Next Article in Journal
Quantifying the Impact of Model Selection When Examining Bank Retreat and Sediment Transport in Stream Restoration
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Study of Geospatial Techniques for Interpolating Groundwater Quality Data in Agricultural Areas of Punjab, Pakistan
Previous Article in Journal
Sub-Pixel Surface Water Mapping for Heterogeneous Areas from Sentinel-2 Images: A Case Study in the Jinshui Basin, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rainfall Forecast and Drought Analysis for Recent and Forthcoming Years in India
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Roles of Agricultural Cooperatives (ACs) in Drought Risk Management among Smallholder Farmers in Pursat and Kampong Speu Provinces, Cambodia

1
Department of Economic Development, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh 12150, Cambodia
2
Research Office, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh 12150, Cambodia
3
Centre for Culture and Peace Studies (CCPS), Asian Vision Institute (AVI), Phnom Penh 12150, Cambodia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(8), 1447; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081447
Submission received: 15 February 2023 / Revised: 28 March 2023 / Accepted: 3 April 2023 / Published: 7 April 2023

Abstract

:
This research aims to investigate the roles of agricultural cooperatives (ACs) in the provinces Pursat and Kampong Speu, Cambodia, with respect to managing the drought risks among smallholder farmers, with particular focus on the following factors: (a) the impacts of drought on socio-economic development and livelihood; (b) the services delivered by AC operations in terms of increasing the five livelihood assets; and (c) the interactions between AC operations, adaptive capacity, and the impacts of drought. Household surveys were conducted among 421 smallholder farmers; in addition, case studies were also conducted with stakeholders in the Bakan district in Pursat Province and the Barsedth district in Kampong Speu Province. The study demonstrates that (i) both climatic and human-made factors contributed toward the impact of drought in the Bakan and Barsedth districts. Furthermore, this hazard affected smallholder farmers. (ii) AC operations increased the smallholder farmers’ access to natural and physical assets. Currently, AC operations are constrained by a lack of willingness and commitment in AC committees, trust building in the communities, and human and financial resources after development projects, which are implemented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). (iii) Adaptive capacity contributed to the drought impacts and participation in AC activities, but the involvement in AC activities did not contribute to AC operations nor to aiding with the impacts of drought. This empirical research, which was performed via structural education modeling (SEM), fills a gap in the literature by increasing the understanding of the roles of AC operations in the context of drought risk management and their role in increasing access to the five livelihood assets.

1. Introduction

Climate change already exists in Cambodia, where variations in rainfall patterns [1] manifest as flood and drought events [2,3]. In agriculture, rainfall changes have experienced three characteristics: a late onset, prolonged dry spells during the wet season, and early cessation. However, the country has produced no scientific studies on this characteristic [4,5], a fact that has been confirmed by others [6,7]. While floods have been annual events since 1999, drought events brought even more concern in 2003 and 2004 [8,9]. Both extreme events are the result of severe fluctuations in weather [10], and these climate-driven hazards have brought increased hardships and contributed to poverty traps [11], food insecurity [12], unsustainable livelihoods [13], migration [14], and repetitive business interruptions [15] of smallholder rice farmers [16,17]. The most recent study by Sok et al. (2021) [18] confirmed that between 1994 and 2018, drought events were more severe than flood events in terms of their adverse effect on rice production in the Mekong River and at Tonle Sap Lake. Similarly, Chann et al. [19] also observed severe and prolonged droughts [19]; these events caused negative impacts on rice production in terms of damage and losses [20,21,22,23,24,25]. In 2004, the drought events decreased rice production by 82% [26], and in 2009, the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGoC) paid USD 12 million in order to recover from these significant events [27]. Less extensive drought events also adversely affected rice production in 1999, 2000, 2008, and 2012 [25]. In 2012, drought events triggered substantial damage, disturbing 7.5% of the rice cultivation area, and the impact increased to 11.5% in 2015. In 2016, 7.3% of the rice cultivation area was affected by drought events [28].
In Cambodia, the damage and losses incurred by the impacts of drought to the economy, society, and to the environment have recently been well-recorded by scholars and government agencies. Burkley et al. [29] found that the demise of Angkor was interspersed with drought events. In 1431 CE, the Khmer Empire’s collapse was proven to be due to exposure to climate change and geopolitical/socio-economic pressures rather than rising conflict with the Siamese Kingdom (or Thailand) [30]. Evans et al. [31] suggested that an ineffective adaption to the prolonged droughts in mainland Southeast Asia during the transitional period from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age, in addition to social vulnerabilities, led to the collapse of Angkor. Drought was a prolonged and highly intensified hazard that stressed water supply and agricultural productivity. Droughts are among the deadliest threats when compared to other disasters such as floods and storms [30,32].
However, drought impacts have been addressed by the RGoC and by non-governmental organizations (NGOs); the role of community-based organizations (CBOs) is also emerging in terms of playing a role and taking a responsibility for empowering communities and prompting agricultural development. Since 2002, decentralized local institutions have contributed to the livelihood development of Cambodian people. Local institutions such as CoCs, NGOs, and CBOs are the providers of public and social services that are provided in response to local needs and the requirements for sustainable livelihoods [33], based on a bottom-up approach [34]. For example, the operation of community fishery in the Krakor district of Pursat Province helped fisherfolk to secure space for patrolling and saving groups [35]. In the Kampong Tralach district of Kampong Chhnang Province, community fishery has allowed indigenous Cham fisherfolk to use better resources, better sizes of fishing gear, and increased community outreach. Community-based eco-tourism (CBET) has also allowed local people to be involved in wildlife conservation and income generation by creating leisure activities. Local people have created services to attract tourists for income, such as camping with local guides, cycling, boat trips, hiking, and riding in ox carts [36]. In developing and low-income countries, ACs are established as CBOs in order to improve the livelihood of smallholder farmers [37]. This is achieved through access to agricultural services and investments [23], as well as through the diversification of crops [38]. Our research explores the experience and potential of ACs in the context of whether they can integrate climate change responses with specific cases of drought events into their operation.
AC operation is a long-term government investment with the aim of promoting agricultural development. It has been a promising method for advancing agriculture, as stated in the Agricultural Sector Master Plan 2030 (ASMP 2030). It is utilized to modernize widespread traditional subsistence agriculture practices [39]. Ofori et al. [40] witnessed that ACs in Cambodia diversified the agricultural horticulture of smallholder farmers and thus increased income. Since 1965, ACs have been established in different regimes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) to promote local engagement [41] and to increase agricultural productivity and job alternatives [42] among smallholder farmers. In 2021, 1217 ACs were registered at the MAFF across the country, an increase from 1 AC in 2003, with 144,306 members comprising 53,703 males and 90,603 females [43]. In rural Cambodia, ACs are currently operating in order to support smallholder farmers to enhance technology transfer, knowledge sharing, and the exchange in crops and agricultural inputs, as well as access to loans and financial savings in rural communities. Moreover, CBOs have worked to empower communities to manage and use natural resources for income generation activities and for environmental management [44,45].
This study has recognized the essential roles of CBOs, such as ACs, in empowering economic activities through agricultural productivity and building market channels. Moreover, this research produces evidence and scientific knowledge for the promotion of AC operations in Cambodia. For future implications, AC operations need to increase their roles and responsibilities in order to enhance the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to address the negative impact of climate change (especially in the case of drought events). Accordingly, this paper aims to analyze the functions of ACs in the practices of drought risk management among smallholder farmers by focusing on (1) the severity of drought events, (2) the effect of drought impacts on socio-economic development and livelihood, (3) the contribution of AC operations to drought management, and (4) the interactions between AC operations, adaptive capacity, and drought impacts. In the future, ACs may also play a role in building adaptive capacity among smallholder farmers and in establishing resilient communities through collective efforts to return to a reference state after drought disturbances.

2. Conceptual Framework

Scholars argue that the critical elements by which to mitigate the negative impact of drought events are found in a prompt response. This is achieved by implementing drought management strategies and action plans [46], as well as by conducting more proactive management in order to decrease emergency management costs [47]. While Deressa et al. [48] found that larger household sizes positively affect the adaptation to drought when the head of the household is male, Sadeghloo and Sojasi Qeidari [49] also added that older farmers should adopt drought management strategies. The IFRC [50] agrees that risk management at the local level is a crucial element for effective governance, the social fabric, and for building on the quality of community networks and disaster risk reductions, which the communities themselves undertake and which contribute to resilient and secure communities. This scenario indicates the need to determine the role of community participation in drought risk management [51]. Mazzucato and Niemeijer believe institutional support is significant for water resource management [52], adaptive capacity [53], and community development [54], specifically for improving sustainable livelihood through access to the five livelihood assets (human, nature, finance, the physical, and the social) [55]. It is thus argued that there is a need for the local government [56] and NGOs [57] to adopt increased roles in community development under a decentralized process, yet Tacconi [58] and Caplow [59] also argue that there is still too little attention paid to the social aspect of the five livelihood assets.
In recent decades, drought events have frequently affected extensive and vast areas of the world [60]. In the Asian Pacific region, drought impacts have been recorded as growing over the years due to climate variabilities, such as global warming, and due to the impact of El Niño and increasing environmental degradation [61]. In Asian and Sub-Saharan Africa, drought has become the major constraint to rice production in rain-fed areas [62]. The recent droughts in the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) have severely affected crops and livelihoods. They have also contributed to lowered drinking water supplies and irrigation [63]. In China, the number of death tolls was reported to have declined temporally from 3 million people in 1928 to about 100 thousand in the 1980s [64]. However, the most recent and deadliest drought hit Somalia in 2011 and caused death tolls in the tens of thousands. Adamson and Bird [65] found that abnormally low flows in the mainstream of the Mekong River caused saline intrusion in the delta of Vietnam, thus bringing substantial economic losses globally. Additionally, they claimed that the low flows were implicated in the lower fish productivity in the inland fishery of Cambodia, which was especially the case in the great lake. The impacts of drought events that result in disaster are known as socio-economic and political drought events [66]; however, they can also be understood through vulnerability and social–ecological systems [53]. A drought is an event of prolonged shortages in the water supply, and it is considered one of the most frequent and costliest natural hazards [60,67]. Drought management has been developed since the 1979s [68], which is when traditional drought management policies and practice were becoming increasingly challenging to achieve [69]. Drought is defined as water stress occurring mainly due to a lack of rain. In rain-fed ecosystems, drought is the greatest obstacle to rice production. For example, in the eastern Indian states of Jharkhand, Orissa, and Chhattisgarh, yield losses from severe drought (which occur in approximately one in every five years) averaged at 40% and were valued at USD 650 million [70]. Hooshmandi [71] reported a 27% mean yield reduction in rice due to these stress conditions.
The existing studies have investigated the operation of CBOs in aiding with drought impacts in the context of (1) adaptive capacity in Costa Rica [72], Cambodia [73], Kenya, and the Central Africa Republic [74]; local participation in Cambodia [41] and Indonesia [75]; and mitigation interventions in Rwanda [76], Kenya [77], Brazil [78], Indonesia [79], and Southern Ethiopia [80]. There has been a recognition of local capacity and the roles of CBOs in drought risk management [74,81,82]. Since ACs work with farmers, these CBOs are the key actors in disaster risk management, which includes managing for drought events. However, ACs mainly work to improve local livelihoods through raising awareness and bringing increased access to agricultural inputs and credits. For example, ACs are operating to strengthen agricultural development by providing services to support and serve smallholder farmers [83]. In China, ACs increase the yield of apple farmers when they participate in their activities [84], and they also contribute to the sustainable livelihood of rural communities in Zimbabwe through poverty re-education and improved food security [85]. ACs in India promote ecological resilience by increasing access to agricultural inputs and farmers’ crop productivity [86]. To the authors’ knowledge, and as per the current impact of climate change in Cambodia, ACs have essential tasks in response to the adverse effects of climate change because the agricultural sector is directly affected by weather extremes. Therefore, a hypothesis is drawn in this research: AC operation not only influences smallholder farmers’ participation in their activities but also contributes to adaptive capacity and ameliorating drought impacts. In the rural communities of Benguet, the Philippines [87], ACs have worked to reduce disaster impacts among the affected households with credits and loans. In Cambodia, ACs are working with smallholder farmers to promote greater income generation. Therefore, they are important actors in terms of the response to disasters as their actions reduce risk and mitigate climate change impacts.

