Assessing Stakeholders’ Preferences for Future Rice Farming Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Abstract

Rice farming is the dominating agriculture activity in the Mekong Delta and has been of significant importance for the region’s economic development, but it has also had an impact on the environment. Recent governmental policies emphasize the need for sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture; however, policy reforms pushing for transformation towards sustainable socio-agricultural systems are compounded by a lack of coherent and shared visions. Gaps between policy making and implementation and stakeholders’ divergent visions of what is meant by sustainable agriculture and how that can be achieved hinder progress. To address this, the Q-methodology was used to elucidate and integrate different perspectives from 41 stakeholders on 35 statements related to agriculture developments in the Mekong Delta. Under the theoretical lens of sustainability, and ecosystem services, the results unveiled four major development schemes, namely production through intensification, sustainable intensification, production through nature, and people and nature in balance. The majority of the stakeholders in this study believed that future agriculture strategies in the Mekong Delta should be designed to promote more diverse and integrated farming methods, emphasizing the environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development. They acknowledged the multifunctional benefits of rice field ecosystems and emphasized the importance of supporting, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services for a long-term and healthy production of food and increased resilience of the Delta’s social-ecological systems.

1. Introduction

The Vietnamese Mekong Delta is one of the world’s largest wetlands with ideal conditions for high agricultural production, but it is increasingly being threatened by a number of environmental challenges including climate change, sea level rise, and salinization [1,2,3]. Upstream dams, urbanization, industrialization, and agriculture intensification are adding pressure to the Delta’s ecosystems [1,4,5]. These are of key importance for high agriculture and aquaculture production, which provide important contributions to national food security, export revenues, and local livelihoods for the Delta’s 17 million inhabitants [1,5]. During the last decades, high dikes and high use of agrochemicals have disrupted the natural connectivity and productivity of the Delta’s ecosystems, which has been counterproductive to the efforts to increase food production, and there are indications of stagnating yields of rice and wild fish [5,6,7]. The Delta is currently at a crossroads where the government is seeking ways to decrease the pressure on the Delta through transformational changes of the agriculture sector towards more sustainable farming practices [8,9]. This is a complex process where a high production to meet a growing demand for food and export revenues must be balanced against issues of potential declines in productivity and profits due to overuse of agrochemicals, exhaustion of soil, and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services that are necessary for a long-term and healthy production of food [5,9]. Recent regional plans and high-level policies, including the Mekong Delta Plan and Resolution 120, emphasize the development of high-value, sustainable, and climate-resilient agriculture and food production systems [8]. However, this transformation has its challenges. Different policy reforms are sometimes ambiguous and there seems to be a lack of a coherent, broadly shared vision that can guide the transformation towards more sustainable socio-agricultural systems in the Delta [9]. Recent studies also indicate a gap between policy making and policy implementation in Vietnam in a range of policy fields including environment and agriculture [9]. Although farmers have become more aware of the environmental consequences of intensive monocultures, this has often not resulted in any major changes in farming practices at the local level, as many farmers lack the skills or resources to change [8]. Sometimes local officials also lack the means to successfully cooperate with farmers and convince them to comply with governmental plans [8].

This is further compounded as stakeholders have divergent visions of what is meant by sustainable agriculture and how that can be achieved [9]. The different dimensions of sustainable agriculture development are emphasized differently by stakeholders depending on their beliefs, needs, and concerns. With the aim to establish successful environmental strategies for sustainable development of agriculture, a broad range of stakeholders need to be involved, and their opinions and preferences must be understood [10]. The nexus of sustainability and food production research shows that people conceptualize the benefits of agro-ecosystems in different ways due to their unique experiences, identities, values, and needs [11,12]. A broader understanding of this plurality of views could improve the development and implementation of sustainable food strategies and there is thus a need to develop appropriate ways to elicit and integrate multiple perspectives as a basis for sound sustainable agriculture strategies.

This suggests that more research needs to be focused on identifying underlying attitudinal positions that may explain alternative behavioral responses among stakeholders. As a step in that direction, this paper applies a Q-methodology to elucidate patterns of attitudinal differences among stakeholders about agriculture development in the Mekong Delta. The Q-method offers a timely complement to the current body of literature regarding sustainability assessment in the Mekong Delta region and was seen to provide a valid tool to achieve the aim of this study, which was to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions, perspectives, and attitudes to agriculture developments in the Mekong Delta, with particular attention to rice farming, which is the dominating crop in the Delta. The stakeholders’ perspectives were related to the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainable development and the four categories of ecosystem services (supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural), which are seen as important contributions of this study to better understand how stakeholders’ perspectives align with the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs).

2. Materials and Methods

The common Q-methodology steps include (1) identification of the discourse and Q-set, (2) Q-participant selection, (3) Q-sorts and interviews, and (4) factor analysis and interpretation (Figure 1). To further strengthen the first step, discourse identification and Q-set, this study employs a structured Delphi method, which is widely accepted, to facilitate consensus among experts addressing a particular problem [13]. The Delphi method is a type of survey tool used for structuring group opinions and discussions, and generally involves two or more rounds of discussions through questionnaires guided by pre-defined criteria to converge opinions until reaching a consensus between participants.

