IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Research article
erd

Farmer’s Perception of Ecosystem Services for Lowland
Rice Cropping Systems in Battambang Province,
Northwest of Cambodia
RAKSMEY PHOEURK*Ecosystem Services and Land Use Research Center, Division Research and Extension,
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: praksmey@rua.edu.kh

KIMCHHIN SOK
Ecosystem Services and Land Use Research Center, Division Research and Extension,
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

MALYNE NEANG
Ecosystem Services and Land Use Research Center, Division Research and Extension,
Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Received 25 January 2020

Accepted 2 November 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Rice is significant in Cambodian food security. The main cultivated area is incentral plain and floodplain of Tonle Sap Lake (TSL). TSL provides importantly bothprovisioning and regulating services to rice cultivations in its floodplain such natural floodfor irrigation, soil fertility from sediment and aquatics animals specifically fish and snakes
which regulated and improve the rice cropping system naturally. However, changes of theMekong River (flood pulse) and climate change impact on changes of rice cropping systems(RCS) observed recently. The objective of the study aims at carrying out farmer’s perception
on ecosystem services (ES) in comparison with two sites of Low-water-land (LWL) andmiddle-water-land (MWL) in Sangkae district, Battambang province. An agrarian systemanalysis and diagnosis method applied for whole implementation with 120 rice farmers forthis survey. Flood-pulse of TSL have change to lower and lower which led some part offloodplain became infertility, so farmers have changed their traditional rice cropping systems(floating rice and long-term rice) to high-yield rice; shifted from traditional techniques tomodern systems by adopting new innovations, inputs and technology, chemical fertiliser andmodern machineries. Nevertheless, from our study, the new rice cropping systems seem tobe less sustainable, inadequate use of new technologies or inputs in the study areas. Rice
cropping systems in MWL is more profitable than LML site. Farmers in both sites are awareof the ecosystem services provided by TSL, but not all of them perceived the same importanceamong the RCS because of agroecosystem differentiation. The poor farmers, who lived inand closer to the TSL basin relied the most on traditional rice; floating and long-term rice,
were vulnerable to food insecurity and insufficient household’s income, changes of theecosystem services in their regions. They reported the ES are more importance to their RCS
than other medium and large farmers. Adaptive RCS and irrigation system should promotecorresponding to the dynamic changes, ecosystems of Tonle Sap Lake.
Keywords rice cropping system, agrarian system and diagnosis, ecosystem services,perception, economic analysis, Tonle Sap Lake

INTRODUCTION
Tonle Sap lake (TSL) is known as a complex ecosystem, which provides a substantial hydrological,biological, nutritional, cultural value and the productive operations as natural floodwater reservoir inthe lower Mekong region offering flood protection and assuring dry season flow to the Mekong Delta(Arias et al., 2014; Kummu et al., 2014). The TSL floodplain system plays a critical role not only inⒸ ISERD

46

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

providing necessary water resources and other environmental services for the entire country, but it
also represents a global biodiversity hotspot supporting the remarkable productions of fishery andagriculture, mainly rice (Keskinen et al., 2013).
The lowland areas are largely cultivated in TSL floodplain, which accounts for almost 90% of
the total rice cultivation fields as well as for 77% of total rice production (Chea, 2015; MAFF, 2016).
Particularly RCS are enormously dependent on the natural resources provisioning. Battambang
province is the major producer of rice called “rice bowl” located in northwest of Cambodia, wheremore than 70% of the population depend on agriculture as their main job and almost half of themcultivate rice (provincial department of planning, 2016). However, the extreme flooding occurred
which damaged more than one tenth of rice cultivated area in 2011 in the country, but the total areasof rice affected by these floods reached more than 30% in this province, while damages in Sangkae
district itself represented 70% of the total cultivated area (Kamoshita and Ouk, 2015). With thesechanges especially flood pulse of TSL, farmers have changed their RCS by adapting new innovations
and technologies in the purpose of increasing their rice production. In floodplain areas of TSL,
floating rice (FR) or long-term rice (LTR) areas dramatically shifted to high-yield rice, particularly
EWSR and/or RR practices (Keskinen et al., 2013).
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this study aims at understanding farmer’s perception on ecosystem services(ES) in comparison with two sites of LWL and MWL in Sangkae district, Battambang province withrespect to recent dynamics in TSL floodplain ecosystems.
Based on the interactions of these changes of TSL ecosystem sand RCS, the study discusses on
the advantages and disadvantages of the changes in RCS as well as to document the perception ofES of TSL affecting the livelihood of households in different agroecosystems. Moreover, there arestill lack of scientific studies on such topic from Cambodia which would deeply analyse the changesof agricultural land-use systems of RCS in the floodplains in/around TSL whereas the ES of TSL
altered by the changes of its flood pulse. The study proposes to conduct a research on theseinteractions between ES of TSL and RCS in lowland area in Battambang province.
The limitation of the study did not access to measure economic comparation neither between
RCS in both MWL and MWL, nor the household’s livelihood diversity provided by provisioning andregulating services of ES from TSL
METHODOLOGY
Agrarian System Overview
The study was adopted agrarian system concept in order to achieve the objective of the study. Thisis an all-encompassing concept, capable of making sense of agricultural and livelihood activities ata regional scale in a way that accounts for both ecological and socio-economic dimensions (Cochet,2012). The historical changes study helps to identify and understand the main dynamics ofdifferentiation among farming families and thus help define current farming systems (Barral et al.,2012).
Sample Selection and Data Collection
120 rice producing farmers (60 farmers from each site) were randomly selected in both different
agro-ecological systems in Sangkae district. Baset, Oumuni and Rorkar in Middle-water-land(MWL) site, Samdach, Svay Sar, and Boeng Tuem from low-water-land (LWL) site.