3. Materials and Methods

This research applied mixed methods in its study and involved collecting, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative information and data [88]. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the Bakan district in Pursat Province and the Barsedth district in Kampong Speu Province between February and May 2022. The quantitative research determined the perception, and it included the tests that were carried out to formulate the hypotheses [89] posted in the conceptual framework. We used Cochran’s (1977) [90] formula to calculate the sample size for the unknown population, with the alpha level, a priori, at 0.05. We planned to use a proportional variable to set the acceptable error level at 5% and estimated the standard deviation of the scale to be 0.5. As an example of its use, Cochran’s sample size formula is presented here in addition to an explanation of how these decisions were made:
n = Z 2 p q e 2 = 1.96 2 0.5 0.5 ( 0.05 ) 2 = 384
where Z represents the value for a selected alpha level of 0.025 in each tail, Z = 1.96 (the alpha level of 0.05 indicates the level of risk the researcher was willing to take; the true margin of error may exceed the acceptable margin of error), and (pq) represents the estimate of variance, (pq) = 0.25.
For samples, this study recruited smallholder farmers from two districts (209 from the Bakan district and 212 from the Barsedth district). Bowerman et al. [91] suggested a sample size of 196 respondents for an unknown population, as is stated in the below formula. Based on the conditions above, a total of 421 smallholder farmers from the population of Cambodian agricultural contexts in Pursat and Kampong Speu Provinces are represented.
n = p 1 p Z α 2 B 2 = 0.5 1 0.5 1.96 0.07 2 = 196
where p is the probability, which is equal to 0.50; Z α 2 is the confidence interval of significance at 1.96; B is the tolerance error at 0.07 (7%).
McMillan and Schumacher [92] suggest using qualitative research as an inductive process by which to organize data into categories, as well as a way in which to explore the relationships among categories. For qualitative data, social and participatory tools (Appendix A) were applied, including the use of key informants at national levels, such as officers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and Heifer International Cambodia. At the district level, we also interviewed the District Office of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries in the Barsedth district, as well as the district officers and those on commune councils (CoCs) in the Bakan district. To understand the contributions of AC operations, we conducted in-depth interviews with AC committees in the Bakan district (Chamreun Pal Agricultural Cooperative, Ponlue Agricultural Cooperative, and Preah Mlu Meanchey Agricultural Cooperative) and in the Barsedth district (Agri-Productive Transport vehicle: non-cold Chain Truck and Chamrostean Agricultural Cooperative). Moreover, a consultive meeting was held at the Bakan district office with 60 participants; these included district officers, CoCs, village heads, AC committees, and smallholder farmers. The meeting was organized to present the preliminary findings, collect feedback, discuss policy applications, and discuss planning. The presentation took the form of a forum to facilitate interaction between the district officers, CoCs, village heads, people, and the researchers regarding the research findings, as well as for the purposes of validation and clarification. Qualitative data and information were collected to describe the characteristics of droughts, drought impacts on socio-economic development and livelihood, and the contribution of AC operations to drought management. Qualitative data were also applied to explain the interactions between AC operations, adaptive capacity, and drought impacts.
We used a multiple regression model, a drought susceptibility model (DSM), and structural equation modeling (SEM) for the data analysis. The appropriate variables included in this survey were derived from discussions and from the agreements made between the key stakeholders, such as government agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for the purposes of running the multiple regression model, the DSM, and SEM. Multiple regression, which is a statistical technique, was used to predict the relationships between the services that are delivered by ACs to support smallholder farmers, as well as the nature of the access to natural assets, access to human assets, access to physical assets, access to social assets, access to financial assets, and access to water from January to May. We also used raw data regarding rainfall (from the Department of Meteorology in Cambodia) and supplementary irrigation data for between 2003 and 2020 from the Commune Database Online (CDB) of the Ministry of Planning (MoP). A drought susceptibility model was used for the drought susceptibility index (DSI), as is detailed in the following equation:
D S I = 1 + A a r e a   i r r i g a t e d A t o t a l   a r e a   1 + Y c o m m u n e Y m a x 1
where A represents the rice cultivation area in the wet season and Y represents the yield of rice production at the commune level.
SEM was applied to test the hypothesis that “AC operation not only influences smallholder farmers’ participation in their activities, but also contributes to adaptive capacity and drought impacts” as follows:
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), or the measurement model, was used in this study. In line with the guidelines of Anderson and Gerbing [93], construct validity was applied for the evaluation. First, the exploratory factor analysis for all variables resulted in factor solutions, a result which was expected theoretically. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each factor were greater than 0.60. Second, the CFA was used to assess the convergent validity of the measures. In this paper, there were two stages of the CFA: (1) the first-order factor model; and (2) the second-order factor model [94]. We adopted the first-order factor model to scrutinize the research constructs individually. Table 1 describes the threshold values of the CFA and SEM that were set to evaluate the CFA and SEM results (Table 2). The results of the first-order factor model reveal that all the threshold values were particularly satisfied (Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3 and Figure A4. The second-order factor model was then also selected to scrutinize the fitness of the overall model. When all loadings exceeded 0.60, each variable thus resulted in a t-value exceeding 1.96 (p < 0.05). Therefore, the CFA criteria were also satisfied. The overall goodness-of-fit assessment shows that χ2/df = 1.461, GFI = 0.897, AGFI = 0.872, NFI = 0.951, CFI = 0.984, and RMSEA = 0.033 (Table 1 and Figure 1). These results indicate that the model had a good model fit with satisfactory convergent validity. Since all values exceeded the established cutoff criteria, this analysis proceeded with a hypothesis test using SEM (Table 2).
Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability coefficients (CRs) were used to relate the quality of a measure. To avoid misconceptions, it was required to appropriately understand the equations of the AVE and CR, as well as to understand their association with the definition of validity and reliability. We explained, using simulated, one-factor models, how the number of items and the homogeneity of factor loadings influenced the AVE and CR results:
AVE = i = 1 n λ i 2 n
CR = i = 1 n λ i 2 i = 1 n λ i 2 + ( i = 1 n δ i )
where λ (Lamda) signifies the standardized factor loading, i is the number of items (1), and δ (Delta) refers to error variance terms (2), while δ = 1 − λ i 2 .
According to Fornell and Larcker [100] and Peterson and Kim [101], the AVE must exceed 0.50, and the CR must exceed 0.70, respectively. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson [97] recommend that the t-value should be deemed significant when it is more than 1.96 and when the p-value < 0.05. All other criteria shown in Table 1 were also required to evaluate the results of the CFA and SEM. The AVE of the variables of adaptive capacity had an AVE = 0.708 and a CR of 0.905; the drought impacts had an AVE = 0.793 and a CR = 0.910; the participation in AC activities had an AVE = 0.775 and a CR = 0.939; and the AC operation had an AVE = 0.728 and a CR = 0.960, which met the thresholds and thus satisfied the overall model fit assessment as a good fit in terms of a GFI = 0.932, AGFI = 0.904, NFI = 0.963, and a CFI = 0.980, respectively.

4. Results

4.1. The Severity of the Drought Events in the Kampong Speu and Pursat Provinces

Figure 2 compares the drought situation in Kampong Speu and Pursat Provinces regarding the average rainfall, irrigation ratios, and drought susceptibility indexes (DSIs). In this analysis, supplementary irrigation refers to wells, pumps, ponds, drip, and sprinklers; these were found to be widely accessible by smallholder farmers in the two provinces studied. In Cambodia, smallholder farmers consider drought impacts when rainfall distribution is interrupted during cultivation. Drought causes water shortages to affect the paddy fields. If smallholder farmers used six-month rice varieties, it would take an entire wet season, from seeding to harvesting between late May and early November. According to Chhinh and Millington [21], Cambodian smallholder farmers may face all stages of drought events, including early, middle-, and end-season drought events (Table 3). In other words, smallholder farmers were highly susceptible to drought events when they are without access to supplementary irrigation because access to medium-scale irrigation would remain limited; they saved their paddies when there was insufficient rainfall.

