, 22, 181–191. [CrossRef]
Kuran, C.; Henrik, A.; Claudia, M.; Bjørn, I.K.; Marco, K.; Lisa, S.; Kati, O.; Tor, O.N.; Merja, A.J.K.; Friedrich, G.; et al. Vulnerability
and vulnerable groups from an intersectionality perspective. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 50, 101826. [CrossRef]
Selod, H.; Forha, S. Rural-Urban Migration in Developing Countries: Lessons from the Literature. Policy Research Working Paper
9662. 2021. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35610 (accessed on 10 July 2022).
Kumar, A.; Arabinda, K.P.; Shalander, K. How Indian agriculture should change after COVID-19. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 837–840.
[CrossRef]
Andersen, L.E.; Marcelo, C. Building resilience against adverse shocks: What are the determinants of vulnerability and resilience?
In Development Research Working Paper Series 2; Institute for Advanced Development Studies (INESAD): La Paz, Bolivia, 2013.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.