Ⓒ ISERD47IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Data Analyses
SPSS version 20 (Social Package for Social Sciences) was performed by specific tools basicallydescriptive statistic, such as frequencies, means and standard deviations. Likert scale, a psychometricresponse scale primarily used in questionnaires to obtain participant’s preferences or degree ofagreement with a statement or set of statements, was also used. The order scaling was set as 4 levels
scoring from 1 to 4 which represents from ―Strongly agree‖ to ―Disagree‖ (1=strongly agree,
2=agree, 3= somewhat disagree, 4= disagree) while the scoring from 1 to 6 representing from―Strongly decrease‖ to ―Don‘t know‖ (1=strongly decrease, 2=somewhat decrease, 3=the same,
4=strongly increase, 5=somewhat increase and 6=don‘t know), and other scoring for awareness wasfrom 1 to 4 (1=strongly aware, 2=aware, 3=somewhat aware, 4=not aware).
Study Area
The study was conducted at floodplain areasin Sangkae districts of Battambang province.
The Fig. 1 visualised the layout and locationin red of TSL in Cambodia. The hydrologicalregime of this province supports anunnoticeable support to national economic
development contribution of Cambodia byproviding a wide range of ecosystems suchas high biodiversity and productivity, mainly
fish, plant communities, and wildlife.
Almost half of the Cambodian population
uses resources of TSL (Arias et al., 2014).
Two Ago-ecological zones of theFig. 1 Map of Cambodia and study area
Sangkae distinct were selected for this study(Arias et al. 2014)(Fig. 2), the This area from 0 -1 m unlessthere is flooding. Agricultural land is cultivated RCS such as long-term rice (LTR), early season rice(ESR), and dry season rice (DSR). There are not many fruit trees or vegetable grown in this area.
There are available supplementary irrigation systems in this zone, which suitable for cultivating
short-term RCS.

Zone 2: Middle-water- land or middle field

Zone 1: Low-water-land or low field

Note:

Fig. 2 Landscape during wet season (November - April)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rice Cropping Practices in Two-zones
Fig. 3 shows rice cropping systems cultivated in low-water land and middle-water land. Only floating
rice (FL) is existing in LWL while there is no any farmers in MWL cultivated this rice cropping
system.

Ⓒ ISERD48

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Number ofhouseholds

50
Low-water
land0RR

ESR

DRFL

LTR

Fig. 3 Rice cropping systems in different agroecology
As a result, majority of farmers (>60%) in both sides have adopted this innovation by changing
their old RCS, which practised with traditional techniques and mainly relied on natural resources
provisioning, to the new RCS which confirmed by keskinen (2013). Farmers have low adaptive
capacity while the climate and ES (flood pulse) variability have occurred in their areas which similar
to the studies rainfed upland in Cambodia (Yusf and Francisco, 2009). Insufficient supplementary
irrigation systems and depending on unreliable rainfalls and floodwater from TSL led to low
productivity improvement while they have shifted to cultivate high-yield RCS in their areas which
consistent with Sophea’s study (2012).
Farmer’s Perceptions of Ecosystem Services

Percentage (%)