4.2. Impact of the Drought Events on Socio-Economic Development and Livelihood

The result of the household survey in the two districts, illustrated in Figure 3, shows how smallholder farmers assessed a moderate degree of the impacts of drought on their socio-economic development (WAI = 0.46). Smallholder farmers rated a high degree for the impact of drought when there was a reduction in household income (WAI = 0.64) and a moderate degree of impact for health (WAI = 0.60), loss of employment (WAI = 0.59), threatened household food security (WAI = 0.56), migration (WAI = 0.51), food scarcity (WAI = 0.50), limited food preference (WAI = 0.50), homelessness and sense of loss (WAI = 0.47), and a reduction in spending on festivals (WAI = 0.43). At the same time, smallholder farmers assessed a low degree of impact of drought on affected schooling for children (WAI = 0.37) and conflicts for water in society (WAI = 0.29). The results of the focus group discussions revealed that the smallholder farmers relied upon subsistent livelihoods in the two districts. When climate change places more pressure on agriculture, smallholders become more vulnerable, especially with respect to the impacts of drought. The farmers described to a higher degree that they depended on rain for their rice cultivation, wherein the higher degree that was advised meant that they were more vulnerable to climate-related hazards [Pers. Comm. FGD1 and FGD2].
The t-test analysis also revealed that the smallholder farmers in the Bakan district shared a higher degree of the impact of droughts on their loss of employment (p-value = 0.002), reduction in household income (p-value = 0.000), food scarcity (p-value = 0.005), threatened household food security (p-value = 0.000), limited food preference (p-value = 0.000), conflicts for water in society (p-value = 0.000), migration (p-value= 0.012), and homelessness and sense of loss (p-value = 0.000). In the Barsedth district, the smallholder farmers rated homelessness and sense of loss (WAI = 0.000) to a lower degree. Conflict for water became common in the Bakan district (WAI = 0.41), especially during the dry season; however, this was not a pressing issue in the Barsedth district (WAI = 0.18). Smallholder farmers in the two studied districts shared similar views regarding the reduction in spending on festivals (p-value = 0.637), their affected schooling for children (p-value = 0.735), and health impacts (WAI = 0.346).
During a consultative meeting, CoC members, AC committees, and smallholder farmers pronounced that there were water wars during the dry season. Water for paddy fields was not equally distributed among smallholder farmers in the district. Those residing near the main irrigation could pay to gain water from supplementary irrigation [Consultative Meeting]. The capacity to access water depended on their willingness to pay for gasoline and pump machines; individual smallholder farmers used their methods and investment to obtain water for their paddy fields [Pers. Comm. Interview-1]. A district officer in the Bakan district worked with smallholder farmers on these issues, but they could not solve the water conflicts. Each farmer wished to not share the water, and they did their best to obtain water for their own paddy fields as soon as possible due to their resources. The farmers in the upper parts of the district faced difficulty in receiving sufficient water because the lower part had already blocked or pumped water for their consumption [Pers. Comm. K-3]. A commune council (CoC) in the Bakan district blamed the mismanagement of irrigation and lack of cooperation between the smallholder farmers as the cause of the water problem. Smallholder farmers did not cooperate with local authorities; they simply cared for their own paddy fields [Pers. Comm. K-5].
Comparatively, the droughts affected the socio-economic development of smallholder farmers in the Bakan district more than those in the Barsedth district (p-value = 0.000). The household survey shows that 77.6% of the respondents were employed as smallholder rice farmers, whereby 80.9% were in the Bakan district and 74.3% were in the Barsedth district. Their incomes primarily relied upon rice cultivation. When drought events occurred, it highly impacted their revenues. In the Bakan district, rice cultivation was crucial for people because most individuals owned agricultural lands. Moreover, people on the community wished to continue their traditional occupation [Pers. Comm. K-3]. A committee member of the Chamreun Pal Agricultural Cooperative described the impacts of drought in 2019, which destroyed rice fields, leading to an economic loss for smallholder farmers. Drought was becoming an increasingly severe hazard [Pers. Comm. Interview-2]. In the Barsedth district, many young people opted for rice farming as their chosen industry because there are around 200 factories in the Kampong Speu province. Thousands of jobs in non-farming industries are available for people in the Barsedth district. In addition, Barsedth is just 83 km from Phnom Penh, where there are good road conditions and transportation that facilitate people with a connection to the capital for this district. The alternative income of household members from non-farm sources reduced their vulnerabilities and risks when drought events eventually occurred [Pers. Comm. K-5].
Overall, smallholder farmers rated a high degree of impact from droughts (WAI = 0.66) on their livelihoods; indeed, both districts shared this view (the Bakan district (WAI = 0.65) and the Barsedth district (WAI = 0.67)) (p-value = 0.064). Smallholder farmers assessed that there was a high degree of pasture degradation (WAI = 0.76); increased water demand (WAI = 0.71); excessive groundwater pumping (WAI = 0.71); an increase in average temperature (WAI = 0.70); crop failures (WAI = 0.67); drier surroundings (WAI = 0.65); a greater deterioration of water quality (WAI = 0.65); declining groundwater levels (WAI = 0.64); damage to wildlife and habitats (WAI = 0.64); water scarcity in surface water bodies (WAI = 0.63); stunning (WAI = 0.63); an increase in food prices (WAI = 0.62); and forest degradation (WAI = 0.61). They rated a moderate degree of impact from droughts on the poor health of animals (WAI = 0.60); the loss of livestock (WAI = 0.59); famine (WAI = 0.58); and malnutrition (WAI = 0.57). The T-test analysis revealed that smallholder farmers in the Barsedth district rated a higher degree of the impact of droughts on forest degradation (p-value = 0.014); water scarcity in surface water bodies (p-value = 0.029); increases in food prices (p-value = 0.001); the poor health of animals (p-value = 0.010); malnutrition (p-value = 0.001); increased water demand (p-value = 0.040); and excessive groundwater pumping (p-value = 0.040) (Figure 4).
Field observation showed that the Bakan district retained greener and fuller wetlands, which are adjunct to the Tonle Sap Lake. The Barsedth district had less forest coverage and more water scarcity in its surface water bodies. Many people reduced their involvement in rice cultivation and became more involved in vegetable growing and raising livestock instead [Pers. Comm. K-5]. A committee at the Chamrostean Agricultural Cooperative observed that farmers opted to consume water from underground pumping in the Barsedth district because smallholder farmers could construct wells or pump at their houses or paddy fields [Pers. Comm. Interview-5]. For a long time, smallholder farmers benefited from the availability of natural resources, especially water from the wetlands and rains. Still, climate change has recently caused more frequent droughts and water shortages. The current water shortage and droughts have seriously affected smallholder farmers’ livelihood development [Pers. Comm. K-1].

4.3. AC Support to Deal with Drought Risk Management

In the two districts studied, the group discussions found agreement that the increased access to the five livelihood assets helped smallholder farmers improve their adaptive capacity to reduce drought impacts [FGD 1 and FDI 2]. A committee at the Agri-Productive Transport vehicle: non-cold Chain Truck worked to improve access to natural assets, human assets, physical assets, social assets, financial assets, and water during the dry season because these factors were crucial for smallholder farmers’ livelihood [Pers. Comm. Interview-4]. The ACs provided services for the smallholder farmers under the technical support of government agencies, CoCs, and NGOs. These institutions provided education on skill building and techniques and sought to bring the agricultural markets more in line with the private sector, such as supermarkets and wholesale sellers [Pers. Comm. K-2]. The multiple regression model shows that the services delivered by ACs helped to support smallholder farmers in accessing natural assets, with results of β1 = 0.226 (22.6%), t-value = 4.366 > 1.96, and p-value =0.000 < 0.05. In addition, the physical assets returned values of β3 = 0.206, t-value =4.100 >1.96, and p-value = 0.000 < 0.05. In contrast, the model predicted a significant negative contrition of the services that were delivered by ACs on social assets, with results of β4 = 0.156 **, t-value =3.132 > 1.96, and p-value = 0.002 < 0.05. The services provided by ACs did not contribute to access to human assets, with results of β2 = 0.016, t-value = 0.345 < 1.96, and p-value = 0.730 > 0.05. Moreover, the access to financial support delivered results of β5 = 0.072, t-value = 1.545 < 1.96, and p-value = 0.123 > 0.05. Lastly, access to water from January to May for consumption delivered results of β6 = 0.077, t-value =1.638 < 1.96, and p-value = 0.102 > 0.05 (Table 4).
The model revealed that the services delivered by ACs positively contribute to the access to natural assets (i.e., lakes, swamps, wells, ponds, streams, flood forests, and open access resources) and physical assets (i.e., roads, bridges, river ports, irrigations, local markets, health facilities, and school facilities for children). In the Bakan district, the ACs raised awareness and capacity building among the smallholder farmers with respect to the importance of natural assets (i.e., lakes, swamps, wells, ponds, streams, flood forests, and open-access resources). Furthermore, the knowledge and skills were helpful for smallholder farmers to become more involved in sustainable resource management [Pers. Comm. Interview-3]. The ACs in the Barsedth district had a good relationship with CoCs and NGOs in terms of mobilizing the resources to improve physical assets [Pers. Comm. Interview-5]. In 2021, Heifer International Cambodia provided the Agri-Productive Transport vehicle: a non-cold Chain Truck with a truck. The truck helped to increase the AC’s business activities for transporting the agricultural inputs of AC and for the farmers and buyers [Pers. Comm. Interview-4]. In 2021, the Accelerating Inclusive Markets for Smallholders (AIMS) also constructed a collection and distribution center of agricultural products to create a market chain; this allowed all farmers to distribute and sell their agricultural products [Pers. Comm. Interview K-5]. In the Bakan district, the ACs advised the CoCs and the District Office of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries to construct irrigation and roads to support farmers in their access to water for their paddy fields, as well as to help better facilitate the transportation of agricultural products to local markets [Pers. Comm. K-3].
In contrast, the model predicted the negative contribution of ACs to social assets, such as raising concerns about water shortage, participating in the activities of NGOs, participating in the activities of CoCs, participating in the activities of government agencies, involvement in the activities of community fishery, participation in the activities of community forestry, and being involved in community decision making. The ACs have applied a participatory approach with support from NGOs; however, smallholder farmers still felt that their participation did not contribute much to the decision-making process for community development. An AC committee in the Chamrostean Agricultural Cooperative advised that smallholder farmers in the Barsedth district had more opportunities to participate in the workshop and community meetings that were organized by government agencies and NGOs. Their participation contributed to the planning and policy implication, and they were able to raise their concerns and issues [Pers. Comm. Interview-5].
The local authority, agricultural officers, and smallholder farmers in the Bakan district agreed that the planning process at the CoC level was essential for integrating local needs and that smallholder farmers should be invited to participate. However, the local needs raised during the CoC meeting could not be fulfilled because the annual budget for the commune investment plan was mainly used for physical infrastructure only. In most cases, the yearly commune investment budget did not allocate funds for supporting AC operations, social issues, or drought management [Pers. Comm. Interview-3]. Local authorities, agricultural officers, and smallholder farmers in the Bakan district agreed that ACs did not address the promotion of social trust very well, nor did they help with promoting a culture of sharing and helping each other. In Cambodia, farmers traditionally work together, which is consistent with a vital principle of the ACs [Consultive Meeting]. All the involved agencies mainly discussed and worked to increase access to irrigation, roads, microfinance, and natural resource management, but the scope of addressing social issues remained limited [Pers. Comm. FGD 2]. During a discussion in the Bakan district, the participants announced that there were water wars occurring between the smallholder farmers; in fact, these conflicts were not predominantly caused by a lack of irrigation but were instead due to the fact that they did not share the resource. Everyone felt as if they did not receive sufficient water; however, they did not work together to solve the problem [Pers. Comm. FGD 1].
Unfortunately, the ACs did not contribute to improving access to financial assets (i.e., access to microfinances for loans, access to a commercial bank for a loan, access to local lenders for loans, participation in saving groups, and access to income generation activities), nor to access to water resources for consumption during dry seasons, such as for bathing, drinking, cooking, washing, dry rice cultivation, and crop cultivation. All the ACs applied the same core principle of share sales between the members. The smallholder farmers could invest USD 24.5 per share as shareholders and could thus expect to receive annual profits. However, the smallholder farmers who bought shares from Agri-Productive Transport vehicle: a non-cold Chain Truck in the Barsedth district had not yet received benefits from their shares in 2022 due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus of the discussion in the two districts was that the financial assets accessed by smallholder farmers through ACs remained small. The revenue produced by ACs through share sales and the distribution of agricultural inputs was not sufficient. Simultaneously, the annual benefits from shares and the available loans or savings from ACs were also small and thus made it harder to encourage people to participate. The contributions of smallholder farmers to other smallholder farmers were found to not be of much benefit. Instead, they preferred taking loans from microfinance or commercial banks with high interests because they could borrow with their demands for agricultural investment [Pers. Comm. FGD 1 and FGD 2].
Access to water was the most critical resource for smallholder farmers, especially during the dry season. In the consultative meeting, the available and accessible water for farming activities was discussed. Almost all the farmers depended on rain-fed agriculture. During the dry season, smallholder farmers had difficulty accessing water for their paddy fields. When drought events happened, as in 2018, for example, smallholder farmers needed to buy or rent pumps in order to obtain water from the nearby dikes, ponds, and cannels [Pers. Comm. Interview-1]. An officer at the District Office of Agriculture, Fishery, and Forestry in Barsedth district explained that the dikes, ponds, and cannels dried out faster and remained that way for several weeks or months. The rice of smallholder farmers who stayed away from water sources such as wetlands or cannels did not have sufficient water [Pers. Comm. K-5]. The ACs have worked closely with key stakeholders from government agencies and NGOs from district to commune levels on this issue; however, as of yet, access to water during the dry season remains unsolved [Pers. Comm. Interview-2]. In general, access to water during the dry season was not stable and was uncertain; smallholder farmers were thus challenged to maintain productivity with a lack of water during the dry season. However, Cambodia’s water from the Mekong River, Tonle Sap Lake, and other wetlands was still widely available. Still, making physical infrastructure public for smallholder farmers for the entire year has proven to be costly, especially in the dry season [Pers. Comm. K-1].

