IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

Research article
erdHousehold Income Diversity of Small-scale Cassava
Producers in Vietnam
NIEN CHAU NGUYEN*
Agronomy Faculty, Nong Lam University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Email: nien.nguyen@hcmuaf.edu.vn

TAMON BABA
College of Letters, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, JapanHISAKO NOMURA
Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, JapanKASUMI ITOInternational Center for Research and Education in Agriculture,
Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
Received 8 February 2023

Accepted 30 May 2023(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This study clarifies how small-scale cassava producers endeavor to stabilize theirhousehold income. We conducted the survey between April and December 2017 in Dong Nai,
Tay Ninh, and Gia Lai provinces, which are major cassava-producing provinces; 182 smallscale cassava producers were randomly selected for interviews. According to the results, eachhousehold has 4.5 members, of which 2.1 are involved in cassava production. The average
household income was $7,071.29 per year, while the average income per employee was$3,535.15, which is 36.8% less than the average income of Vietnamese employees. The
primary income is derived from two sectors: $3,648.41 (51.59%) and $3,422.88 (48.41%)
from agricultural and non-agricultural incomes, respectively, along with $25.0 (0.4%) and$14.7 (0.2%) from remittance and pensions, respectively. Further, the cassava income shared
23.57% and 12.16% of agricultural and total household incomes, respectively, with an averageof $859.81. As their primary sources of income, some small-scale cassava producers produce
industrial crops, such as rubber trees, sugarcane, cashew, tobacco, and acacia. Moreover, they
produce vegetables and fruits and engage in animal husbandry activities and agro-processing.
In terms of non-farm income, they work as hired laborers and receive a stable income fromthe government or private companies. Thus, small-scale cassava producers in Vietnam
stabilize their household income with multiple income sources and do not rely heavily on
cassava.
Keywords cassava, production, producers, socioeconomic status, income, Vietnam

INTRODUCTION
Vietnam is a lower middle-income country; however, its economy has grown by an average ofapproximately 6.7% annually since Doi Moi (renovation) in 1986 (Cameron et al., 2020). The
agricultural, forestry, and fishery sectors constituted 12.36% of the economic structure. In 2019,labor productivity reached an annual average income of 4,159 USD per employee (GSO, 2017a).
However, the average income varies between regions and provinces; for example, the central
highlands had a per-employee income of 3,223.1 USD, while the Southeast had a per-employee
income of 5,596.4 USD (GSO, 2017a).
After rice and corn, cassava is the third most crucial staple crop in Vietnam’s agricultural sectors.
In addition to rubber trees, coffee, tea, and cashew nuts, cassava is classified as an industrial crop,and it is the third most important export crop. According to Kim et al. (2000), cassava plays anⒸ ISERD