2.1. Developing the Q-Sets

Devising the Q-set is often generated from scratch [14] and revised until concurrence is reached, analogous to Delphi method. In this vein, a pilot panel of experts, farmers, and local extension officers was formed to first brainstorm a long list of statements related to rice farming in the Mekong Delta from a preliminary list reviewed from the literature as a starting point. After the first round, the facilitator recapped main ideas and discussions among participants and encouraged them to revise their earlier opinions in light of discussed content. The objective was to arrive at a degree of consensus. The second round concluded the short list of statements or the Q-set and tried to avoid redundancy and overlaps. There is no standard size of Q-sets [15], and 35 statements were felt as sufficient to cover the different opinions, ideas, and perceptions found in relation to the issues addressed in this study. Each Q-statement was pre-categorized into appropriated sustainability dimensions and groups of ecosystem services to facilitate further interpretations of the results and emerging factors links to sustainability and ecosystem services dimensions.

2.2. Selecting the P-Sets

For the Q-method, the size of the P-sets is inferior to the broadness of respondents to achieve a diverse range of viewpoints pertinent to exploring all possible aspects of the assessment [16] rather than focusing on the representativeness of the population [15]. Nevertheless, the size of 20 to 40 Q-Participants is recommended as acceptable [15]. In this study, a total sample of 41 participants was selected. Respondents originated from a broad spectrum of stakeholders including fishermen (2), rice-fish farmers (10), rice farmers (10), environmental/agronomic engineers (3), agricultural economists (8), aquatic resource engineers (5), and extensionists (3). Gender and occupation of the participants were enlisted in

Table 1. Factor matrix with factor loadings and participants’ characteristics.

Q-Sort	Factors				Uniqueness	Gender	Occupation
	1	2	3	4
S1	−0.0454	−0.3289	−0.1468	−0.0930	0.8596	M	Fisherman
S2	0.5631	−0.2966	0.0839	0.3808	0.4429	M	Fisherman
S3	0.4856	0.4305	0.1466	−0.1394	0.5379	F	Rice-Fish Farmer
S4	0.3524	0.5437	0.2693	0.0224	0.5072	F	Rice-Fish Farmer
S5	0.1537	−0.2568	0.2354	0.0644	0.8509	F	Rice-Fish Farmer
S6	0.5768	−0.1300	0.4849	−0.1798	0.3829	F	Rice-Fish Farmer
S7	0.4514	0.0685	0.0166	0.3207	0.6884	M	Rice-Fish Farmer
S8	0.7472	−0.2736	0.1962	0.0413	0.3266	M	Rice-Fish Farmer
S9	0.5632	0.0934	0.0728	0.0555	0.6656	F	Rice-Fish Farmer
S10	0.7963	0.0405	0.2611	0.3498	0.1736	M	Rice-Fish Farmer
S11	0.7678	−0.0557	0.1844	0.3223	0.2695	M	Rice-Fish Farmer
S12	0.7717	−0.2636	0.2875	0.1096	0.2403	F	Rice-Fish Farmer
S13	0.5503	−0.1759	−0.0599	−0.2764	0.5863	F	Rice Farmer
S14	−0.0049	−0.0328	−0.3332	0.5920	0.5374	M	Rice Farmer
S15	0.0506	0.6379	0.2412	0.0330	0.5312	M	Rice Farmer
S16	−0.5125	−0.3834	0.1394	−0.1347	0.5529	M	Rice Farmer
S17	0.0549	0.2460	0.0722	0.6476	0.5119	F	Rice Farmer
S18	0.1629	0.2762	0.4044	−0.2658	0.6630	F	Rice Farmer
S19	0.3570	0.0145	0.3385	−0.2299	0.7049	F	Rice Farmer
S20	0.8331	0.0069	0.1928	0.1073	0.2571	M	Rice Farmer
S21	0.6681	0.1644	−0.0108	0.4237	0.3470	F	Rice Farmer
S22	0.6918	0.2195	0.1534	0.3145	0.3507	M	Rice Farmer
S23	0.6490	−0.3622	−0.2884	−0.1687	0.3360	M	Environmental/Agronomic Engineer
S24	0.6470	0.2576	−0.4580	−0.0087	0.3052	M	Agricultural Economist
S25	0.4556	−0.1596	−0.0103	0.1137	0.7539	M	Aquatic Resource Engineer
S26	0.7296	−0.2410	−0.1441	−0.1521	0.3657	M	Aquatic Resource Engineer
S27	0.0888	−0.4218	0.4030	0.2758	0.5757	M	Aquatic Resource Engineer
S28	0.7052	−0.1759	−0.1595	−0.2537	0.3820	M	Aquatic Resource Engineer
S29	0.5785	−0.2132	0.0408	−0.2637	0.5487	M	Environmental/Agronomic Engineer
S30	0.6151	0.1343	0.3376	−0.2391	0.4324	M	Environmental/Agronomic Engineer
S31	0.3951	0.6576	−0.3724	−0.1123	0.2602	M	Extensionist
S32	0.4959	−0.4709	−0.4512	−0.1041	0.3178	M	Extensionist
S33	0.7609	−0.2209	0.1024	−0.1736	0.3316	F	Extensionist
S34	0.6512	0.2864	−0.1684	−0.3898	0.3136	F	Agricultural Economist
S35	0.6315	0.5186	−0.0994	−0.1366	0.3037	F	Agricultural Economist
S36	0.7366	0.3949	−0.0533	−0.2761	0.2224	M	Agricultural Economist
S37	0.2498	0.3317	−0.6960	0.2166	0.2962	M	Agricultural Economist
S38	0.6781	−0.2996	−0.2700	0.1568	0.3529	M	Agricultural Economist
S39	0.5043	−0.3871	−0.2906	−0.0357	0.5101	F	Agricultural Economist
S40	0.6856	−0.1254	−0.1305	−0.2182	0.4496	M	Agricultural Economist
S41	0.6036	−0.0081	−0.2079	0.1800	0.5599	M	Aquatic Resource Engineer
Eigenvalues
	13.03	3.85	2.89	2.62
% Variances explained
	17.3	16.2	11.1	10.2
Total number of loadings
	30	7	6	3

