IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

Research article
erd

Challenges and Prospects for Increasing Vegetable
Production in Cambodia
KASUMI ITO*
International Center for Research and Education in Agriculture, Nagoya University, Nagoya,Japan
Email: kasumito@agr.nagoya-u.ac.jp

TATSUYA YOSHIDA
Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, JapanBORATANA UNG
Cambodia Japan High-value Agricultural Product, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

MITSURU HAMANO
Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan
Received 5 October 2023

Accepted 21 December 2023(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Vegetable production in Cambodia is minimal; thus, 70% of the country’s internal
consumption is dependent on imported vegetables, primarily from Thailand and Vietnam.
Although the government is encouraging vegetable production, clarifying the status, issues,and challenges is crucial to establishing detailed strategies for vegetable production in the
country. This study aimed to identify the challenges and prospects of vegetable production in
Cambodia by examining the status of vegetable cultivation, including production volumes
and varieties, vegetable business conditions, and producers' socio-economic characteristics.
A commune in Takeo province, which has year-round access to agricultural water, wasselected as the study area. Semi-structured interviews based on a questionnaire wereconducted with both vegetable producers and non-producers for comparative analysis.
Producers were asked about their vegetable production and other income-generating activities
and expenditures. Non-producers were asked about their income-generating and expenditure
activities. Valid responses were obtained from 113 vegetable-producing households (HHs)
and 89 non-producing HHs. The survey results indicated that 97% of vegetable producers
had a surplus; however, the average net profit (35 USD) was minimal compared with otherincome sources, such as factory work. The net profit was strongly influenced by the
production volume derived from the size of owned farmland and the limited planted area due
to unsuitable production methods. Nevertheless, nearly 60% of non-producers had arable
upland, but they stopped production owing to a lack of sales channels. Thus, the low
production volume per producer and limited sales channels were identified as the key
challenges Cambodia faces in terms of increasing vegetable production volumes.
Keywords vegetable production, current status, issues, challenges, Cambodia

INTRODUCTION
Cambodia is located on the Indochina Peninsula and is surrounded by Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam(Fig. 1). Owing to rapid economic growth in recent years, Gross National Income (GNI) per capita
exceeded 1,000 USD in 2013. It reached 1,500 USD in 2018 (World Bank, 2023. However, as many
people live below the poverty line in rural areas, it is one of the poorest countries. Agriculture
accounts for 25% of the country's GDP. In addition, about 40% of the people in Cambodia areengaged in agriculture, which is one of the country's core industries. The main crops include rice,maize, and cassava. Although self-sufficiency in rice has been achieved, vegetable production could
have been more active, with approximately 70% of domestic consumption dependent on importsⒸ ISERD

107

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

from neighboring countries. In response to this situation, Cambodia's Rectangular Strategy (Royal
Government of Cambodia, 2013) indicated the necessity of research activities to develop a policy
framework for expanding vegetable production. During the expansion of vegetable production,anyone can purchase domestic vegetables, and increasing production and distribution volume isnecessary to realize the situation (Fig. 2). Existing research on vegetable production in the country
covers marketing channels, such as market status (Itagaki, 2010), marketing (Olney et al., 2009), andlogistics (Kawahara and Yoshida, 2006). However, research should focus more on the reality andchallenges of production volume, including the yield, acreage, and number of producers, which isessential for exploring the potential for expanding production.

Th
ail
an
d

Laos

Tonle sap lake

Road
#

5

m
na
et
i
V

Road # 2

Road # 3

Phnom Penh
Takeo province

Fig. 1 Map of Cambodia showing the study area
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to identify the challenges of vegetable production for increasing production volume
in Cambodia by clarifying the status of vegetable cultivation, including production amount andvarieties, vegetable production business conditions, and producers' socio-economic characteristics.
Expansion of national veg production★