139

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

important socioeconomic role. Furthermore, it generates employment opportunities in rural areas: inthe north, this crop is used as food and feed for livestock, whereas in the south, it is a raw material
for small-scale starch processing factories. This crop is grown on 513,000 hectares in 40 out of 63
provinces, with an annual production of 9.85 million tons (GSO, 2018a). In recent years, there has
been an increase in the quantity of cassava production in Vietnam. Vietnam ranks ninth in the worldin terms of cassava production, accounting for 3.5% of the world’s old total cassava production (FAO,2019). Statistical results from GSO (2018b) revealed that 7.42 million tons of cassava (75.3%) served
domestic processing factories, while other 2.43 million tons (24.7%) were exported mainly to China(88.1%) and other countries, such as Korea (2.7%), Malaysia (1.6%), and the Philippines (1.5%).
Therefore, influenced by processing industries that use cassava starch and export demand, theprice of cassava roots has fluctuated over the years. For example, in November 2012, the Prime
Minister of Vietnam issued a decree mandating that all organizations and individuals producing,
mixing, and trading petrol in Vietnam for use in conventional vehicle engines must use a biofuel
known as E5 gasoline. Specifically, 95% RON 92 gasoline is blended with 5% bioethanol to produce
E5 gasoline. The price of cassava roots has increased because bioethanol is made mainly fromcassava starch (Nguyen et al., 2017). In January 2017, however, when the National Petroleum Groupbegan selling RON 95 gasoline, the market share of E5 gasoline decreased significantly, resulting ina decline in the alcohol production industry. Moreover, compared with 2017, the amount of exported
cassava decreased by 37.7% in 2018 (GSO, 2017b; GSO, 2018b).
Small-scale cassava producers, who play an essential role in the cassava sector in Vietnam, arehighly susceptible to volatile cassava prices. Therefore, to earn a stable income, they might haveincome might rely on something other than cassava production. Previous studies suggested that
farmers in rural areas tend to cultivate multiple crops, raise livestock and poultry in their spare time,
and work as hired labor (Duong and Izumida, 2002; Minot et al., 2006; Nguyen et al., 2013; Hoang
et al., 2014; Nguyen, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019). Moreover, some farmers profit from specific crops,
such as tea (Saigenji and Zeller, 2009). However, the income diversity of small-scale cassava
producers in Vietnam needs to be studied. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss their income status tosustain and develop the cassava sector and increase cassava producers’ income in Vietnam.
OBJECTIVE
This study discusses how small-scale cassava producers stabilize their household income in Vietnam.
METHODOLOGY
From April to December 2017, we randomly interviewed 182 cassava producers in the Xuan Loc
district of Dong Nai province (60 producers), Tan Chau district of Tay Ninh province (61 producers),
and Dak Po and Krong Pa districts of Gia Lai province (61 producers), regarding the 2016-2017
cassava production cycle. These three provinces occupy 26% of the total land used for cassava
cultivation and produce 34% of total cassava production in Vietnam (Fig. 1) (GSO, 2018a).
The questionnaire was designed to understand farmers' management capacity including age,education, farming experience, and labor. Moreover, to analyze all income sources of cassava
producers included in the study, four main income sectors, including agriculture income, non-farmincome, pension, and remittance were generated in the questionnaire. In each sector, in the context
of activities that generated income (plus or minus), producers were requested to clarify theirrespective contribution percentages. Microsoft Excel and R version 4.1.2 were used to analyze thedata using descriptive and correlation statistics.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Cassava Producers’ Profile and Annual IncomeⒸ ISERD

140

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

In this study, 182 cassava producers, with an average age of 48.6 years and a gender ratio of 14.3%
and 85.7% female and male, respectively, were interviewed. The interviewees’ education levels wereas follows: 14.3% no school, 42.9% elementary, 27.5% secondary school, 12.1% high school, and3.3% bachelor. Their cultivation experiences were 23.8 years and 11.4 years for cassava production.
Averagely, each family comprised 4.5 members, two of whom were the primary laborers for cassava
production. Of the cassava farmers, 60.4% and 39.6% produced cassava full-time and part-time,
respectively. Each cassava producer utilized 2.9 ha of land for a total of 5.1 ha of cultivation land.

Fig. 1 Location of study sites, land use and production of cassava cultivation(a) study site (light green); (b) land use for cassava cultivation (total: 596,000 ha);(c) cassava production (total 10,309,700 tons), (made from GSO (2019))

As shown in Table 1, the income sources of cassava producers were categorized into four sectors.
This diversity is consistent with Minot et al. (2006) and Nguyen et al. (2017) study, in the sense thatrural farmers maintain their income by relying on a variety of sources, including subsistence
production of staple crops, commercial production of a broader range of agricultural commodities,
and non-farm activities. The annual average total income of each household was $7,071.3. The
average income per employee was $3,535.7 because each household had two main laborers. Thiswas 36.8% less than the average income of Vietnamese employees according to a government
declaration (GSO, 2017a).
Two primary income sources of cassava producers were agriculture at $3,648.4 (51.6%) andnon-farm at $3,383.2 (47.8%). An insignificant income was derived from remittances at $25.0 (0.4%)
and pension at $14.7 (0.2%). Haggblade et al. (2010) found that the non-farm sector accounted for
51% of the income of farmers in rural areas of Asian developing countries, similar to cassava
producers in Vietnam. This comparison demonstrates that agricultural income is essential for cassava
producers in Vietnam.
Table 1 Sharing income ($ per year) from a different source of cassava producers (N=182)
Sectors
Total income
Agriculture
Non-farm
RemittancePensionAverage
7,071.3
3,648.4
3,383.2
25.0
14.7