Note: Bold numbers indicate a significant loading at ±0.4 (p < 0.01). Uniqueness = 1—Communality (h²). M (Male), F (Female).

.

2.3. Administering the Q-Sorts

Data collection was conducted between May 2021 and June 2021, primarily with stakeholders from the Tien Giang and Can Tho provinces (Figure 2). This study focused on these provinces because they are key rice farming provinces in the Delta. Due to travel restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were collected both online and on site. Q-sorts were conducted in Vietnamese. While local enumerators collected the data from local stakeholders on site in person, experts were recruited and filled out the Q-board online using Google Jam board. The process was the same for both online and on site. The Q-participants or P-sets were asked to rank the Q-set based on their knowledge, experiences, skills, beliefs, and preferences associated with different rice-farming strategies, with a specific focus on intensive rice monoculture and less intensive forms of integrated rice farming. Regarding the measurement scale, Watts and Stenner [16] recommended the range of −4 to +4 with the Q-set size of equal or smaller than 40, −5 to +5 in case of 40 to 60 items, and −6 to +6 if the Q-set exceeds 60 [17]. The number of Q-set statements in this study was 35; thus, the scale of −4 to +4 was seen as appropriate (

Table 2. The 35 Q-statements with the scores (−4 to +4) by the stakeholders and links to sustainable development dimensions (SD) and ecosystem services (ES) categories.