≒ Anyone can buy Cambodian vegetables（Kouy et al. 2016、Olney et al. 2009）

Volume of production

Production
amount/ HH

Number of
producers

Production
areas

Volume of distribution★

market（Itagaki 2010）★
marketing★

logistics（Olney et al. 2009）（Kawahara & Yoshida 2006）★

Existing studies

Fig. 2 Concept map of the study
METHODOLOGY
The survey area is in Takeo Province, about 80 km south of the capital Phnom Penh. It is Cambodia's
main agricultural production area (Fig. 3). A commune comprising 12 villages near a huge reservoir
constructed during the Pol Pot regime was selected as the study area. This commune has year-round
access to agricultural water, such as reservoirs and irrigation, and has been confirmed as a vegetableproduction area. It is 20 minutes by car from one of the largest markets in the province along National
Road No. 3. This road connects to Sihanoukville Port, the only port in Cambodia, and Phnom Penh,the capital city (Fig. 3).
Ⓒ ISERD108

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

Non-producer
Producer

Irrigation

Road No.3

Irrigation

生産者
0.5-1.0 ha(0.5-1.0ha)
Distance
農業用水
from
water
からの距離

非生産者
0.5-1.0 ha(0.5-1.0ha)

農業用水
Distance
からの距離
from
water

生産者
>1.0 ha(1ha未満)Road No. 2

非生産者>1.0 ha(1ha未満)Local
MarketReservoir

Image of sampling
Map of survey area

to Vietnam

Map of Takeo province

Fig. 3 Study area and sampling
For comparative analysis, a semi-structured interview based on a questionnaire was conductedwith both vegetable producers and non-producers. All households in the area producing vegetables
for sale during the 2017 production season were selected as “vegetable producers.” All the otherhouseholds in this area were automatically identified as “non-producers.” To select non-producers
facing natural environments and economic conditions similar to those faced by producers wereselected through stratified sampling. Stratification was based on water access and agricultural landownership (Table 1). First, the neighbors of each "producer" who could access the same water source
were selected as candidate respondents. Then, we selected households in the same land size category
as neighboring “producers” among the candidates. Only households that met the criteria wereselected. Consequently, 122 vegetable-producing and 92 non-producer HHs were selected as subjects
for the survey. Producers were asked about their vegetable production activities from October 2016
to September 2017 and their other income-generating activities and expenditures. Non-producers
were asked about their income-generating activities and expenditures. The number of valid responses
included 113 (92.6%) producer HHs and 89 (96.7%) non-producer HHs.
Producers (n=113)

Non-producers (n=89)

1. Production & Business
1) Veg production
2) Business status
2. Socio-economics and future potential
3) Socio-economic status

3) Socio-economic status4) Livelihood activities

4) Livelihood activities

5) Awareness forvegetable production5) Awareness forvegetable production

Fig. 4 Data collection framework
Table 1 Results of stratified sampling
Area（ha）

Producers1

below 1.0
30
1.050
2.025
3.08
Total
113
*Number of households and ratio(%)

Non-producers1(26.5)(44.2)(22.1)(7.1)(100.0)

27
35
23
4
89

(%)
(30.3)(39.3)(25.8)(4.5)(100.0)This study first focuses on the respondents’ profile, followed by vegetable production status andbusiness conditions, including costs and profits. Then, we explore the possibility of increasingⒸ ISERD

109

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

production and producers by conducting a comparative analysis of the socio-economic status,
including household composition, income, and awareness of both producers and non-producers (Fig.
4).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-economic Status of Respondents
Table 2 shows the profile and socioeconomic status of all respondents. Producer HHs had fewer
family members than non-producer HHs. Producer HHs had fewer female members, children under
15, and employed members. By contrast, the average age of each household and the primary
agriculture worker were significantly higher in producer HHs. The sizes of owned agricultural land
did not differ due to stratified sampling according to land size; both producer and non-producer HHs
tended to have an upland field suitable for vegetable production. No socio-economic or cultural
anthropological studies were found to provide background on the significant differences in householdcomposition. Household income data are analyzed in the later section.
Status of Vegetable Production
A total of 27 vegetables were produced by the respondents, including peanuts (30 HHs), pumpkins(23 HHs), melons (22 HHs), water spinach (21 HHs), and yams (21 HHs), with an average of 2.7
items per household (Fig. 5). Many of these were seen as native vegetables in the tropics, and direct
sowing was the mainstream. Therefore, it is assumed that the vegetable production in this area is notfor specific demands, such as exporting or sending to foreign residents in the country but for local
needs. Vegetable cultivation averaged 4.8 months per year and was concentrated in the dry season.
Substantially little cultivation occurs during the rainy season (Fig. 6). It is common to growvegetables using paddy fields after harvesting rice in Cambodia, according to existing studies(Hamano et al., 2013). In that case, cultivation in the rainy season is physically impossible. However,the producers in this region should be able to cultivate vegetables even in the rainy season, as morethan 70% (80 HHs) of them own upland fields (Table 2).
Table 2 Socio-economic profile of respondents
Respondents' attributes
Total number of HH2 members
FemaleMale