%
100.0
51.6
47.8
0.4
0.2

SD
10,717.17
9,472.74
5,078.94
336.93139.73Hire Labor and Agriculture Income Sources of Cassava Producers
According to Kim et al. (2015), cassava is a source of income for poor farmers as it can be easily
cultivated, adapted to poor soil, and has low investment costs. Cassava producers in this studyⒸ ISERD141

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

generally cultivated cassava in areas with poor soil. Other crops, such as industrial and staple crops,
were grown in better soil areas. We identified eight different jobs in this study, as shown in Fig. 2.
Cultivation (hired by other farmers for planting or harvesting products and so on) and work at local
factories and companies were the three most attractive employments of cassava producers, sharing a
total of 89.3%. Moreover, cassava producers joined the community government, soldiers, policemen,teachers, and nurses.

Fig. 2 Sharing employments (%) in hire labor activity of cassava producers (N = 182)
Table 2 shows that cassava cultivation accounted for 23.6% of agricultural income, with anannual average of $859.8. In contrast, income from industrial crops accounted for 76.7%, with anannual average of $2,797.1, while agro-processing products, stable crops, and vegetable and fruit
crops contributed an insignificant amount of income in the agricultural sector. Concurrently, income
from animal husbandry was negative $131.6 (-3.6%) annually.
Table 2 Income components of the agricultural sector ($ per year) (N = 182)
Income sources
Industrial crops
Cassava
Agro-processing products
Staple crops
Vegetables and fruits
Animal husbandry

Average
2,797.1
859.8
49.5
48.7
25.1
-131.6

%
76.7
23.6
1.4
1.3
0.7
-3.6

SD
7,954.64
2,617.84
440.552,339.03
937.15
1,683.22

Farmers from various rural areas rely on other main crops for their income in the agricultural
sector. For example, according to Nguyen et al. (2013), rice, soya bean, and sweet potato are themain income crops for farmers in Cam My commune, Ha Tinh Province. Industrial crops, such as
rubber trees (60.6%), sugarcane (21.7%), cashews (8.7.0%), tobacco (6.4%), and acacia (5.5%) are
the main source of income for cassava producers in the agricultural sector (Fig. 3A). In contrast,
black pepper resulted in a slightly negative income ($-9.0 per year) for cassava producers.
According to GSO (2018), areas where rubber trees, sugarcane, and cashews were planted in
Vietnam were 969,700 ha, 281,000 ha, and 299,900 ha, respectively, with Dong Nai, Tay Ninh, and
Gia Lai serving as the three main production areas for these crops. In this study, the cassava producers
that planted rubber trees, sugarcane, cashew, tobacco, and acacia were 25 (with an average farm of
3.2 ha), 21 (with an average area of 3.9 ha), 44 (with an average farm of 1.9 ha), 9 (with an averagearea of 1.2 ha), and 8 (with an average farm of 3.5 ha), respectively. In addition, when cassava
producers cultivated more than one industrial crop, we discovered that seven cassava producers grewrubber trees and sugarcane, six cultivated cashew and acacia, one cultivated cashew and tobacco, andanother cultivated rubber trees, cashew, and acacia.
In vegetable and fruit crop cultivation (Fig. 3B), income sources were from banana (39.7%),
watermelon (29.8%), dragon fruit (24.0%), and mango fruits (9.4%). Similarly, in staple crop
cultivation (Fig. 3C), corn (60.7%), rice (28.2%), and bean (11.2%) were the income sources.
Ⓒ ISERD

142

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

In animal husbandry activities, cassava producers’ rear cows, pigs, goats, deer, chickens, ducks,
and squabs. The negative income sources were mainly derived from rearing cattle ($-163.6 annually)and pigs ($-20 annually). The major cause of cassava production was cattle and pig deaths caused by
epidemic diseases. A study by Chu et al. (2019) revealed a similar situation when animal husbandry
epidemic diseases caused a lack of 47.6% of farmers in the Da River basin.