Stat. No.	SD 1	ES 2	Q-Statement	Factor Arrays 3
				1	2	3	4
1	SOC	C	Rice farming should be designed so it helps, protects, and preserves the traditional and cultural values of the rural residents	+2	−3	0	−3
2	ENV	R	Intensive rice farming worsens the recovery of soil health due to insufficient exchange of water	+1	−2	−2	−2
3	ENV	R	Integrate rice farming has less negative impact on water quality than intensive rice farming	+2	−2	+3	−2
4	ENV	R	Rice field ecosystem contributes to the purification and conservation of groundwater	+1	−1	+1	−3
5	ENV	R	Rice field ecosystem increase the water storage capacity of river basins, lower the peak flow of rivers and decreases the risk for floods in downstream areas during heavy rains	+1	+1	−1	−4
6	ENV	R	Low dikes allowing for seasonal flooding makes water more available and is good for the rice production as it provides nutrient rich water and take away polluted water.	0	0	−3	−1
7	ENV	R	Rice farming strategies should avoid high dikes and aim to primarily have low dikes, as this increase the connectivity within the delta which is beneficial for the environment and helps to protect and restore wetlands in the Delta	−1	+1	−4	0
8	ECO	P	Rice farming strategies should aim for primarily high dikes, as this decreased the risk for flooding and crop failures	−2	−1	−3	−1
9	ECO	P	Intensive rice production is needed to meet the demand for export	−2	−1	+1	2
10	ECO	P	Rice farming is the prime source of income and subsistence needs for rural households	−2	+1	+4	−3
11	ECO	P	Rice intensification is a cost-efficient way to increase the rice yields	−3	−1	+3	−2
12	ECO	P	Intensive rice farming provides stable and good income	−3	0	+2	−2
13	ECO	P	More intensive rice production is crucial for the economic development of the Delta, and for improving peoples’ living conditions in the Delta	−4	+1	+1	0
14	ENV	R	Rice fields provide many more benefits than only rice, which should be considered when farming rice	−1	+2	0	−1
15	ENV	U	The overuse of synthetic agrochemicals (i.e., pesticides, fertilizers) hurt the environment and productivity in the long run	+4	+2	+1	−1
16	ENV	U	Current government policies should promote high-quality rice, reduced rice area, further diversification of farming systems, and promotion of agro-ecological and organic agriculture	+3	−2	+2	+1
17	ENV	S	Less intensive and more diversified production of rice will create a more diverse and attractive environment for both people, animals and plants, and help to halt biodiversity loss	+2	0	0	+1
18	ENV	S	Rice fields provides important habitats for aquatic plants and animals	0	+3	−2	0
19	SOC	C	Rice field ecosystem provides opportunities for wildlife observing and ecotourism	−1	+2	−1	0
20	ENV	S	Rice field ecosystem supports and enriches biodiversity	0	+3	−2	0
21	SOC	S	Less intensive and more diversified production of rice can make the Mekong Delta more resilient to future changes such as upstream dams and climate change	+3	0	−2	0
22	SOC	P	Integrated rice-based farming can offer organic products that are safer and better for consumers	+3	0	+1	−1
23	SOC	P	Intensive rice farming is the best way to safeguard food security in the Mekong Delta	−3	−1	0	+2
24	SOC	U	Integrated rice farming is a good way to improve farmers’ health	0	−1	−1	+2
25	ENV	R	Rice farming should rely on integrated pest management strategies as this helps to control pests and are better for the environment and also cut costs.	+1	+1	+3	+1
26	ECO	P	The use of pesticides and fertilizers are necessary to get high rice yields	−1	−4	−1	3
27	ECO	U	Farmers should primarily control rice pests with pesticides as this provide the most efficient way to kill pests and thus increase rice yields	−2	−3	−3	−1
28	SOC	P	Rice farming should use less pesticide as this is good for the farmers health, and produce more healthy food	+1	+2	−1	+2
29	ENV	R	Farmers should use less pesticide as this is good for the environment, and help to protect pollinators and natural enemies to rice pest, which is good for the rice	+1	+3	0	+1
30	ENV	U	Rice farming should focus on high quality supply instead of high quantities.	−1	+4	0	+1
31	ENV	U	Environment-friendly farming ensures a high production quality, while at the same time protecting the environment	0	0	+2	+4
32	ECO	U	Rice farming should aim for improved rice quality rather than quantity because there are an increasing demand and price for high quality rice	−1	+1	+2	+3
33	SOC	U	Integrated rice-based farming systems are innovative and sustainable	0	−2	+1	+1
34	SOC	U	Integrated rice farming is difficult to operate and only viable in very few qualified locations	0	−3	−1	0
35	SOC	P	Future rice farming strategies should aim for more integrated methods, such as rice-fish farming, as this diversifies the farmers income and livelihoods and provide more diversified food	+2	0	0	+3

¹ Sustainable Development dimensions (SD): Economic (ECO), Environment/Ecological (ENV), and social (SOC). ² Ecosystem services (ES) categories: provisioning (P), regulating (R), supporting (S), and cultural (C). Unclassified (U). ³ Bold numbers indicate distinguishing statements.

).

Each participant was first introduced to the purpose of this study. Each Q-statement was printed clearly on a readable yellow post-it note and was comprehensively explained. Next, a flip chart sheet of the Q-board was shown (Figure 3). The respondents were instructed to place each post-it note into either of three categories: agree (+1 to +4), disagree (−4 to −1), and neutral (0). Only one post-it card could fit in one box to force the sorting. During the sorting process, respondents were asked to review and rearrange any Q-statement they were unsatisfied with.

2.4. Analysis

For data analysis, we used the Qfactor command in Stata [18]. Principle Component Analysis (PCA) and Factor Analysis with varimax rotation were employed to reduce and rearrange factors into acceptable factors solutions. Based on eigenvalue criteria (eigenvalue > 1) [16], there should be 11 factors to be extracted. However, 35–40% explained variance is acceptable in a Q-study [19], and factors retained were those with at least two Q-sorts loadings equal to or higher than 0.40 based on the equation, 2.58 × (1/$\sqrt{n}$) that were significant at p < 0.01, where n is the number of Q-sorts [16]. Thus, the number of factors extracted was four. The scores (z-scores) for each factor elucidate how far a value is from a normally distributed mean in terms of standard deviations. The higher the z-scores, the stronger participants acquiesce with the shared standpoint. The differences between factor scores for each statement were calculated using Stephenson’s formula. Four distinguished statements tables were generated by factor extraction involving Principal Component Analysis and varimax rotation technique. No consensus statements existed which implies the distinctiveness of the participants’ stance in the scope of this study. For the purpose of illustrating the different factors’ perspectives on sustainable development dimensions and ecosystem services categories, the statement rank (−4 to 4) was transformed to a positive rank-value between zero and one. The average rank-values for statements linked to the different factors are shown in Figure 4.