Most of the farmers in both areas have similar perceptions of ES such as floodwater, wildlife, fishand forest. They perceived that those ES dramatically declined and changed. The amount of fish wasindicated by more than 50% of farmers in the MWL as strongly decrease while 60% in the LWL. On
the contrary, among the interviewed farmers had a different opinion of floodwater. They havementioned that floodwater was strongly increased which more than 5% of them in both areas
perceived while more than 2% of farmers in the MWL was found somewhat increase as shown inFig. 4.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Strongly decrease
Somewhat decrease
The same
Strongly increase
Somewhat increase
WaterWildlife

FishForest

WaterWildlife

Low-water land

FishForest

Do not know

Middle-water land

Fig. 4 Farmer's perceptions of ES changed in TSL
FR cropping system was, traditional system, required low cost of production compared to highyield RCS. Additionally, farmers exercised this RCS with lower labour and cost of inputs, farmers
did not apply chemical fertilisers and obtained approximately 900kg/ha. Farmers practice FR for
mainly household’s consumption which similar to Sarkkula et al. (2003), who stated that FR issignificant for the poorest households on floodplain area due to its cost-efficiency. Therefore, thestudy found that farmers perceive that ES from TSL not only the water for their RCS, but also
provided other fishy research for their livelihood system. The result of analysis indicated that thefarmers in LWL valued the ES more importantly to the resources from TLS rather than the farmers
in MWL site. From this over-view, the study assumes that farmers who lived in and closer to theTSL basin are aware of and depended directly on the ES of TSL.
Farmer’s Awareness of Ecosystem ServicesⒸ ISERD49

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Farmers provided different information of awareness evaluation as shown in Fig. 5. The respondents
in the LWL is higher than who in the MWL, 80% of farmers in the LWL aware the ES in their RCS
annually while 60% in the MWL. In contrast, 40% of farmers in the MWL are not aware ES while
20% in the LWL. Additionally, farmers provided their level of awareness on four specific ES suchas water, wildlife, fish, and forest contributed in their RCS.
100%80%Percentage (%)

60%
40%

50%

20%

0%

Aware

Not aware

Low-water land

Middle-water land

Fig. 5 Farmer's awareness of ES for rice cropping systems in both sites
The Importance of Ecosystem Services
Figure 6 shows the farmer’s perceptions of the importance of ES in TSL for their RCS. As the results,
more than 80% of local farmers show that the ES are necessary for their RCS particularly floodwater.
Meanwhile, 7% of farmers in LWL mentioned not all of the ES are important while 2% of farmers
in the MWL also mentioned. Additionally, among those farmers,10% of farmers in LWL and 17%
in the MWL, also did not know whether these ES are important or not.
Percentage(%)

100%

83%

80%

66%

60%
40%
20%

7%

18%

10%

17%

0%
Not imporant

Imporant

Low-water land

Do not know

Middle-water land

Fig. 6 Farmers’ perceptions of the importance of ES for rice cropping systems
Most of the households in the both agro-ecosystems were aware of a wide range of ES
provisioning from TSL for their RCS such as freshwater, wildlife, flooded forest, and fish. Thisawareness was higher among the farmers from LWL with 80%, compared to 60% in MWL,respectively. However, both values were lower compare to 90% observed in Nigeria (Zhang et al.,2016). It explicitly explained that farmers in the LWL might be closely interacted and depended on
the ES from TSL for their RCS while farmers in the MWL did not which relatively similar to a study
conducted in Philippines (Lasco et al. 2016) and main areas of European grasslands (Lamargue et al.
2011).
Correspondents in the LWL were more likely to be aware the causes of changing while farmers
in the MWL were not widely aware. The linkages between their livelihood and ES in TSL also mighthighlight their different perceptions of ES. Due to the LWL located very closed to TSL, most of them
actively and directly relied on those ES which led them to well recognising the causes of changes.
CONCLUSION
Land-use systems in floodplain of Tonle Sap Lake (TSL) were changed resulting particularly in vast
deforestation and replacing traditional rice varieties practices in past decades, then to modern rice
cropping systems mainly for the household’s improvement and Cambodian country’s economy. Suchchanges also affected the TSL’ES and profitability of particular systems. ES variation affected thehouseholds’ livelihood particularly the poorest households in the floodplains. Changing of the RCSⒸ ISERD50IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