Fig. 3 Sharing income (%) in crop cultivation of cassava producers (N = 182)
Non-farm Income Sources of Cassava Producers
Non-farm activities vary from continent to country. Haggblade et al. (2010) grouped diverse rural
non-farm activities as follows: mining and natural resources, manufacturing, construction, utilities,
commerce, and services. Non-farm income sources of cassava producers were grouped into nine
categories, as described in Section 4. The data indicates the positive and negative income derived
from different activities. Hired labor activity comprised the main income source for non-farms. This
activity contributed up to 81.5% ($2,757.2 annually). In this sector, middleman activity, specializing
in cassava roots and stems, was the second source, gaining 10.9% ($368.6 annually). Grocery was
third, at 5.83% ($195.8 yearly). A small amount was shared for the activities, including transport bya motor (1.0%), preparing motors or cars (0.8%), cashew nut businesses (0.6%), transportation bycar (0.5%), and selling feed for the animal (0.1%).
Generally, cassava producers obtain a good revenue for their commercial activities. However,food booth activity resulted in a -1.3% ($-42.7 per year). This result may explain why farmers
produced and sold food to inhabitants and fed their households during activities at food booths.
Table 3 Sharing annual income ($) in the non-farm sector of cassava producers (N = 182)
Income sources
Hired labor
Middleman
Grocery
Transport by motor
Repair motors or cars
Cashew nuts businessTransport by car
Selling feed for animal
Food boothAverage
2,757.2
368.6
195.8
35.0
27.1
21.0
18.2
3.0
-42.7

%
81.5
10.9
5.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.1
-1.3

SD
3,114.14
4,094.96
1,147.45
332.62271.38283.02245.9640.43
443.95

Correlation between Income and Total Land Area and Cassava Land Area
Analysis results indicated a correlation between total income and land use for crop production (Fig.
4A) and land use for cassava production (Fig. 4B), with the correlation coefficients (r) being 0.37
and 0.41, respectively. However, we observe that few farmers are pulling the correlation to become
positive liners. The results suggest that cassava producers with more agricultural and cassava land
will have more income. This finding is per the study of Minot et al. (2006), who found that expandingⒸ ISERD

143

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

the areas of cultivation is one of the various methods to improve farmers’ income. A study of Nguyen
et al. (2017) showed that ethnic minorities in the Northern Mountains of Vietnam could increase 15%
income per capita when they increase 1,000 m2 crop land.

Fig. 4 Correlations between total income and total agricultural area (A) or
cassava cultivated area (B) (N = 182)
Encounter Problems in Cassava Production
Other than income from cassava, we observed that cassava farmers diversified their sources ofincome. This section discusses the issues cassava farmers face and the possible reasons why cassava
producers need to rely on more than cassava production as their primary income source. Cassava
production in Vietnam has encountered various biotic and abiotic stressors. Moreover, other issues
related to varieties, changing root prices, and cultivation technologies have also challenged producers.
This study summarizes 11 problems in cassava production, as shown in Fig. 5. Up to 87.9% of
cassava producers encountered low prices for tuber selling. Half of the cassava producers had issues
with pests and diseases, and nearly one-third had problems with adverse weather during cassava
farming. High-cost input and seedling die had caused trouble for approximately 10% of cassava
producers. In addition, other issues, including low yield and technology, difficulty finding labor, highlabor cost, counterfeit fertilizer and pesticides, and poor transportation, also affected a few cassava
producers.