3. Results and Discussion

The participants ranked 35 Q-statements which were then bundled into four distinguished perspectives using the Q-analysis (Table 1). Factor stability was achieved with all four factors having at least five Q-sorts that loaded significantly [16]. The four factors accounted for 54.8% of the study variance cumulatively. A total of 38 Q-sorts loaded significantly among four factors with loadings of ±0.40 or above at p < 0.01 level. Statistically significant factor loadings were marked in bold (Table 1). A total of 30, 7, 6, and 3 participants in the P-set were strongly connected to Factor 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Figure 4).

A positive factor loading denotes a favorable opinion to the value that defines the factor and vice versa for a negative factor loading. Table 1 presents uniqueness values which explain how much of the variance for each Q-sort was not explained by the extracted factors and is equal to unity minus communality of each Q-sort [18]. For instance, the participant with Q-sort numbered S1 (Uniqueness = 0.8596) holds the perspective least explained by any of the factors, whereas S10 (Uniqueness = 0.1736) was most strongly aligned with Factor 1. For each factor, the distinguishing statements define the uniqueness of the factor [18]. The distinguishing statements and the scores for each factor can be found in Table 2. It is also shown with which sustainable development dimensions (SD) and ecosystem services categories (ES) the statements were categorized. The higher the z-score, the stronger the agreement of the respondents with the shared stance [14]. Names for the four factors were derived from the prime viewpoint put forth by both general and distinguishing statements, the sustainable development dimensions, and ecosystem services categories in Table 2 and Figure 4. The sections below describe and discuss the different factors in the order that we believe represents how the perception and preferences for agriculture strategies have changed over the last decades in the Mekong Delta, and starts with a view that favors intensive systems and ends with the current dominating view, which favors more diverse and less intensive systems.

3.1. Factor 3 “Production through Intensification”

Six Q-sorts constituted Factor 3 and explained 11.1% of the study variance and had an eigenvalue of 2.89 (Table 1). The economic dimension was prioritized in this factor, while the environment and social dimensions contributed to a lesser extent. Aligned with the economic perspective, provisioning services dominated the ecosystem services categories (Figure 1). Factor 3 communicates the critical role of agriculture intensification for increased yields and economic growth, and represents a view that has been common during the last decades and still seems to be applied in practice in large parts of the Delta [3,9,20]. However, this was not the dominant view in this study, which indicates a gap between current visions for sustainable agriculture and what actually is implemented. This could be due to a lack of coherence between competing policies, which creates tensions that pull in different directions [9]. In practice, for stakeholders aligned with Factor 3, sustainability is of less importance than commercialization of agriculture [9]. Rice intensification was seen to be a cost-efficient way to increase rice yields, to provide stable and good income, and to improve the general development and living conditions in the Delta (Stat-11: +3; Stat-12: +2; Stat-13: +1) [20] (Table 2). The distinguishing statements highlighted the critical role of rice farming in securing farmers’ income and subsistence needs (Stat-10: +4), and Factor 3 aligned with the SDG goals No poverty and Zero Hunger. A plausible explanation as to why this cluster of stakeholders still believed in rice intensification could be attributed to the experience of yield growth over time as a result of increased use of fertilizer and pesticides [6,20].

Consistent with the prioritization of intensive farming and high rice yields, these stakeholders strongly disagreed with the idea that rice farming strategies should avoid high dikes because they decrease the connectivity within the Delta (Stat-7: −4). The main focus was on high rice yields, which were believed to be best delivered though a human-controlled environment [21], where the importance of seasonal flooding for providing nutrient-rich water and to take away polluted water was dismissed (Stat-6: −3) [8], despite the recognition that intensive farming has an impact on the water quality (Stat-3: +3). They also dissented the negative impact of intensive rice farming on the recovery of soil health (Stat-2: −2), which is consistent with the findings by van Aalst et al. [20], who found that several stakeholders in 2015 believed that the floodwater brought no or limited fertile sediments and benefits to the rice field ecosystem. However, this view is contested by recent studies, which clearly show both the ecological and economic advantages of low dikes and an increased connectivity in the Delta [3,6,7].

The multifunctional benefits provided by rice fields [5], in addition to producing rice, were not given much attention, and the stakeholders did not agree that rice fields support biodiversity and provide habitats for plants and animals (Stat-18: −2; Stat-19: −1; Stat-20: −2). Rice fields were primarily seen as rice-producing units and there was a low understanding of the broader role of the rice field ecosystem, and they disagreed that less intensive and more diversified production of rice can make the Mekong Delta more resilient to future changes such as upstream dams and climate change (Stat-21: −2) [1,5]. This view aligns with more intensive strategies for rice production, which according to Binh et al. [3], represent systems with comparatively low resilience, especially with regard to natural and environmental dimensions. The main arguments for these stakeholders to change their agriculture practices would be to reduce production costs and increase the price of rice, as the main focus is on the economic dimension of sustainable development, and they primarily see the benefits from provisional ecosystem services, with limited insights on how these depend on other ecosystem services for a long-term and healthy production of food (Figure 4). Consistent with past and recent studies [2,3,22,23], our results showcase that for these stakeholders, ecological values are still paid unequal attention as compared to economic values. Obviously, most farmers prefer their current method of rice intensification for several reasons, including (1) rice intensification remains economically sustainable [20], (2) insufficient technical and financial abilities to adopt new farming practices [20], and (3) contentedness with current practices [8,24].