Producers

Non-producers

Total（N=113）
4.1
2.0
2.1

（N=89）
4.6
2.5
2.1（N=202）
4.3
2.2
2.1

1

P-value

0.049 *
0.003 **
0.957

Workforce (age 16-64)

2.9

3.1

3.0

0.546

Age 15 or more

1.0

1.3

1.1

0.028 *

Age 65 or more
Employed worker

0.3
0.4

0.2
0.7

0.3
0.5

0.212
0.009 **

Average age among all members

36.2

28.7

33.0

0.000 **

Main agriculture worker
Age

52.4

46.0

49.6

0.000 **

Years of schooling

5.1

5.0

5.1

0.995

1.5
1.2
0.5

0.567
0.266
0.315

3

4

1.49 (113)
1.43 (89)
Owned agricultural land area
paddy field
1.16 (113)
1.31 (89)upland field
0.45 (80)0.49 (21)
1 Mann-Whitney U test
P-value: *(P<0.05) **(P<0.01)
2 HH: Household
3 average area in hectar
4 Respondents who own each type of land

Ⓒ ISERD

110

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2
40

30

# of HH
（世帯数）

20

10

0

Sugar cane

Soy beanRoot

Mung beanLong bean

RadishPeanutSweet Potato

Cassava

Fingering potato

Fruit

Egg plant

Sponge gourd

Wax gourd

Water melon

Corn

CucumberMelon

PumpkinGreen petiole

S. mustard

C. cabbage

W. convolvulus

Leafy

Bean

Native varieties by Nawata (1996)

Fig. 5 Vegetable items produced
As a result of asking about vegetable production, the most common answer was damage bypests and disease (63.0%), followed by lack of water (39.8%), growth failure (32.4%), and lack oflabor force (17.6%) (Table 3). Additionally, many producers needed help using pesticides, including
how to use them appropriately (Table 4). Unsuitable cultivation techniques were sometimes observed,
such as crawling cultivation that cultivates vine vegetables, including cucumber, horizontally without
using any poles. Those vegetables will be placed directly on the soil, and insects will quickly eat
them. Moreover, the fruits will be soaked in rainwater and quickly rot.

Fig. 6 Cultivation calendar and timing of seeding
Table 3 Issues of vegetable production

Table 4 Problems of using pesticides

Problems of veg. production# of HH (%)
Lack of water43(39.8)
Excess water by flooding
13(12.0)
Growth failure
35(32.4)
Damage by diseases & insects
68(63.0)
Lack of labor force
19(17.6)
Hight costs
13(12.0)
No special problem
4
(3.7)
Total
195 (180.6)
Multiple answers allowed (N=100)

Problems of using pesticide# of HH (%)

Selection

71(65.7)How to use

67(62.0)

Amount to use

55(50.9)

Pests & diseases control

55(50.9)

Others13(12.0)

Total
261
Multiple answers allowed (N=100)(241.7)

Although this area has a vast reservoir built during the Pol Pot regime in the 1970s, only the
primary channel works. Water is not well distributed far from the reservoir owing to the poor
irrigation system. These results imply that a probable reason for rare cultivation in the rainy season
is the difficulty of pests and disease management due to a lack of knowledge and appropriate
cultivation techniques. Another possible explanation is that producers may need more workforce togrow vegetables and rice simultaneously, even if there is land.
Ⓒ ISERD