4.4. Interactions between the AC Operations, Adaptive Capacity, and Drought Impacts

After running the CFA, the same variables illustrated in Table 5 were also used to conduct an SEM analysis. SEM was used to test a hypothesis with the likelihood estimation method, and the SEM analysis supported the variables well. According to Anderson and Gerbing [93], the second-order factor model was adopted to test the overall variables. The results revealed that the goodness-of-fit measurements were satisfactory (GFI = 0.932, AGF = 0.904, NFI = 0.963, CFI = 0.980, and RMSEA = 0.051) (Table 2 and Figure 1). Furthermore, with the goodness-of-fit assessment, they also indicated that the model was acceptable [97]. The CFA, which applied the same variables shown in Table 2, was also conducted before proceeding with the SEM to test the likelihood estimation method. Table 5 and Figure 5 show that the goodness-of-fit measurements were satisfactory (GFI = 0.932, AGFI = 0.904, NFI = 0.963, CFI = 0.980, and RMSEA = 0.051), indicating that the model is acceptable in the face of a goodness-of-fit assessment. Overall, the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers played a vital role in reducing drought impacts and enhancing AC operations. The SEM suggested that adaptive capacity had a positive and significant impact on drought impacts, as it delivered values of β = 0.254 ***, p = 0.000 < 0.001, and t-value = 4.511 > 1.96. The participation in AC activities resulted in β = 0.106 **, p = 0.04 < 0.05, and t-value = 2.053 > 1.96. At the same time, the AC operation significantly impacted the adaptive capacity, resulting in values of β = 0.352 ***, p =0.000 (p < 0.001), and t-value = 6.957 (t-value > 1.96). These factors also contributed to alleviating drought impacts, as can be seen in the values of β = 0.196 ***, p = 0.000 < 0.001, and t-value = 3.659. However, the participation in AC activities had no significant effects on AC operations, which resulted in values of β = −0.077, p =0.122 > 0.05, and t-value = −1.546 < 1.96. The results on the impacts of drought were β = 0.051, p = 0.298 > 0.05, and t-value = 1.1041 < 1.96.
In the rural communities of Cambodia, ACs were established to empower smallholder farmers to form groups to promote agricultural development and income generation activities. According to Heifer International Cambodia, NGOs have worked with government agencies and ACs to build capacity, infrastructure development, and marketing for agricultural products [Pers. Comm. K-2]. However, promoting agricultural development cannot be separated from disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, and resilience; in addition, flood and drought are the primary hazards affecting the livelihoods of smallholder farmers [Pers. Comm. K-1]. The participants in the consultative meeting agreed that AC operations did not directly impact drought risk management, but they did contribute to increasing the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers. For example, if smallholder farmers could maintain a high crop productivity and have good markets for their agricultural products, they would be able to invest more in their paddy fields [Pers. Comm. K-3]. The agricultural officer agreed that wealthy farmers had a better and stronger adaptive capacity, and they were less vulnerable to drought. Wealthier smallholder farmers could respond to drought impact in a timelier fashion; for example, they could pay for gasoline and pump machines to fill water into their paddy fields. Some wealthier farmers could also afford to pay for drip or sprinkler irrigation and a net to protect their crops and vegetables from water shortages and insects [Pers. Comm. K-1].
All the ACs were cooperating with government agencies and NGOs to raise awareness and to provide skills and techniques to reduce the impacts of drought to some extent. Smallholder farmers were mainly involved in raising awareness, skill development, marketing, and income generation activities through AC operation, and they were also beneficial in terms of reducing the impacts of drought [Pers. Comm. FGD 2]. The officer in the Bakan district administration described the limitation of ACs as due to the fact that they did not have sufficient financial and human resources to support smallholder farmers in order to reduce drought impacts [Pers. Comm. K-3]. The community meeting discussed the relationship between participation in AC activities, adaptive capacity, and drought impacts. The participants recognized the roles of ACs in increasing adaptive capacity and reducing drought impacts. They compared the smallholder farmers who participated in ACs and those who did not; however, they had different degrees of awareness and responses to drought impacts. They argued that smallholder farmers who were engaged in ACs could better solve the problems faced during droughts than those who were not engaged in ACs. Through field observations in the Bakan and Barsedth districts, the smallholder farmers who participated in ACs obtained knowledge and techniques from agricultural offers. At their house ground, the NGOs have also started experimenting with growing vegetables to be resilient to droughts and shortages of water. Smallholder farmers have gathered banana leaves around their vegetables in order to wet the soil such that the crops did not require much water to grow.

5. Discussion

5.1. Human-Made and Climatic Factors Causing Drought Events

Comparatively, the Bakan district received an average rainfall of 1658 mm, and the Barsedth district received 1395 mm. Both districts are located in lower land areas, but the smallholder farmers in the Bakan district (17%) had more access to supplementary irrigation than those in the Barsedth district (13%). As a result, the DSI analysis suggests that the Bakan district was less susceptible to drought than the Barsedth district. The analysis shows a strong relationship between the irrigation ratio of the commune and a higher drought resilience index at a p-value of 0.00 and an R-square of 0.7. The Barsedth district is more prone to drought than the Bakan district. Moreover, the Barsedth district has a lower yield of paddy; it is low by about 2.3 tonnes perhectare, while the Bakan district had 2.8 tonnes perhectare (with p-value = 0.00, using the t-test). Figure 6 suggests that only a few communes in Kampong Speu Province are resilient enough to drought, and these are mainly located in low-lying areas where they can access the supplementary irrigation system.
Raw data, surveys, and case studies confirm that drought impacts in Cambodia are associated with human-made and climate factors. The raw data regarding rainfall and supplementary irrigation prove that the Bakan district is more resilient to drought than the Barsedth district. However, the findings of the survey and case studies were found to contradict. The socio-economic development of smallholder farmers in the Bakan district was shown to have suffered more from drought impacts than development in the Barsedth district. The water shortages or droughts were primarily caused by water demands in which the rain and irrigation systems were fed to the water suppliers. In the Bakan district, rice cultivation during the dry season was approximately 12,200 hectares in 2020. In early 2013, the Bakan district had about 8000 hectares of dry rice. In contrast, in the same year, the Barsedth district saw significantly less dry rice cultivation of approximately 200 hectares. One angle of the conflicts was related to the cultivation of dry rice exceeding the irrigation capacity as farmers kept expanding the cultivation area. Other angles were the manner of water management and the social sodality and extent of cooperation. It was found that strong management for the irrigation scheme was required. From the focus group discussion, each time there was a conflict related to water sharing, the provincial government was required to solve the issue case by case.
The authors argue that the importance of supplementary irrigation is essential for resilience to drought impacts. Access to supplementary irrigation has improved smallholder farmers’ resilience to drought, especially for the production of wet season rice. The supplementary irrigation could mitigate the effects of irregular rainfall during the early, middle-, or late-season drought. Culturally, farmers in Cambodia begin rice cultivation during the early wet season. In the case of drought in late June or July, irrigation will supplement the water to the paddy fields. Cambodia’s paddy field is always filled with rainfall during September and October. Thus, as long as smallholder farmers have access to supplementary irrigation during June and July, they can safely grow rice during the early wet season. Supplementary irrigation also plays a significant role in supplying water during the late wet season. However, the early cessation of rainfall causes disaster in rice production. With supplementary irrigation, smallholder farmers can use the water to secure that their rice is fully grown until the time of harvesting. In the context of rice production in Cambodia, the lack of water for supplementary irrigation is the primary source of drought susceptibility, which usually leads to less yield and is more prone to drought damage.
Both physical and financial assets are significant for promoting the economic activities of ACs and smallholder farmers. On the other hand, the economic empowerment of smallholder farmers is automatically beneficial in terms of reducing the impacts of drought. ACs with financial and technical support from local government (including district offices and CoCs) and NGOs can perform better in delivering their daily services to increase access to the human, natural, social, physical, and financial assets between smallholder farmers. During group discussions in the two districts, smallholder farmers identified the vital infrastructure required for agricultural development; these factors included irrigation, roads, and means of transportation. Smallholder farmers can connect the market channels and reduce transportation costs when the physical assets are increased. Physical assets increase the profits of smallholder farmers to earn and create bargaining powers with middlemen and with buyers. In Cambodia, district offices and CoCs worked to improve access to small-scale infrastructure developments with annual investment funds from the Ministry of Interior (MoI) under the Decentralization and Deconcentration (D&D) initiative. In addition, the NGOs constructed supplementary irrigation, especially dikes, ponds, wells, and pumps, in order to increase the access to water for smallholder farmers. Concerning financial assets, the primary sources for agricultural investments were mainly derived from microfinance, commercial banks, and local lenders, which are widely available across the country. The ACs could only aid with small loan savings through saving groups and shareholders, and only if more than USD 1000 were derived from microfinance, commercial banks, and local lenders with high interest rates.

