Page 34 - 2417

Page 10 of 23 Chaib et al. Carbon Footprints 2026, 5, 23

more likely to influence land-use decisions and enhance adaptive capacity, thus reducing reversals and
enhancing permanency.

The LVI-SF equals 0.39, which falls within the vulnerability bands commonly interpreted in empirical
applications as "vulnerable" (0.21 to 0.40) , while the LVI-SF-IPCC equals -0.04, which falls within the
[50]
"moderate vulnerability" range in IPCC-consistent applications (-0.19 to 0.20) . Livelihood strategies,
[50]
financial stability, social networks, natural disasters and climate variability, and socio-demographic
characteristics exhibit the highest values, ranging from 0.34 to 0.69 [Table 1; Supplementary Table 1]. These
results indicate moderate to severe vulnerability across multiple livelihood dimensions, with particular
concentration in structural and socio-economic domains. In contrast, basic household needs, such as food,
housing and drinking water display a markedly low score (0.01), reflecting low vulnerability in this domain
and suggesting that the community has access to essential goods and services sufficient to support
developmental processes.

Within the LVI-SF-IPCC framework, the results reveal a moderate yet structurally significant exposure to
climate-related stressors, with the aggregated “Exposure” component reaching 0.34 - the highest among the
IPCC vulnerability components. This exposure profile is consistent with the documented flood-proneness of
Amazonian floodplain and delta systems in the lower Amazon region, where seasonal and extreme flooding
constitute recurrent hazards for agricultural livelihoods and settlement infrastructure [53-55] . Perceived impacts
of climate variability are already evident within agricultural production systems, particularly through
constraints on water availability, which show a comparable magnitude (0.24), indicating that exposure is not
merely theoretical but already translates into observable livelihood pressures.

Sensitivity-related indicators further reinforce this interpretation. Elevated scores associated with agricultural
production and market constraints indicate that hydroclimatic shocks are effectively transmitted into
livelihood stress through coupled biophysical and economic pathways. In particular, production and
yield-related indicators average 0.66, reflecting exposure to crop and livestock losses and reliance on external
inputs, while rainfall dependence and episodic water scarcity contribute an additional sensitivity of 0.24.
Market access constraints, although less dominant, remain present, with a market-related sensitivity score of
0.16, indicating that climate-induced production shocks can propagate into income and access pressures.

At the same time, agricultural diversity indicators point to a structural source of sensitivity, with the
agricultural diversity component reaching 0.59 (higher value, lower diversity), indicating limited
diversification of cropping and livestock systems. This constrains households’ ability to absorb and
redistribute production and market shocks under recurrent flooding. This pattern is consistent with
empirical studies from Amazonian floodplain and smallholder systems showing that where present,
diversified cropping portfolios, high on-farm agrobiodiversity and flexible land-use strategies can partially
buffer production and market impacts, even under high flood exposure [53,56,57] .

The most binding structural constraint emerges in the adaptive-capacity domain. High pre-inversion scores
in adaptive-capacity-related indicators - particularly those capturing limited access to agricultural training,
weak exposure to alternative production systems and restricted learning and knowledge-sharing networks -
translate into low effective adaptive capacity. This pattern suggests that, while some degree of livelihood
diversification is present, the community’s capacity to anticipate, absorb and transform in response to
recurrent climate stressors remains constrained by institutional and informational barriers.

It is important to note that the LVI applied here represents a time-bound diagnostic, based on recent
household conditions reported in the survey, and therefore does not imply persistence of vulnerability over
time. While livelihood conditions may evolve in response to climatic shocks, market dynamics, or policy