111

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

Business Conditions of Vegetable Producers
Analysis of the vegetable producers’ business revealed that 100 out of 113 producer HHs (88%) soldvegetables. Still, three HHs (3%) were at a loss, or in the red, as shown in Fig. 7. The average monthly
net profit was 35 USD or 166 USD for the cultivation period. This is considerably small comparedto the study area's factory labor wage of 160–200 USD/month. Thirteen households did not sellvegetables for unknown reasons, even though they produced them with the intention of selling.
A comparative analysis was done by dividing producers into two groups based on the medianprofit to find the critical factors for lower or higher profits (Table 5). Producers above the mediantended to own more upland and planted areas, resulting in significant production and sales volumes
and larger profits. Their cost per hectare, unit yield, and unit selling price were lower than those of
producers below the median. Although this study did not include own labor costs, productivity was
nearly the same between the two groups. In this survey, no producers planted in the same farmland
twice; thus, the planted area’s size equals the owned farmland area. Therefore, the larger the farmland
area owned, the larger the net profit obtained.
Red

Black

（# of HH）

Median166USD

50

Labor work：
160-180USD/month

Average
290USD

Vegetable:
35 USD/month
166USD/ 4.8 months

40

40
30

21
20

16

10

5

3

6
3

1

3

2

0
-0

0-

125- 250- 375- 500- 625- 750- 875- 1000(USD)

7 Profitsfrom
from vegetableproduction(N=100)Fig. 7Fig.
Profits
vegetable
production(N=100)Pearson’s correlation coefficients show positive correlations between net profit and total saleamount, cost, planted area, production, sales volume, number of items, and upland field ownership.
Meanwhile, unit yield, which is also an essential component of production volume, was notcorrelated with net profit and costs per hectare (Table 5). Thus, profits from vegetables seem to be
influenced more by production scale than by productivity.
Table 5 further shows the material inputs households used. Among 100 producer HHs, 69
purchased seeds, 79 purchased fertilizers, 39 purchased pesticides, 4 hired workers, 21 rented
machinery, and 51 purchased fuels. However, these costs did not influence the net profits.
Table 6 shows the results of the analysis of the relationship between the unit yield of four kinds ofvegetables and six material input costs. The costs of seeds, fertilizer, and fuel had highly significant
positive correlations with leafy vegetables and beans yields. Labor and rental fees had a weakrelationship with root vegetable yields, whereas fruit vegetable profits were not correlated with any
input goods. Seeds and fertilizer costs had a highly significant correlation with profits. Some input
material costs, such as pesticides, had slightly negative relationships with the unit yield of somevegetables. Pesticides are generally effective at preventing crop loss to pests, diseases, and weeds;
however, producers may lack knowledge on how to use them appropriately. Thus, introducing inputs
could be more effective in increasing unit yields and profits in vegetable production.
The critical factor of net profits for vegetable producers in this area is production scale — notstrategic production, such as low cost, high selling price, high productivity, and high yield. The
World Bank (2015) has indicated that the farm size of small-scale farmers is decreasing while thatof large-scale farmers is expanding. Rural households with smaller agricultural land have fewerⒸ ISERD112

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

opportunities to get more significant net profits from current vegetable production. Small landholders
need to increase productivity, selling price, or production frequency for more profits. Increasing
productivity needs technical improvement, including appropriate ways of using input materials, suchas fertilizers and pesticides.
Table 5 Status of vegetable production and the results of the analysis
Variables

All producers
N=100

Unit

Total sale amount

USD

Total cost
Net profit

1rabove 166USD
N=50

below 166USD
N=50

571

84

0.000 **

2

P-value328

0.995 **

USD

38

0.466 **

52

23

0.011 *

USD

290

1.000

520

61

0.000 **

Total sales amount/ha

USD/ha

1,989

0.064

2,047

3

USD/ha464 (100)-0.119

261

(50)

666

(50)

0.461

seeds

USD/ha282 (69)-0.082

171

(33)

383

(36)

0.862

fertilizers

USD/ha306 (76)-0.010

263

(40)

354

(36)

0.397

pesticides

USD/ha63 (39)

0.020

49

(21)

78

(18)

0.460

labor fee

USD/ha396-0.022

147

(3)

1,146

(1)

0.500

rental machines

USD/ha111 (21)

0.009

146

(10)

80

(11)