5.2. Why Is AC Operation Constraining Increasing Access to Livelihood Assets and Addressing Drought Impacts among Smallholder Farmers?

The results of the quantitative and qualitative data analysis show that ACs, with support from local government (including district offices and CoCs) and NGOs, have been assisting smallholder farmers in increasing access to natural, human, and social assets through raising awareness (through workshops and community meetings) and capacity building (through skill training, exchange field visits, and coaching). Awareness-raising activities help increase social assets through local participation in the planning and decision-making processes and through promoting capacity and skill building; they are essential to improving human investments, especially in horticulture and livestock raising. At the same time, the participatory process and the awareness of smallholder farmers are crucial for empowering smallholder farmers to participate in mitigating the impacts of drought. In short, ACs have played more roles in facilitating access to the five assets of livelihood in the reduction of drought impacts than those found in implementing them alone. ACs worked and played roles on the behalf of NGOs and the Provincial Office of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry in communities. Still, they are mostly unable to perform over long-term periods if there is no government and NGO support. The agricultural officer mentioned that almost all ACs were established with the support of financial and technical assistance from NGOs and that the MAFF was also providing them with legal backing, such as the registration process with which CBOs operate.
NGOs primarily support AC operations for three to five years. However, most ACs cannot continue after the project is completed. There are several reasons for their inability to continue their activities and services without external support; in the consultative meeting in the Bakan district, it was agreed that the human and financial sustainability of carrying out core activities and services was the core constraint. The focus group discussions in the two districts confirmed that the annual revenues and business activities of ACs are still small. In addition, they could not sufficiently allow ACs to carry out investment by themselves without external support. In 2020, smallholder farmers received USD 4.75 per share as their annual benefit [Pers. Comm. Interview-4]. The AC at the Chamrostean Agricultural Cooperative in the Barsedth district sold fertilizers and other agricultural inputs. For example, one fertilizer pack was sold for USD 45, and the AC earned USD 1.25 per pack. These ACs also created saving groups in which smallholder farmers could deposit money, land money, and share experiences about income generation activities [Pers. Comm. Interview-5].
The extent of willingness, commitment, and trust between the AC committee members was also found to be a constraint in terms of moving operations forward. The education level of most AC committee members was lower than the national 9-year education; they could not carry out activities without the support of the government and NGOs. Moreover, AC committee members did not have the initiative to innovate business activities and development services in order to support smallholder farmers in terms of sustainable livelihood from agricultural development and reduction in drought impacts. On the other hand, the average age of the members in the AC committees and the smallholder farmers was 50 years; it was also found that they did not have a high passion or willingness to expand their business, nor to develop their technology and skills. Both the AC committee and the smallholder farmers continued their agricultural activities as per their traditional and subsistent livelihoods. They were not very competitive in terms of productivity improvement, market expansion, and capital investment [Pers. Comm. Interview-5]. Trust building between the AC members and smallholder farmers remained a concern. There were experiences of committee members asking for AC money and shares and then leaving the communities. For example, The Agri-Productive Transport vehicle: a non-cold Chain Truck in the Barsedth district, which was established in April 2017, dissolved at the end of 2019 due to bankruptcy and due to the AC committee head leaving the community. There were 97 members, with 100 as shareholders at approximately USD 24.5 per share. In January 2020, the ACs restructured and restarted their operation with support from certain NGOs (such as Heifer International Cambodia). This NGO provided the AC with the capacity for building leadership management, skill building, and the facilities to start up businesses. A new structure with NGO support helped to renew trust between the smallholder farmers and to increase memberships and shares. By December 2022, this AC had a member budget of USD 1080 and was composed of 864 shareholders (including 558 women and 277 men), or USD 10,800 from 710 households.

5.3. The Roles of ACs in Increasing Adaptive Capacity and Reducing the Impacts of Drought on Smallholder Farmers

The survey found that drought greatly impacted the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and that AC operations do not sufficiently contribute to increasing the access to livelihood assets, which include human, financial, and social assets. In Cambodia, the five livelihood assets are essential to promoting the adaptive capacity of the communities of the Mekong River. With appropriate strategies, as well as with access to human, physical, and social assets, there would be an advancement made in the increase in financial and natural assets [102]. In the future, ACs in Cambodia will be required to improve access to the human and social assets of smallholder farmers; ACs should have their own technical and financial capacity to provide skill building and should organize social events to engage smallholder farmers in planning and policy implementations. If ACs continue to depend on financial and technical support from NGOs and local government, they cannot maintain skill building for their members over more long-term periods. Therefore, ACs should be secured with financial and human resources in order to enable self-operation, especially for skill building, coaching, and the core activities required to carry out daily operations. ACs should improve their financial and technical capacities during NGO project implementation before the project is phased out. If possible, ACs should recruit young university students to support their daily operations, as their degrees helps with assisting the AC committees; this would include help with technology, training activities, monitoring, evaluation, and business analysis. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the ACs and the District Office of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry could help create long-term cooperation for training, coaching, and technical support at the community level.
Adaptive capacity is a strategy based on autonomous ability, or it can be planned with timely preventative or reactive [103] measures for coping with harm or risk [104]. According to Watson et al. [105], adaptive capacity requires information exchange, technological advances, institutional arrangements, and the availability of finance to be suitable enough for integration into disaster preparedness [106,107]. To promote the adaptive capacity for drought in developing countries such as Cambodia, ACs play essential roles in planning and delivering services between smallholder farmers in order to increase human, natural, and social assets. The improved increase in the three previously mentioned livelihood assets by the ACs is found to empower smallholder farmers to be strong in their economic and social responsibilities through a participatory process. Sometimes, ACs are required to work with local governments, NGOs, and the private sector in order to increase access to physical and financial assets. Moreover, the annual revenues of ACs should also be allocated for development projects, especially for disaster risk management and other related social issues. In addition, ACs should advocate for CoCs and district offices to include the ACs’ action in their annual investment plans, with specific budgets to promote disaster risk management, capacity building, skill and skill building.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, Further Research, and Implications

The findings in the Bakan district of Pursat Province and the Barsedth district of Kampong Speu Province, with insights into the impacts of AC operations in Cambodia, conclude the following: (1) The Bakan district was more resilient than the Barsedth district to drought in terms of higher annual average rainfall and in terms of the ratio of supplementary irrigation. The livelihoods of smallholder farmers in the Bakan district were affected by the high demands and water conflicts around paddy rice cultivation. Drought impacts in Cambodia are influenced by both climatic factors and human-made factors. This study recognizes the critical contribution of supplementary irrigation for improving the resilience of smallholder farmers to drought, especially for the purposes of dry season cultivation. (2) AC operations assisted smallholder farmers in accessing natural assets with physical assets, but they also resulted in a negative contribution to social assets. Unfortunately, the service delivered by ACs did not contribute to the access to human assets, nor to the access to financial assets or access to water for consumption from January to May. AC operations have been constrained by: (a) a lack of human and financial resources by which to sustain service delivery after the completion of NGO projects; (b) the willingness and commitment of AC committee members; and (c) the trust between AC committee members and smallholder farmers. (3) SEM predicts that adaptive capacity contributes to mitigating the impacts of drought and increasing participation in AC activities. While AC operations significantly impact adaptive capacity and mitigate the impact of droughts, participation in AC activities did not by itself contribute to AC operations, nor did it help with drought impacts. Through AC operations in developing countries such as Cambodia, smallholder farmers are empowered with opportunities and resources to promote agricultural development, income generation activities, and responses to the impacts of drought. AC operations provide awareness, skills, agricultural inputs, equipment, facilities, and markets, which contribute to smallholder farmers’ human, financial, and social assets.
This paper was written with certain limitations, such as a lack of participation and observation during the election of AC committees and meetings. The analysis was primarily based on raw data, surveys, key informants, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and consultative meetings. In the future, researchers may wish to consider conducting fieldwork in more provinces for a nationwide survey; they may also wish to include other highly rice-productive regions, such as Battambang, Kampong Thom, Kandal, Prey Veng, and Svay Rieng, in their studies. This research fills a gap in the literature by increasing the understanding regarding the roles of AC operations in reducing drought impacts by increasing access to the five livelihood assets and in improving the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers. Currently, AC operations are dependent upon the support of local governments and NGOs; additionally, ACs have faced difficulties in continuing to operate effectively after the NGO projects are completed. Further studies are recommended for researchers with respect to the capacity assessment of AC committees, the supporting mechanisms and local resources for AC operation, and for understanding the external dependency and sustainability of ACs.
Enhanced financial and technical capacity of ACs is required in the long term in order to promote the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to drought. ACs have roles in planning and delivering services, and they also help increase access to human and natural assets with support from local governments and NGOs. The private sector helps increase access to physical and financial assets. In the future, ACs should work closely with CoCs to empower smallholder farmers in terms of livelihood development and drought risk reduction. Simultaneously, NGOs and government agencies should continue building the capacity to generate sufficient revenues by which to operate activities for members alone. Actions implemented by ACs should be included as priorities within the annual budget under the commune investment plan. When the activity implementation of ACs is aligned with the priority of the commune investment plan, they can mobilize government agencies and NGOs for routine activities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and N.C.; methodology, N.C., S.S., V.S. and P.N.; software, V.S. and P.N.; validation, S.S., P.N. and N.C.; formal analysis, V.S.; investigation, S.S.; resources, N.C.; data curation, N.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S. and N.C.; writing—review and editing, N.C., S.S. and P.N.; visualization, V.S. and P.N.; supervision, N.C.; project administration, N.C.; funding acquisition, N.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was carried out with the generous aid of a grant from the Ottawa-based International Development Resource Center (IDRC), Canada. The authors wish to acknowledge IDRC Canada for funding the project “Promoting Social Entrepreneurship in Disaster Risk Reduction to Building Community Resilience: Pilot in Malaysia and Cambodia (XX-2019-011)”, which supported this study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data regarding rainfall and supplementary irrigation between 2003 and 2020 were obtained from the Department of Meteorology, Ministry of Water Resources, and Meteorology (MoWRAM) and the Commune Database Online (CDB) of the Ministry of Planning (MoP), respectively.