Still, environment-friendly farming strategies, such as integrated pest management, were recognized to ensure a high production quality, while at the same time protecting the environment (Stat-2: +3; Stat-25: +3; Stat-31: +2), although the preferences for quality over quantity primarily were because of the higher price that farmers earned for rice produced with less pesticides (Stat-32: +2). They agreed that integrated rice-based farming could offer organic products that were safer and better for consumers (Stat-31: +2) [25]. Pesticides were not seen as the most efficient way to control pests and to increase rice yields (Stat-27: −3), and they acknowledged that alternative strategies, such as IPM, helped to reduce the costs for pesticides (Stat-25: +3) [26]. These economic incentives were the main reasons for these stakeholders to support more sustainable farming strategies, and with increasing evidence of the long-term negative effects of high dikes and overuse of agrochemicals on both rice and fish yields [5] and clear examples of how an enhanced use of ecosystem services can help to decrease cost and increase profits, could provide incentives for these stakeholders to start with more sustainable rice farming practices [9].

3.2. Factor 4 “Sustainable Intensification”

Only three Q-sorts defined Factor 4. The variance explained was 10.2% and the eigenvalue was 2.61 (Table 1). The socio-economic perspectives dominated this factor. Provisioning and supporting services were well reflected, while regulating and cultural services were less pronounced (Figure 4). Stakeholders aligned with this factor disagreed with the multifunctional benefits that rice field ecosystems can provide and the advantages with low dikes compared to high dikes (Stat-1: −3; Stat-4: −3; Stat-5: −4; Stat-6: −1). Similar to Factor 3, the importance of high rice yields was emphasized, but Factor 4 revolved more around the idea of “sustainable intensification”. There was a balance between the social, ecological, and economic dimensions of sustainable development and key SDG goals included Responsible production and consumption, No poverty and Life on land. Stakeholders strongly agreed that environment-friendly farming strategies ensured a high production quality, while at the same time protecting the environment (Stat-31: +4) (Table 2). They preferred an increased quality rather than an increased quantity of rice because of increasing demand and high prices for rice produced with less agrochemicals (Stat-32: +3). A low use of pesticides was seen to be good for farmers’ health and to benefit pollinators and natural enemies to rice pests, which were perceived to support a production of high quality rice (Stat-28: +2; Stat-29: +1). Still, the importance of pesticides and fertilizers was emphasized (Stat-26: +3), indicating that high rice yields were of high priority. Intensive rice farming was seen as an important way to safeguard food security (Stat-23: +2) and to meet export demands (Stat-9: +2), but it was not seen as a cost-efficient way to increase rice yields or to provide stable and good income (Stat-11: −2; Stat-12: −2) or to meet the subsistence needs of rural households (Stat-10: −3). Integrated rice farming, on the other hand, was seen as a good way to improve farmers’ health (Stat-35: +3), and these stakeholders seemed to be open to strategies towards “sustainable intensification” that could provide guidance on how to increase or sustain rice yields and decrease production costs without compromising environmental qualities. However, the uptake of these strategies among farmers would require technical and financial support [20].

3.3. Factor 2 “Production through Nature”

Seven Q-sorts defined Factor 2 and explained 16.2% of the study variance. The eigenvalue for this factor was 3.84 (Table 1). While Factor 3 and 4 focused primarily on socio-economic dimensions, Factor 2 put most weight on nature with clear links to SDG goals, such as Life on land and in water and Responsible production and consumption. Regulating and especially supporting ecosystem services were emphasized while cultural services received less attention (Figure 4). These stakeholders agreed, similar but more strongly than the stakeholders under Factor 3, to the idea of rice quality over quantity and that farmers should use less pesticide as this was good for the environment, farmers’ health, and for producing healthy food (Stat-30: +4; Stat-28: +2). This was also seen to protect pollinators and natural enemies to rice pests and as necessary for a sustainable production of rice (Stat-29: +3). Rice fields were perceived as integrated parts of the landscape providing not only rice but also important habitats for plants and animals (Stat-18: +3) [7]. They were seen to support and enrich biodiversity and to have multifunctional roles, supporting different ecosystem services of importance to people, including flood protection, nutrient assimilation, and ecotourism (Stat-14: +2; Stat-19: +2; Stat-20: +3;) [5,27].