provided highly negative impacts on ecosystems in TSL, using high chemical fertilisers, pesticides
and herbicides among inputs. Farmers were more vulnerable and prone to high risk for their RCS
due to low adaptive capacity, lack of supplementary irrigation systems and explicit reliable sourcesof metrological information to confront with ES and recent climate change. Majority of farmers inboth study sites perceived ES of TSL as important directly to their RCS and other fishery resources
provisioning to their livelihood. The more closer people to TSL basin, the more they relied on theES. However, not all of them perceived that ES provided by TSL are important to them while those
ES changed particularly flood pulse which in particularly year their RCS were seriously damaged byflooding. Moreover, they were aware about the changes in freshwater, fish, wildlife, and floodedforest, but farmers in LWL were aware the causes of change of ES higher than farmers in MWL due
to their closely interaction between ecosystems in TSL.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for supports and cooperation from AFABET scholarship program (20152018) funded by EU, the villagers and relevant sectoral department governors/authorities, Ecosystem
Service and Land Use Research Center (ECOLAND) at the Royal University of Agriculture (RUA)
in Cambodia, Dr. Vladimir Verner, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences of Czech University of Life
Sciences Prague, Czech Republic, and Dr. Kimchhin SOK’s Ph.D. project.
REFERENCES
Arias, M.E., Cochrane, T.A., Kummu, M., Lauri. H., Holtgrieve, G.W., Koponen, J. and Piman, T. 2014.
Impacts of hydropower and climate change on drivers of ecological productivity of Southeast Asia's mostimportant wetland. Ecological modelling, 272, 252-263.
Arias, M.E., Piman, T., Lauri, H., Cochrane, T.A. and Kummu, M. 2014. Dams on Mekong tributaries as
significant contributors of hydrological alterations to the Tonle Sap Floodplain in Cambodia. Hydrologyand Earth System Sciences, 18 (12), 5303.
Barral, S., Touzard, I., Ferraton, N., Rasse-Mercat, E. and Pillot, D. 2012. Assessing smallholder farming.
Diagnostic analysis of family-based agricultural systems in a small region. Los Banos: Southeast AsianRegion Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture, Philippines.
Chea, S. 2015. Evaluating cropping system options for farmers in the lowland rice-based systems of Cambodia,Cambodia.
Cochet, H. 2012. The systeme agraire concept in francophone peasant studies. Paris Institute of Technologyfor Life, Food and Environmental Sciences (AgroParisTech), Comparative Agriculture and AgriculturalDevelopment Research Unit. Paris, France.
Kamoshita, A. and Ouk, M. 2015. Field level damage of deepwater rice by the 2011 southeast asian flood in aflood plain of Tonle Sap Lake, Northwest Cambodia. Paddy and Water Environment, 13 (4), 455-463.
Keo, S. 2015. The impact of climate change on agricultural production in north-west Cambodia. In Conferenceon International Research on Food Security.
Keskinen, M., Kummu, M., Salmivaara, A., Someth, P., Lauri, H., Moel, H., Ward, P. and Pech, S. 2013. Tonle
Sap now and in the future? Final Report of the Exploring Tonle Sap Futures study, Cambodia.
Kummu, M., Tes, S., Yin, S., Adamson, P., Józsa. J., Koponen, J., Richey, J. and Sarkkula, J. 2014. Water
balance analysis for the Tonle Sap Lake-floodplain system. Hydrological Processes, 28 (4), 1722-1733.
MAFF. 2016. Annual report on agricultural sector in Cambodia. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Malyne, N. 2015. Maintaining ecosystem services provided by rice production systems in Cambodia:
Identifying costs for farmers and consumers' preferences. The University Clermont Auvergne, ClermontFerrand, France.
Provincial Department of Planning. 2016. Profile on economic and social of Battambang province in year 2015.
Based on commune and district databases, Cambodia.
Sarkkula, J., Kiirikki, M., Koponen, J. and Kummu, M. 2003. Ecosystem processes of the Tonle Sap Lake. In
Ecotone II-1 Workshop, Phnom Penh and Siem Reap, Cambodia.
Yusuf, A.A. and Francisco, H. 2009. Climate change vulnerability mapping for Southeast Asia. Economy andEnvironment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore, 10-15.
Ⓒ ISERD51

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Zhang, W., Kato, E., Bhandary, P., Nkonya, E., Ibrahim, H.I., Agbonlahor, M., Ibrahim, H.Y. and Cox, C.
2016. Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from ruralcommunities in Nigeria. Ecosystem Services, 22, 150-160.

Ⓒ ISERD52