Acknowledgments

The support of the Southeast Asia Disaster Prevention Research Initiative (SEADPRI-UKM), Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia, in this research is also appreciatively accredited. The authors wish to also thank the local authorities and officers of Pursat and Kampong Speu Provinces for their assistance with the fieldwork.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Figure A1. The first-order factor model.
Figure A1. The first-order factor model.
Water 15 01447 g0a1
Figure A2. First-order factor model.
Figure A2. First-order factor model.
Water 15 01447 g0a2
Figure A3. First-order factor model.
Figure A3. First-order factor model.
Water 15 01447 g0a3
Figure A4. First-order factor model.
Figure A4. First-order factor model.
Water 15 01447 g0a4
Table A1. Structured Questionnaire of the Household survey.
Table A1. Structured Questionnaire of the Household survey.
39Please Rate the Impact of Drought on Your Socioeconomic Development.
N/AVery LowLowModerateHighVery High
IDL-1Loss of employment ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-2Reduction in household income⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-3Reduction in spending on festivals⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-4Food scarcity ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-5Threatened household food security⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-6Limited food preference ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-7Conflicts for water in society⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-8Affected the schooling for children⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-9Population migration⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-10Health impact⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-11Homelessness and sense of loss⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IDL-12Other (specify______________________)⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
45To what degree were significant agricultural adaptation measures adopted by smallholder farmers
N/AVery LowLowModerateHighVery High
⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
ADS-1Changing crop calendar/cooperative dates⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
ADS-2Changing to low, water-consuming crops⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
ADS-3Keeping land unsown after the anticipated drought⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
ADS-4Changing traditional irrigation practices to sprinkler, drip irrigation⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
ADS-5Water harvesting (farm pond, in situ water conservation practice, etc.)⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
ADS-6Reducing wastage of water during the drought year⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
ADS-7Other (specify______________________)⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
55To what degree are you involved in the following activities with the agricultural cooperative?
N/AVery LowLowModerateHighVery High
⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-1Participation in productive activities (planning and harvesting)⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-2A regular presence in meetings held by the farmer association.⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-3Participation in a training course organized by the farmer’s association.⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-4Cooperation with the committees of the farmer’s association.⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-5Participation in the decision-making of the farmer’s associations about productive activities. ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-6Other (specify______________________)⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
56To what degree are you satisfied with the services delivered by the agricultural cooperative?
N/AVery LowLowModerateHighVery High
⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-1Adequate capital accumulation ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-2Availability of loans⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-3Management of loans ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-4Sufficiently skilled personnel ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-5Government support⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-6High literate level members⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-7Good management⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-8Sufficient business plans⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-9Large values of shares⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-10Sufficiency of access to credit facilities⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-11Access to competitive markets⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC-12Other (specify______________________)⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
57To what degree are you satisfied with the implementation of agricultural cooperation?
N/AVery LowLowModerateHighVery High
⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-1Providing capital and credit facilities ⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-2The availability of market services⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-3Providing practical knowledge and the teaching of techniques⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-4Receiving external support⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-5Responding to members’ needs⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-6Knowing members’ need⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-7Having leadership and work capabilities⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-8Having good bookkeeping/financial management⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-9Enforcing internal regulation⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-10Having good communications with local authorities⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
IAC57-11Other (specify______________________)⬜0⬜1⬜2⬜3⬜4⬜5
Table A2. List of Participants for Key Informants and In-depth Interview.
Table A2. List of Participants for Key Informants and In-depth Interview.
CodeInstitutionDate
Pers. Comm. K-1The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)August 2022
Pers. Comm. K-2Heifer International CambodiaMay 2022
Pers. Comm. K-3The Bakan district officerDecember 2022
Pers. Comm. K-5The Commune Councils (CoCs) in the Bakan districtDecember 2022
Pers. Comm. K-5The District Office of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry in Barsedth districtNovember 2022
Pers. Comm. Interview-1The Ponlue Agricultural Cooperative in Bakan districtDecember 2022
Pers. Comm. Interview-2The Chamreun Pal Agricultural Cooperative in Bakan districtDecember 2022
Pers. Comm. Interview-3The Chamreoun Agricultural CooperativeDecember 2022
Pers. Comm. Interview-4The Agri-Productive Transport vehicle: a non-cold Chain Truck in Barsedth districtNovember 2022
Pers. Comm. Interview-5The Chamrostean Agricultural Cooperative in Barsedth districtNovember 2022
Consultive Meeting The consultative meeting in the Bakan districtDecember 2022
FGD 1The focus group discussion in the Bakan districtDecember 2022
FGD 2The focus group discussion in the Barsedth districtNovember 2022