The participants seemed to be against the idea of an environment being strongly controlled by humans and disagreed that rice yields must be sustained by high use of pesticides and fertilizers (Stat-26: −4; Stat-27: −3). They perceived that the overuse of synthetic agrochemicals harmed the environment and productivity in the long run (Stat-15: +2). Similar to the stakeholders under Factor 4, they were against the idea that pesticides provided the most efficient way to control pests (Stat-27: −3) and were in favor of integrated pest management strategies (Stat-25: +1). This was more due to environmental considerations than economic reasons and compared to Factor 3 and 4, these stakeholders put stronger emphasis on the environmental dimension of sustainable development. They seemed to have a deeper understanding of the benefits provided by ecosystem services and how these not only supported a long-term production of rice but also other benefits to people.

The participants slightly agreed with the need for intensive rice production for the economic development of the Delta and for improving peoples’ living conditions (Stat-13: +1) as rice farming was seen as the prime source of income and subsistence needs for rural households (Stat-10: +1). However, they also agreed that rice intensification was not a cost-efficient way to increase the rice yields and was not the best way to safeguard food security in the Mekong Delta (Stat-23: −1). Thus, similar to Factor 4, they seemed to be in a transition towards a view that favors less intensive systems but were not yet willing to make any substantial sacrifices in terms of rice yields. This is similar to rice farmers in An Giang, who increased their resilience, and especially the environmental and social dimensions, by reducing the number of crops from six to five rice crops in 2 years, but were not yet willing to only have two crops per year, although that would improve the resilience and profit even further [3,26]. These stakeholders were obviously not fully convinced of the benefits of less intensive farming systems, and systems such as integrated rice farming and organic agriculture were somewhat dissented (Stat-3: −2; Stat-16: −2; Stat-33: −2). Still, these stakeholders’ comparatively strong insights of the benefits provided by the rice field ecosystem provide valuable assets to build on (Stat-3: −2; Stat-16: −2; Stat-33: −2). They disagreed that integrated rice farming is difficult to operate and only viable in a few locations (Stat-34: −3), and well-designed farmers’ field experiments providing clear examples of how integrated farming systems can help to both increase farmers’ income and environmental protection through a more efficient use of ecosystem services could probably steer these stakeholders towards more sustainable farming practices [26].

3.4. Factor 1 “People and Nature in Balance”

Factor 1 was defined by 30 Q-sorts that explained 17.3% of the study variance and had an eigenvalue of 13.03 (Table 1). The distinguishing statements for Factor 1 supported the diffusion of less intensive and more diversified production, such as integrated rice-based farming models (Stat-21: +3; Stat-22: +3; Stat-17: +2) and were in less favor of intensive rice production (Stat-9: −2; Stat-12: −3; Stat-13: −4; Stat-23: −3; Stat-2: +1) (Table 2). This is in line with the Vietnamese government’s vision of the future development of the Mekong Delta and many research studies [3,20,22,23,27]. Recent research and these stakeholders’ perceptions indicate that intensive rice farming might have fulfilled its mission of being a prime provider of food security and economic growth and that it now is time to focus on more sustainable farming systems. Indeed, under the complication of high-dike systems and upstream dams among others, rice yield growth has slowed particularly for smallholders due to the increased input requirements [20,26,27]. More sustainable farming strategies, such as organic and nature-based farming [28], are gaining traction and emerge as potential solutions to rice yield stagnation in the triple rice crop schemes [4,27], as these less intensive systems, if well designed, can strengthen ecosystem services, which are beneficial to agriculture [26,29].

Regulating, supporting, and cultural services were distinguishingly recognized and prioritized in Factor 1 over provisioning services (Figure 4), which corroborates the environmental benefits alongside the application of environmental-friendly farming. Factor 1 emphasized the social and environmental dimension of sustainable development and shared the viewpoint that rice farming should take the traditional and cultural values of rural residents at heart and put forth the connotation of “People and Nature in balance” (Stat-1: +2). The study by Tekken et al. [21] identified three important cultural services, namely cultural identity, landscape aesthetics, and knowledge systems, which assisted the conclusion that rice production, in farmers’ perceptions, has a cultural meaning above food production and is deep-rooted in socio-cultural practices. These authors argued that the revitalization of traditional knowledge along with ecosystem-based solutions could interrupt farmers’ belief in technocratic solutions (e.g., high pesticide use and high dikes) and urge them to ‘work’ with nature instead of controlling nature. Eventually, the culturally embedded services shape social preferences for the development or implementation of sustainable land management strategies [21].

From the environmental perspective, stakeholders clearly understood the detrimental effect of synthetic agrochemicals overuse on the environment and productivity in the long run (Stat-15: +4), which is supported by recent studies [29,30,31,32]. They also felt, in agreement with recent governmental policies, that farming practices could be improved by introducing integrated farming systems, including diversified rice production, which would help to create a more diverse and attractive environment for both people, animals, and plants, and help to halt biodiversity loss (Stat-3: +2; Stat-17: +2) [28]. They agreed that rice fields with low dikes allow water to enter the fields during floods and lower the peak flow of rivers and serve as a buffer to decrease the risk for floods in downstream areas during heavy rains, and contribute to the purification and conservation of ground water (Stat-4: +1; Stat-5: +1) [33]. These stakeholders also agreed that intensive rice farming worsens the recovery of soil health due to insufficient exchange of water (Stat-2: +1) [4]. They felt that rice farmers should use less pesticides to protect pollinators and natural enemies to rice pests (Stat-29: +1) and that integrated pest management (IPM) strategies were seen as a solution not only to help control pests but also to improve the environment and to decrease production costs (Stat-25: +1) [26].