Fig. 5 Encounter problems in cassava production (N=182)
CONCLUSIONⒸ ISERD

144

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

This study investigates the household income diversity of small-scale cassava producers in Vietnam.
We utilized a sample of 182 cassava producers cultivating cassava fields of 2.9 ha on average, with
11.4 years of experience in cassava production in Dong Nay, Tay Ninh, and Gia Lai provinces.
The results showed that, on average and yearly, total household income was $7,071.29, of which$3,648.41 (51.59%) was from agricultural and $3,422.88 (48.41%) from non-farm sources. The
average income from cassava production was $859.81, which accounted for 12.16% of the total
household income and 23.57% of agricultural income. The various agricultural income sources
included seven types of crops, six types of vegetables and fruits, seven types of animal husbandry
operations, and three types of agro-processing businesses. Further, they engaged in eight kinds ofoff-farming work and were hired as laborers; this income accounted for a significant portion of thetotal household income. We also observed problems encountered in cassava production, which
explains why cassava farmers cannot only produce cassava. Due to fluctuations in tuber prices, pests
and diseases, and adverse weather, cassava producers in Vietnam diversify their income sources.
They do not overly rely on cassava and stabilize their household income.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable
Development (SATREPS) in collaboration with the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST,JPMJSA1508) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
REFERENCES
Cameron, A., Hien, P.T. and Giang, N.H. 2020. Towards innovation-led growth-economic strategies leading
Vietnam to higher-income status. Journal Science and Technology Policies and Management, 9 (2), 1-20,
Retrieved from URL https://vietnamstijournal.net/index.php/JSTPM/article/view/343
Duong, P. and Izumida, Y. 2002. Landholdings and household income in Vietnamese villages. Japanese
Journal of Farm Management, 40 (2), 23-37, Retrieved from URL https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fmsj
1963/40/2/40_23/_pdf
FAOSTAT. 2019. Food and agriculture data. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Retrieved from URL http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
GSO. 2017a. Report, Social and economic situations in 2017, Retrieved from URL https://www.gso.gov.vn/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ENG_02-Loi-van-2017_THANG-12.clean_.docx
GSO, 2017b. Statistical yearbook of Vietnam 2017. Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam.
GSO. 2018a. Preliminary exports and imports of goods by main countries and territories in 2017, Retrieved
from URL https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/11/preliminary-exports-and-imports-in2017
GSO. 2018b. Preliminary exports and imports of goods by main countries and territories in 2018, Retrieved
from URL https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/11/preliminary-exports-and-imports-in2018
Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T., 2010. The rural non-farm economy, Prospects for growth andpoverty reduction. World Development, 38 (10), 1429-1441, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2009.06.008
Hoang, T.X., Pham, C.S. and Ulubaşoǧlu, M.A. 2014. Non-farm activity, household expenditure, and poverty
reduction in rural Vietnam 2002-2008. World Development, 64, 554-568, Retrieved from DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.027
Kim, H., Pham, V.B. and Howeler, R.H. 2000. Status of cassava in Vietnam, Implications for future researchand development. In A Review of Cassava in Asia with Country Case Studies on Thailand and Vietnam,
FAO-IFAD-CIAT-CIRAD-IITA-NRI, Proceedings of the Validation Forum on the Global Cassava
Development Strategy, FAO, Roma, Italy.
Kim, H., Thi, N., Mai, T., Mai, N.B. and Howeler, R. 2015. Cassava conservation and sustainable developmentin Vietnam. In Sustainable Cassava Production in Asia for Multiple Uses and for Multiple Markets,
Proceedings of the 9th Regional Cassava Workshop, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Minot, N., Epprecht, M., Anh, T.T.T. and Trung, L.Q. 2006. Income diversification and poverty in the northern
uplands of Vietnam. Research Report of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.,
USA, Retrieved from DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/0896291480Ⓒ ISERD

145

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-1

Nguyen, C.V., Tran, T.Q. and Van Vu, H. 2017. Ethnic minorities in northern mountains of Vietnam,
Employment, poverty and income. Social Indicators Research, 134, 93-115, Retrieved from URL https://
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40769/1/MPRA_paper_40769.pdf
Nguyen, D.L., Grote, U. and Nguyen, T.T. 2019. Migration, crop production and non-farm labor diversificationin rural Vietnam. Economic Analysis and Policy, 63, 175-187, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eap.2019.06.003
Nguyen, H.Q., 2017. Analyzing the economies of crop diversification in rural Vietnam using an input distancefunction. Agricultural Systems, 153, 148-156, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.
01.024
Nguyen, Q., Hoang, M.H., Öborn, I. and van Noordwijk, M., 2013. Multipurpose agroforestry as a climatechange resiliency option for farmers, An example of local adaptation in Vietnam. Climate Change, 117,
241-257, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0550-1
Nguyen, T.H., Williams, S. and Paustian, K. 2017. Impact of ecosystem carbon stock change on greenhousegas emissions and carbon payback periods of cassava-based ethanol in Vietnam. Biomass and Bioenergy,
100, 126-137, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.02.009
Saigenji, Y. and Zeller, M. 2009. Effect of contract farming on productivity and income of small holders, Thecase of tea production in north-western Vietnam. 2009 Conference, International Association ofAgricultural Economists, Beijing, China, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.51681
van Chu, T., Thoai, T.Q., An, C.Q., Toai, P.M., Camacho, L.D. and van Sam, H. 2019. Contribution of forest
to rural households’ livelihood, Evidence from a river basin in the northwest mountainous region ofVietnam. Forest and Society, 3 (2), 235-247, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i2.7050Ⓒ ISERD

146