References

  1. Thoeun, H.C. Observed and projected changes in temperature and rainfall in Cambodia. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2015, 7, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. CNMC. The State of Climate Change Management in Cambodia; Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC): Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. NCSD/MoE. A Third Study on Understanding Public Perceptions of Climate Change in Cambodia: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices; National Council for Sustainable Development/Ministry of Environment (NCSD/MoE): Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Helmers, K.; Jegillos, S. Linkages between Flood and Drought Disasters and Cambodian Rural Livelihoods and Food Security; Cambodian Red Cross: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2004; Volume 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nguyen, H.; Shaw, R. Adaptation to Droughts in Cambodia. Community Environ. Disaster Manag. 2011, 8, 49–66. [Google Scholar]
  6. Geres-Cambodia. Public Perceptions of Climate Change in Cambodia; DanChurch Aid/Christian Aid: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ministry of Environment; UNDP. Building Resilience: The Future for Rural Livelihoods in the Face of Climate Change; Cambodia Human Development Report 2011; Ministry of Environment: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sok, S.; Lebel, L.; Bastakoti, R.C.; Thau, S.; Samath, S. Role of Villagers in Building Community Resilience through Disaster Risk Management: A Case Study of a Flood-Prone Village on the Banks of the Mekong River in Cambodia; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 241–255. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mekong River Commission. Impact of 2005 Flood Country Report. Available online: http://www.mrcmekong.org/flood_report/2005/impact_cambodia1.html (accessed on 13 July 2022).
  10. Dany, V.; Kamal, U.; Vuthy, V.; Chanthoeun, H. A review of Cambodian climate hazards, vulnerabilities and responses. In Water Resources and Development in Southeast Asia, Pearson Learning Solutions, Boston; Irvine, K., Murphy, T., Vermette, S., Vanchan, V., Eds.; Pearson Learning Solutions: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 89–107. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chhinh, N.; Poch, B. Climate change impacts on agriculture and vulnerability as expected poverty of Kampong Speu Province, Cambodia. Int. J. Environ. Rural Dev. 2012, 3, 28–37. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sok, S.; Yu, X.; Wong, K.-K. Food security in the riverine rural communities of the lower Mekong Basin, Cambodia. In Forum for Development Studies; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014; pp. 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. MOE; Hatfield Consultants. Synthesis Report on Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment for Key Sectors Including Strategic and Operational Recommendations; Hatfield Consultants: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacobson, C.; Crevello, S.; Chea, C.; Jarihani, B. When is migration a maladaptive response to climate change? Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Ngin, C.; Chhom, C.; Neef, A. Climate change impacts and disaster resilience among micro businesses in the tourism and hospitality sector: The case of Kratie, Cambodia. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Keskinen, M.; Chinvanno, S.; Kummu, M.; Nuorteva, P.; Snidvongs, A.; Varis, O.; Västilä, K. Climate change and water resources in the Lower Mekong River Basin: Putting adaptation into the context. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Touch, V.; Martin, R.J.; Scott, F.; Cowie, A.; Li, L.D. Climate change impacts on rainfed cropping production systems in the tropics and the case of smallholder farms in North-west Cambodia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 1631–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sok, S.; Chhinh, N.; Hor, S.; Nguonphan, P. Climate Change Impacts on Rice Cultivation: A Comparative Study of the Tonle Sap and Mekong River. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chann, K.; Sok, T.; Khoeun, R.; Men, V.; Visessri, S.; Oeurng, C.; Sor, R.; Null, S.E. Prolonged and Severe Drought in the Most Dammed Tributaries of the Lower Mekong Basin. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Murphy, T.; Irvine, K.; Sampson, M. The stress of climate change on water management in Cambodia with a focus on rice production. Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chhinh, N.; Millington, A. Drought monitoring for rice production in Cambodia. Climate 2015, 3, 792–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Abhishek, A.; Das, N.N.; Ines, A.V.; Andreadis, K.M.; Jayasinghe, S.; Granger, S.; Ellenburg, W.L.; Dutta, R.; Quyen, N.H.; Markert, A.M. Evaluating the impacts of drought on rice productivity over Cambodia in the Lower Mekong Basin. J. Hydrol. 2021, 599, 126291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, B.; Zhang, L.; Guo, H.; Leinenkugel, P.; Zhou, Y.; Li, L.; Shen, Q. Drought impact on vegetation productivity in the Lower Mekong Basin. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2014, 35, 2835–2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chhinh, N. Climate change adaptation in agriculture in Cambodia. In Adaptation to Climate Change in Asia; Vachani, S., Ed.; Edward Elgar: London, UK, 2014; pp. 163–182. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chhinh, N. Drought Baseline Study in Cambodia: Strengthening Climate Information and Early Warning System in Cambodia; UNDP Cambodia: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  26. NCDM. Disaster Loss Database (CAMDi). Available online: http://camdi.ncdm.gov.kh/DesInventar/generator.jsp (accessed on 12 April 2020).
  27. Chhinh, N. Drought, Drought Vulnerability and Adaptation Policy in Cambodia with Reference to the Farming Sector; Flinders University: Adelaide, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ly, V. Current Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources in Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia Parliamentary Institue of Cambodia. Available online: https://pcasia.org/pic/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/20180611_Current-Impacts-of-Climate-Change-on-Water-Resources-in-Cambodia.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2022).
  29. Buckley, B.M.; Anchukaitis, K.J.; Penny, D.; Fletcher, R.; Cook, E.R.; Sano, M.; Nam, L.C.; Wichienkeeo, A.; Minh, T.T.; Hong, T.M. Climate as a contributing factor in the demise of Angkor, Cambodia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 6748–6752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Vickery, M. What to do about The Khmers. J. Southeast Asian Stud. 1996, 27, 389–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Evans, D.; Pottier, C.; Fletcher, R.; Hensley, S.; Tapley, I.; Milne, A.; Barbetti, M. A comprehensive archaeological map of the world’s largest preindustrial settlement complex at Angkor, Cambodia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 14277–14282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. World Bank. Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economics of Effective Prevention; World Bank and United Nations: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sok, S.; Yu, X.; Yila, O. Decentralized local institutions and livelihood development of riverine communities in the Lower Mekong Basin, Cambodia. J. Asian Public Policy 2014, 7, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. MLMUPC. Law on commune/Sangkat administrative management (unofficial English translation). 2001. Available online: www.social-protection.org/gimi/RessourcePDF.action;jsessionid=flQvP-jLHWw_f8nDnmS4U3_NKZOKv8LNHnxo69wIDYD3hEGBXCiK!1588761716?id=40839 (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  35. Sok, S.; Yu, X.; Wong, K.K. Impediments to community fisheries management: Some findings in Kompong Pou commune, Krakor District in Cambodia’s Tonle Sap. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2012, 33, 398–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ministry of Tourism of Cambodia. CBET Destinations. Available online: https://www.tourismcambodia.org/public/index.php/mot-info/cbetdestination (accessed on 11 April 2020).
  37. Mojo, D.; Fischer, C.; Degefa, T. The determinants and economic impacts of membership in coffee farmer cooperatives: Recent evidence from rural Ethiopia. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 50, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Palsule-Desai, O.D. Cooperatives for fruits and vegetables in emerging countries: Rationalization and impact of decentralization. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2015, 81, 114–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. MAFF. Agricultural Sector Master Plan 2030 (ASMP 2030); Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ofori, E.; Sampson, G.S.; Vipham, J. The effects of agricultural cooperatives on smallholder livelihoods and agricultural performance in Cambodia. Nat. Resour. Forum 2019, 43, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chhinh, N.; Sok, S.; Sou, V.; Nguonphan, P. Local Engagement in the Agricultural Cooperatives (ACs) Operation in Cambodia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. MAFF. Law on Agricultural Cooperative (Unofficial Translation); Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF): Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  43. MAFF. Raw Data on Number of Agricultural Cooperatives in Cambodia; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Forestry: Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tuğba, K. Role of ecotourism in sustainable development. In Advances in Landscape Architecture; Ozyavuz, M., Ed.; InTech: Istanbul, Turkey, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hong, S. Community-Based-Eco-Tourism; Cambodian Rural Development Team (CDRT): Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  46. UNDRR. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available online: https://gar.undrr.org/ (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  47. Cammalleri, C.; Naumann, G.; Mentaschi, L.; Formetta, G.; Forzieri, G.; Gosling, S.; Bisselink, B.; De Roo, A.; Feyen, L. Global Warming and Drought Impacts in the EU; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  48. Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C. Perception of and adaptation to climate change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 149, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sadeghloo, T.; Sojasi Qeidari, H. Ranking of Effective Factors for Farmer Resilience increasing Against of Natural Hazards (With emphasis on drought) Study area: Rural farmer in Ijrud province. J. Geogr. Environ. Hazards 2014, 3, 129–154. [Google Scholar]
  50. IFRC. Key Determinants of a Successful CBDRR Programme; Community Based Disaster Risk Management Study. Available online: https://www.ifrc.org/docs/Evaluations/Evaluations%202012/Global/GlobalKey_Determinants_12.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  51. Musimba, S.K.; Otieno, M.M.M.; Kyalo, D.N.; Mulwa, A.S. Community Participation in Drought Risk Management in Kilifi County, Kenya. Int. J. Manag. Stud. Res. 2018, 6, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mazzucato, V.; Niemeijer, D. Population growth and the environment in Africa: Local informal institutions, the missing link. Econ. Geogr. 2002, 78, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Adger, W.N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 268–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Donnelly-Roark, P.; Ouedrago, K. Rural Decentralization in Burkina Faso: Local Level Institutions and Poverty Eradication. 2001. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/fd944c77-6c75-52af-81c5-00cc1434ad6b (accessed on 9 January 2023).
  55. De Haan, L.; Zoomers, A. Exploring the frontier of livelihoods research. Dev. Chang. 2005, 36, 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tendler, J. Good Government in the Tropics; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  57. Atack, I. Four criteria of development NGO legitimacy. World Dev. 1999, 27, 855–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tacconi, L. Biodiversity and Ecological Economics: Participation, Values, and Resource Management; Earthscan Publication Ltd: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  59. Caplow, S.; Jagger, P.; Lawlor, K.; Sills, E. Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Orimoloye, I.R.; Belle, J.A.; Orimoloye, Y.M.; Olusola, A.O.; Ololade, O.O. Drought: A common environmental disaster. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, L. Back Ground Paper on Drought-An Assessment of Asian and Pacific Progress. In Proceedings of the Regional Implementation Meeting for Asia and the Pacific for the Sixteenth Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-16), Jakarta, Indonesia, 26–27 November 2007. [Google Scholar]
  62. Serraj, R.; McNally, K.L.; Slamet-Loedin, I.; Kohli, A.; Haefele, S.M.; Atlin, G.; Kumar, A. Drought resistance improvement in rice: An integrated genetic and resource management strategy. Plant Prod. Sci. 2011, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. USDA. Drought continues in Southeast Asia. Production Estimates and Crop Assessment Division Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/highlights/2005/03/sedrought/seasiadrought.htm (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  64. EM-DAT. Drought Disaster Profile: Natural Disaster. Available online: http://www.emdat.be (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  65. Adamson, P.; Bird, J. The Mekong: A Drought-prone Tropical Environment? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2010, 26, 579–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wilhite, A.D.; Bruchanan-Smith, M. Drought as hazard: Understanding the natural and social context. In Drought and Water Crises: Science, Technology and Management Issues; Wilhite, A.D., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; p. 406. [Google Scholar]