From the social perspective, the participants strongly agreed that more sustainable production methods can improve producers’ and consumers’ health, through reduced use of pesticides and improved product quality (Stat-21: +3) [26], which align with the SDG goals Responsible production and consumption. Such systems were also believed to make the Mekong Delta more resilient to future changes, such as upstream dams and climate change (Stat-22: +3, 3, 5), and are in support of the SDG goal Climate action and the Vietnamese government’s efforts to transform the Delta into a more sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture and food production system [20]. This view is supported by Binh et al.s’ [3] findings that less intensive systems with two crops of rice per year have a higher social, environmental, and economic resilience, compared to more intensive systems, and seem to recover quicker after extreme floods.

The stakeholders under Factor 1 disagreed with most of the economic perspectives, although their view aligned with SDG goals such as No Hunger and No poverty. They dissented the vital role of intensive rice production for export demand (Stat-9: −2), which neither was seen as necessary for the economic development of the Delta nor for improving peoples’ living conditions (Stat-13: −4; Stat-12: −3). Rice intensification was neither perceived as a cost-efficient way to increase rice yields nor a prime source of income and subsistence needs for rural households (Stat-11: −3; Stat-10: −2). In this vein, high use of pesticides to control pests and increase rice yields was not supported (Stat-26: −1; Stat-27: −2). This aligns with findings that intensive rice monocropping with three crops per year has increasing production costs due to the increasing use of agrochemicals over the years, which has been followed by decreased profits that could be even worse with the inclusion of farmers’ health treatment costs [26,27]. The fact that a diverse range of stakeholders shared this stance provides evidence that the problem of rice intensification is well comprehended in the Mekong Delta. Intensive monocultures tend to create systems with low resilience to external disturbances [3], and our results above show that the majority of the stakeholders in this study believed that the development agenda for future agriculture strategies in the Mekong Delta should be designed to promote more integrated farming methods, which embraces the environment and social dimensions of sustainable development for the benefit of the Delta’s stakeholders.

4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

This study sets out to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions, perspectives, and attitudes towards agriculture developments in the Mekong Delta with special attention to rice farming. It relates back to the 2013 Mekong Delta Plan, which initiated an increased focus on food quality rather than food volume, with clear intentions for sustainable development in the Mekong Delta. Such a transformational change of the food production system requires broadly-shared visions on what is meant by sustainable development and what implications this has for a strategic management of socio-agricultural systems. However, during the last decade, policies have been ambiguous and divergent strategies have made coherent implementation of plans difficult and inefficient [9]. This has been further compounded by stakeholders’ divergent visions and needs, and our study clearly shows that stakeholders emphasize different dimensions of sustainable development in relation to rice farming. Our results elucidated four major themes which surface from a wide range of stakeholders’ perceptions, illustrating a trajectory that starts with the more conservative view of “production through intensification”, which aligns with the dominating perception before 2013 and emphasizes the economic dimension of sustainable development. In this view, intensification through a human-controlled environment is seen as a cost-efficient way to increase rice yields, which is perceived to be the prime source of income and subsistence needs for rural households. This view is similar to the view of “sustainable intensification”, which however puts slightly more emphasis on the social dimensions and sees integrated farming systems as ways to increase the quality of yields and protect peoples’ health.

These two views were somewhat contested by the following two views, which included the majority of the stakeholders, and put more emphasis on the social and environmental dimension of sustainable development, with less focus on high rice yields. Instead, the importance of supporting, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services was often highlighted by these stakeholders. They clearly saw the multifunctional benefits of the rice-field ecosystem and seemed to have a profound understanding that a healthy environment contributes to sustained crop yields and helps to improve profits. This vision is in accordance with several recent governmental policies for more sustainable agriculture development in the Mekong Delta, and overall, our results indicate a shift in stakeholders’ perception of agriculture strategies in the Mekong Delta during the last decades, which provides promising steps towards implementing more sustainable farming practices. This transformational change is a slow and delicate process that must start with a mind-shift of people, building on their experiences and beliefs. This should be supported by coherent policies, capacity building and technical expertise that can be translated into new farming practices, which provide further proofs that farming systems can be made more sustainable, without compromising farmers’ income and livelihoods. As indicated by the majority of the stakeholders in this study and recent studies, such systems could include more diverse and less intensive production systems, that may lead to some reduction in total rice yields, but with increased production efficiencies and profits, especially if social and environmental benefits would be accounted for [3,28]. Such a transformational change of agriculture systems builds on a sustainable use of ecosystem services and balances the economic, ecological, and social dimensions of sustainable development for an enhanced resilience of the Mekong Delta’s social-ecological systems.