0.756

fuel

USD/ha533 (51)-0.108

103

(30)

1,149

(21)

0.034 *Net profit/ha

USD/ha

1,526

0.169

1,786

1,265

0.000 **

Total cost per hectare

(4)

1,931

0.007 **

Total planted area

ha

0.31

0.510 **

0.43

0.19

0.000 **

Total production

kg

1,115

0.641 **

1,917

313

0.000 **
0.000 **

Total sale volume

kg

735

0.850 **

1,253

217

Unit yieldkg/ha

11,440-0.0099,979

12,902

0.058

Unit price

USD/kg

0.60

0.005

0.61

0.59

0.150

Number of items

number2.73

0.322 **

3.24

2.22

0.013 *
0.004 **

Self-consumption

kg

380

0.204 *

664

97

Main agriculture worker

age

52.02

0.019

53.68

50.36

0.155

Education

yrs

4.92

0.032

4.82

5.02

0.601

Years of schooling

yrs

20.08

0.018

22.32

17.84

0.084

Owned agricultural land area

ha

1.49

0.222 *

1.7

1.28

0.075

ha

1.15

0.036

1.25

1.05

0.420

paddy field

upland field
ha
0.34
0.375 **
0.45
0.23
1 Peason's correlation coefficient between net profit and other variables* significant at 5% level, ** significant at 1% level (two-sided)
2 Mann-Whitney U test * significant at 5% level, ** significant at 1% level (two-sided)
3 The number in parentheses ( ) indicates the number of households that have invested costs.

0.049 *

Table 6 Relationship between costs and unit yield and profits
Unit yield (kg/ha)
Costs (USD/ha)

Unit yield(kg/ha)Profits(USD/ha)

Leafy

Fruit

Root

Beans

(N=27)(N=61)(N=33)(N=59)

Seeds

0.509 **

0.101

-0.1270.456 **

0.847 **

0.857 **

Fertilizers

0.525 **

0.230

0.263

0.833 **

0.396 **

0.424 **

Pesticides-0.0220.230-0.0650.909 **

0.073

0.018

Labor fee--

0.392 *

-0.045-0.0160.000

Rental fee (machine)

0.320

0.005

0.407 *

-0.018

0.053

0.086

Fuel

0.538 **

0.159

0.334

0.829 **

0.304 **

0.088

* significant at 5% level, **significant at 1% level (two-sided) by peason's correlation analysisⒸ ISERD

113

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

Characteristics of Producer Households
Table 7 shows the structure of household income for both vegetable producers and non-producers.
The average total household income was 2,309 USD, and there was no significant difference between
producers and non-producers. Non-agricultural income accounted for an extremely high proportionof total household income. This trend was common for both producers and non-producers. However,
the average agricultural income of vegetable producers was two times greater than that of nonproducers. Additionally, the composition of agricultural income, such as rice, natural resources, andprocessing, was significantly different between the two groups. The primary source of income foreach household shows that more than 50% (55.8%) of vegetable producers and 73.1% of nonproducers depend on non-agricultural income. Only 21 HHs (18.6%) of all producers answered thatvegetable production was their primary source of income. Although vegetable production was an
essential contributor to the agricultural income of producers, its contribution to total householdincome is still low.
Perceptions of Producer and Non-producer Households
This study asked producers and non-producers about their perception of vegetable production.
Among 100 producers, 74% of them answered positive intentions for future production, including
increasing production amount (6%), the number of product items (24%), and production area (7%),
as well as maintaining the current production (37%) (Table 8). Since current vegetable production
does not bring much economic benefit, and many producers mentioned production issues (Tables 3
and 4), producers may see some benefit or significance, such as self-consumption other than financial
benefit. Figure 8 shows the results of asking for future intentions for non-producers. Among 89 nonproducers, 63% (56 HHs) had experience in vegetable production for sale. According to the socioeconomic profile of all respondents of this study (Table 2), 23.6% (21 HHs) of 89 HHs had an uplandfield. Additionally, 78% (69HHs) answered that they want to produce vegetables for sale. The results
show that the number of vegetable producers in this region may be increased. However, clarifying
why they stopped vegetable production and eliminating their concerns is necessary.
Table 7 Structure of household income and primary sources of income
Income souces
Income sources

All respondents

Total household income

3

Producers

3

(a)

(b)

Main source of income

Non-producers

3

P-value

4

Producers (%)

4

Non-producers (%)

2,309

(202)

2,113

(113)

2,558

(89)

0.530

Agricultural income

412

(202)

570

(113)

211

(89)

0.000 **

vegetable

257

(113)

257

(113)

0

(0)

-

21

(18.6)

0

(0.0)

rice

-97

(202)

90

(113)

-335

(92)

0.000 **

13

(11.5)

12(13.5)

animals

177

(122)

205

(78)

127

(44)

0.094

7

(6.2)

3

(3.4)

N. resources

1

116

(106)

115

(68)

117

(38)

0.007 **

4

(3.5)

3

(3.4)

N. resources

2

467

(13)

462

(12)

525

(1)

0.615

3

(2.7)

0

(0.0)

processing

787

(17)

116

(8)

1,383

(9)

0.002 **

0

(0.0)

6

(6.7)

rice milling

-385

(14)

-513

(11)

85

(3)

0.456

2

(1.8)

0

(0.0)

Non-agricultural income

1,996

(192)

1,661

(105)

2,400

(87)

0.032 *

16

(14.2)

11(12.4)

off-farm business

2,594

(46)

2,493

(24)

2,704

(22)

0.800

34

(30.1)

43(48.3)

employed work

1,986

(107)

1,551

(52)

2,397

(55)

0.002 *

13

(11.5)

11(12.4)

355

(144)

378

(89)

319

(55)

0.510

113

(100.0)89(100.0)Remittence(a) Income in USD from each souce(b) the number of household according to the result of calculation of each household income
1 rsources: fruits, fishes, medicinal plants, mushrooms, etc. (backyard)
2 rsources: fruits, fishes, medicinal plants, mushrooms, etc. (forest etc.)
3 ( ) indicates the number of household
4 according to the result of calculation of each household income*significant at 5% level, **significant at 1% level (two-sided) by Mann-Whitney U testⒸ ISERD

114

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

Table 8 Future intentions of producers
Future vegetable production
Increase production amount
Increase # of products
Increase production area
Keep current production
Decrease production
Stop production
Others
Total
Single answer (N=100)# of HHs (%)
6
(6.0)
24
(24.0)
7(7.0)
37(37.0)
6(6.0)
17(17.0)
3(3.0)
100(100.0)No experience
33 HHsExperienced（37%）
56 HHs（63%）

N=89

Not interesting
20 HHs（22%）
Interesting
69 HHs（78%）
N=89

Fig. 8 Future intentions of non-producers

CONCLUSION
This study attempted to identify the challenges to increasing the vegetable production volume in
Cambodia by clarifying the status of vegetable cultivation, including production amounts andvarieties, vegetable production business conditions, and producers' socio-economic characteristics.
The results implicated two major challenges for increasing vegetable production volume in
Cambodia and several means to achieve them.
The first challenge is to increase production volume per producer. This study showed thatvegetable production in rural Cambodia is profitable, but the profits need to be more significant tosustain the family as their primary income source. The critical factor for low net profits fromvegetable production was the production scale derived from the size of owned farmland — notstrategic production, such as low cost, increased selling price, increased productivity, or high yield.
Growing farmland area or productivity is essential to increase production volume per producer.
However, land size, including farmland, is reducing owing to a system of equal inheritance among
siblings in Cambodia (Acharya et al., 2003; World Bank, 2013; Diepart, 2015), and a growing
number of households (more than 25% in the low land) live with less than 0.5 ha of land, which is
not enough to sustain a family throughout the year (Taylor, 2011). Therefore, increasing the total
planting area will be more practical than expanding the farmland size. In the study area, mostproducers did not cultivate any vegetables during the rainy season, despite owning arable uplandareas, owing to the risk of disease due to unsuitable cultivation methods. The limited cultivation isthought to be owing to the avoidance of damage from pests and root rot that tend to occur during therainy season. The annual planted area is expected to increase through the appropriate use of pesticides
and the introduction of cultivation techniques, such as ridges and stanchions, to allow cultivation in
the rainy season and double-cropping. The development and introduction of a combination ofsuitable cultivation techniques, agricultural materials, and chemicals in Cambodia may positively
influence the production volume.
Increasing the number of producers will be another challenge to obtain more production volume
with the limited farmland size per household. This study identified that more than 60% of nonproducers would produce vegetables, with 23.6% having an upland field. The main reason for
stopping vegetable production was the limitation in sales channels and the difficulties of making thechannel by themselves. However, nearly 80% of non-producers were interested in starting vegetableproduction. To involve experienced households and new producers, vegetable production needs tobe more attractive as a profitable income-generating activity. Currently, rural households withsmaller agricultural land have few opportunities to attain reasonable net profits from vegetableproduction. As mentioned above, the net profit should be improved by increasing production volume.
Moreover, post-harvesting issues, such as quality management, the sales channel for rural smallscale producers, and value addition are as significant as those for other agricultural products in
Cambodia. Developing a one-stop service for agriculture-related issues, including technical andinformative dimensions, is urgent.
This study focused only on the status of vegetable production. Further studies to verify theabove-mentioned means to increase output per producer, such as developing a combination ofsuitable cultivation techniques, agricultural materials, and chemicals, are needed. In addition, theⒸ ISERD

115

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2023) 14-2

target of this study was limited to the active vegetable-producing area with enough agricultural water
throughout the year. Further studies need to cover potential production areas to discuss the possibilityof expanding the total production area in the country.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number JP21KK0013—Fund for the Promotionof Joint International Research (Fostering Joint International Research [B]).

REFERENCES
Acharya, K.S., Chap, S. and Meach, Y. 2003. Off-farm and non-farm employment, A perspective on job
creation in Cambodia. Working paper No. 26, Cambodia Development Resource Institute, Phnom Penh,
Retrieved from URL https://cdri.org.kh/storage/pdf/wp26e_1617794728.pdf
Diepart, J.C. 2015. The fragmentation of land tenure systems in Cambodia, Peasants and the formalization ofland rights. County Profile No. 6: Cambodia, Retrieved from URL https://www.foncier-developpement.
fr/wp-content/uploads/Country-profile-6_Cambodia_VF.pdf
Hamano, M., Matsumoto, T. and Ito, K. 2013. Technical modifications for the quality improvement of rice
liquor (Sraa Sar) in Cambodia. Tropical and Agriculture Development, 57 (4), 126-137, Retrieved from
DOI https://doi.org/10.11248/jsta.57.126
Itagaki, K. 2010. Production and distribution of vegetables in Cambodia. Vegetable Information, 75, 27-32. (inJapanese)
Kawahara, S. and Yoshida, Y. 2006. Current status of vegetable production, distribution and trade in Cambodia.
Vegetable Information, 26, 43-55. (in Japanese)
Olney, K.D., Talukder, A., Lannotti, L.L., Ruel, T.M. and Quinn, V. 2009. Assessing impact and impact
pathways of a homestead food production program on household and child nutrition in Cambodia. Foodand Nutrition Bulletin, 30 (4), 355-369, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650903000407
Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC). 2013. Census of agriculture in Cambodia 2013. Retrieved from URL
http://www.fao.org/3/ I9465EN/i9465en.pdf
Taylor, J. 2011. Food security, climate change and natural resources management in Cambodia, An overview
of the literature and source book. Learning Institute and IDRC, Phnom Penh.
World Bank. 2013. Where have all the poor gone, Cambodia poverty assessment 2013. Washington, D.C., USA,
Retrieved from URL https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/824341468017405577/pdf/ACS45450
REVISE00English0260May02014.pdf
World Bank. 2015. Cambodian agriculture in transition, Opportunities and risks. Washington, D.C., USA,
Retrieved from URL http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/805091467993504209/pdf/96308-ESW-KH-White-cover-P145838-PUBLIC-Cambodian-Agriculture-in-Transition.pdf
World Bank. 2023. World Bank Open Data. Washington, D.C., USA, Retrieved from URL https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.KD?end2021&locations=KH&start=1995&view=charⒸ ISERD

116