  67. Vicente-Serrano, S.M.; Quiring, S.M.; Pena-Gallardo, M.; Yuan, S.; Dominguez-Castro, F. A review of environmental droughts: Increased risk under global warming? Earth-Sci. Rev. 2020, 201, 102953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sayers, P.B.; Yuanyuan, L.; Moncrieff, C.; Jianqiang, L.; Tickner, D.; Gang, L.; Speed, R. Strategic drought risk management: Eight ‘golden rules’ to guide a sound approach. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2017, 15, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wilhite, A.D.; Sivakumar, M.V.; Pulwarty, R. Managing drought risk in a changing climate: The role of national drought policy. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2014, 3, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Pandey, S.; Bhandari, H.; Sharan, R.; Naik, D.; Taunk, S.; Sastri, A. Economic Costs of Drought and Rainfed Rice Farmers’ Coping Mechanisms in Eastern India; IRRI: Los Baños, Philippines, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  71. Hooshmandi, B. Evaluation of tolerance to drought stress in wheat genotypes. Idesia 2019, 37, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Madrigal-Ballestero, R.; Naranjo, M.A. Adaptive capacity, drought and the performance of community-based drinking water organizations in Costa Rica. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 831–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nguyen, H.; Prabhakar, S.; Shaw, R. Adaptive drought risk reduction in Cambodia: Reality, perceptions and strategies. Environ. Hazards 2009, 8, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nguimalet, C.-R. Comparison of community-based adaptation strategies for droughts and floods in Kenya and the Central African Republic. Water Int. 2018, 43, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mutiarni, Y.S.; Nakamura, H.; Bhattacharya, Y. The resilient community: Strengthening people-centered disaster risk reduction in the merapi volcano community, Java, Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Aboniyo, J.; Mourad, K.A. Role of community based organizations in transferring climate change information in Rwanda. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 11, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rawat, A.; Karlstrom, J.; Ameha, A.; Oulare, M.; Omer, M.D.; Desta, H.H.; Bahuguna, S.; Hsu, K.; Miller, N.P.; Bati, G.T. The contribution of community health systems to resilience: Case study of the response to the drought in Ethiopia. J. Glob. Health 2022, 12, 14001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Neves, M.d.C.R.; Silva, F.d.F.; Freitas, C.O.d.; Braga, M.J. The role of cooperatives in Brazilian agricultural production. Agriculture 2021, 11, 948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lassa, J.A.; Boli, Y.; Nakmofa, Y.; Fanggidae, S.; Ofong, A.; Leonis, H. Twenty years of community-based disaster risk reduction experience from a dryland village in Indonesia. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2018, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Duguma, A. The Role of agricultural cooperatives in risk management and impact on farm income: Evidence from Southern Ethiopia. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 7, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  81. Gubbay, N.; McKendry, C. Spiraling-up through drought responses: Building community capacity in Colorado’s farming-dependent counties. Community Dev. 2022, 53, 167–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sherwood, A. Community adaptation to climate change: Exploring drought and poverty traps in Gituamba location, Kenya. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2013, 5, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Aref, F. Agricultural cooperatives for agricultural development in Iran. Life Sci. J. 2011, 8, 82–85. [Google Scholar]
  84. Qu, R.; Wu, Y.; Chen, J.; Jones, G.D.; Li, W.; Jin, S.; Chang, Q.; Cao, Y.; Yang, G.; Li, Z.; et al. Effects of Agricultural Cooperative Society on Farmers’ Technical Efficiency: Evidence from Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mhembwe, S.; Dube, E. The role of cooperatives in sustaining the livelihoods of rural communities: The case of rural cooperatives in Shurugwi District, Zimbabwe. Jamba 2017, 9, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Kumar, V.; Wankhede, K.; Gena, H. Role of cooperatives in improving livelihood of farmers on sustainable basis. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2015, 3, 1258–1266. [Google Scholar]
  87. Lawangen, A. Rural cooperatives in disaster risk reduction and management: Contributions and challenges. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2022, 31, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  89. Verhoef, M.J.; Casebeer, A.L. Broadening horizons: Integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Can. J. Infect. Dis. J. Can. Des. Mal. Infect. 1997, 8, 65–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  91. Bowerman, B.; O’Connell, R.; Murphree, E. Business Statistics in Practice, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  92. McMillan, J.H.; Schumacher, S. Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction, 5th ed.; Longman: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  93. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Koufteros, X.; Babbar, S.; Kaighobadi, M. A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2009, 120, 633–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jöreskog, K.G.; Olsson, U.H.; Wallentin, F.Y. Multivariate Analysis with LISREL; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  96. Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language; Scientific Software International: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  97. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition; Pearson Education Limited: Essex, UK, 2014; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  98. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  99. Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M. Equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  100. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Peterson, R.A.; Kim, Y. On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 194–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sok, S.; Yu, X. Adaptation, resilience and sustainable livelihoods in the communities of the Lower Mekong Basin, Cambodia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2015, 31, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fankhauser, S.; Smith, J.B.; Tol, R.S. Weathering climate change: Some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 30, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nuorteva, P.; Keskinen, M.; Varis, O. Water, livelihoods and climate change adaptation in the Tonle Sap Lake area, Cambodia: Learning from the past to understand the future. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Watson, R.T.; Zinyowera, M.C.; Moss, R.H. Climate Change 1995. Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  106. van Aalst, M.K.; Cannon, T.; Burton, I. Community level adaptation to climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Smit, B.; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The results of the second-order factor model and overall model.
Figure 1. The results of the second-order factor model and overall model.
Water 15 01447 g001
Figure 2. The drought context in Kampong Speu and Pursat Provinces.
Figure 2. The drought context in Kampong Speu and Pursat Provinces.
Water 15 01447 g002
Figure 3. Impacts of drought on socio-economic development. Notes: WAI = the weight average index that is applied in order to be measured on a five-point scale (very low (VL) = 0.00–0.20, low (L) = 0.21–0.40, moderate (M) = 0.41–0.60, high (H) = 0.61–0.80, and very high (VH) = 0.81–1.00). OA = Overall assessment. p-value <0.05. p-value: The overall values for drought impacts = 0.000; loss of employment = 0.002; reduction in household income = 0.000; reduction in spending on festivals = 0.637; food scarcity = 0.005; threatened household food security = 0.000; limited food preference = 0.000; conflicts for water in society = 0.000; affected schooling for children = 0.735; population migration = 0.012; health impact = 0.346; and homelessness and sense of loss = 0.000.
Figure 3. Impacts of drought on socio-economic development. Notes: WAI = the weight average index that is applied in order to be measured on a five-point scale (very low (VL) = 0.00–0.20, low (L) = 0.21–0.40, moderate (M) = 0.41–0.60, high (H) = 0.61–0.80, and very high (VH) = 0.81–1.00). OA = Overall assessment. p-value <0.05. p-value: The overall values for drought impacts = 0.000; loss of employment = 0.002; reduction in household income = 0.000; reduction in spending on festivals = 0.637; food scarcity = 0.005; threatened household food security = 0.000; limited food preference = 0.000; conflicts for water in society = 0.000; affected schooling for children = 0.735; population migration = 0.012; health impact = 0.346; and homelessness and sense of loss = 0.000.
Water 15 01447 g003
Figure 4. The degrees of drought impact on livelihood. Notes: WAI = the weight average index is applied to measure on a five-point scale (very low (VL) = 0.00–0.20, low (L) = 0.21–0.40, moderate (M) = 0.41–0.60, high (H) = 0.61–0.80, and very high (VH) = 0.81–1.00). OA = overall assessment. p-value <0.05. p-value: Increase in average temperature = 0.659; forest degradation = 0.014; pasture degradation = 0.363; water scarcity in surface water bodies = 0.029; the decline in groundwater levels = 0.392; water quality deterioration = 0.982; damage to wildlife and habitat = 0.961; crop failures = 0.931; increase in food prices = 0.001; poor health of animals = 0.010; malnutrition = 0.001; stunning = 0.560; making the surroundings more dry = 0.716; famine = 0.342; loss of livestock = 0.661; increased water demand; excessive groundwater pumping = 0.040; and the overall impact on livelihood = 0.064.
Figure 4. The degrees of drought impact on livelihood. Notes: WAI = the weight average index is applied to measure on a five-point scale (very low (VL) = 0.00–0.20, low (L) = 0.21–0.40, moderate (M) = 0.41–0.60, high (H) = 0.61–0.80, and very high (VH) = 0.81–1.00). OA = overall assessment. p-value <0.05. p-value: Increase in average temperature = 0.659; forest degradation = 0.014; pasture degradation = 0.363; water scarcity in surface water bodies = 0.029; the decline in groundwater levels = 0.392; water quality deterioration = 0.982; damage to wildlife and habitat = 0.961; crop failures = 0.931; increase in food prices = 0.001; poor health of animals = 0.010; malnutrition = 0.001; stunning = 0.560; making the surroundings more dry = 0.716; famine = 0.342; loss of livestock = 0.661; increased water demand; excessive groundwater pumping = 0.040; and the overall impact on livelihood = 0.064.
Water 15 01447 g004
Figure 5. The results of the structural equation modeling (SEM).
Figure 5. The results of the structural equation modeling (SEM).
Water 15 01447 g005
Figure 6. The relationship between irrigation ration by commune and their DSI value.
Figure 6. The relationship between irrigation ration by commune and their DSI value.
Water 15 01447 g006
Table 1. The thresholds of the CFA and SEM.
Table 1. The thresholds of the CFA and SEM.
Model Fit StatisticsRule of Thumbs
χ2/D.F<3
GFI≥0.90
AGFI≥0.90
NFI≥0.90
CFI≥0.90
RMSEA<0.08
Note: χ2 = Chi-square; D.F = degree of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit; NFI = normalized fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root means square error of approximation. Sources: Anderson and Gerbing [93], Jöreskog et al. [95]; Jöreskog and Sörbom [96,97]; Kline [98]; and Hooper et al. [99].
Table 2. The results of the CFA second-order factor model.
Table 2. The results of the CFA second-order factor model.
Indicators Research ConstructsStandardized Loading > 0.60t-Value > 1.96AVE > 0.50CR > 0.70
ADS45_1Adaptive capacity0.898A0.7080.905
ADS45_2 0.93324.865
ADS45_5 0.69116.74
ADS45_6 0.82213.398
IDL39_6Drought impacts0.818A0.7930.910
IDL39_5 0.92822.573
IDL39_4 0.89122.041
IAC55_5Participation in AC activities0.828A0.7750.939
IAC55_4 0.90532.492
IAC55_3 0.94624.669
IAC55_2 0.87922.415
IAC57_4AC operation0.867A0.7280.960
IAC57_3 0.86828.363
IAC57_2 0.86724.397
IAC57_1 0.8423.012
IAC57_5 0.92928.041
IAC57_6 0.91227.156
IAC57_7 0.82622.345
IAC57_8 0.84422.956
IAC57_9 0.70717.361
Goodness-of-Fit Index (Results)Goodness-of-Fit Index (Threshold)
χ2/D.F = 2.101χ2/D.F < 3
GFI = 0.932GFI ≥ 0.90
AGFI = 0.904AGFI ≥ 0.90
NFI = 0.963NFI ≥ 0.95
CFI = 0.980CFI ≥ 0.95
RMSEA = 0.051RMSEA < 0.08
Note: A = parameter regression weight that was fixed at 1.000.
Table 3. Generic rice cropping calendar and possible drought occurrence.
Table 3. Generic rice cropping calendar and possible drought occurrence.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSeptOctNovDec
Dry SeasonEarly SeasonMid-SeasonEnd-SeasonDry
Most of the paddy fields are not being used.The start of wet rice production.The growth of the rice.The harvest period
Table 4. Services delivered by ACS to support smallholder farmers.
Table 4. Services delivered by ACS to support smallholder farmers.
Independent VariablesDependent Variables
Services Delivered by ACs to Support Smallholder Farmers
Model 1 (β1)Model 2 (β2)Model 3 (β3)Model 4 (β4)Model 5 (β5)Model 6 (β6)
Access to natural assets0.226 ***
Access to human assets 0.016
Access to physical assets 0.206 ***
Access to social assets −0.156 **
Access to financial assets 0.072
Accessible to water from January to May 0.077
R20.0580.0580.0990.1250.1300.136
Adjusted-R20.0560.0540.0920.1160.1200.123
F-value (Sig. p-value < 0.05)25.65512.86615.05914.65312.32410.760
t-value > |1.96|4.3660.3454.1003.1321.5451.638
Sig. p-value <0.050.0000.7300.0000.0020.1230.102
Note: *** p < 0.001 and ** p < 0.05. Hair et al. [97] suggested that when the t-value is more significant than 1.96 and when the significance of the p-value is less than 0.05, the proposed research hypotheses can be accepted. In contrast, the proposed research hypotheses would be rejected if the t-value <1.96 and the p-value > 0.05.
Table 5. The results of SEM.
Table 5. The results of SEM.
ConstructsIndicatorsStandardized Coefficient (β)t-Valuep-Value
Adaptive capacityADS45_10.902A***
ADS45_20.92925.318***
ADS45_50.69416.851***
ADS45_60.76917.99***
Participation in AC activitiesIAC55_50.827A***
IAC55_40.90532.434***
IAC55_30.94524.631***
IAC55_20.87922.396***
AC operationIAC57_40.867A***
IAC57_30.85428.414***
IAC57_20.86624.53***
IAC57_10.84323.077***
IAC57_50.92527.748***
IAC57_60.91327.158***
IAC57_70.8322.488***
IAC57_80.84522.99***
IAC57_90.70917.433***
Drought impactsIDL39_60.818A***
IDL39_50.86521.827***
IDL39_40.89522.12***
Path Relationships
H1: Adaptive capacity AC operation0.3526.957***
H2: Adaptive capacity Participation in AC activities0.1062.0530.04
H3: Adaptive capacity Drought impacts0.2544.511***
H4: AC operations Drought impacts0.1963.659***
H5: Participation in AC activities Drought impacts−0.077−1.5460.122
H6: Participation in AC activities AC operations0.0511.0410.298
Goodness-of-fit index
χ2/D.F = 2.105
GFI = 0.932
AGFI = 0.904
NFI = 0.963
CFI = 0.980
RMSEA = 0.051
Note: A = parameter regression weight was fixed at 1.000 with a significant p-value < 0.05 and a t-value > 1.96. *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chhinh, N.; Sok, S.; Sou, V.; Nguonphan, P. Roles of Agricultural Cooperatives (ACs) in Drought Risk Management among Smallholder Farmers in Pursat and Kampong Speu Provinces, Cambodia. Water 2023, 15, 1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081447

AMA Style

Chhinh N, Sok S, Sou V, Nguonphan P. Roles of Agricultural Cooperatives (ACs) in Drought Risk Management among Smallholder Farmers in Pursat and Kampong Speu Provinces, Cambodia. Water. 2023; 15(8):1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081447

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chhinh, Nyda, Serey Sok, Veasna Sou, and Pheakdey Nguonphan. 2023. "Roles of Agricultural Cooperatives (ACs) in Drought Risk Management among Smallholder Farmers in Pursat and Kampong Speu Provinces, Cambodia" Water 15, no. 8: 1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081447

APA Style

Chhinh, N., Sok, S., Sou, V., & Nguonphan, P. (2023). Roles of Agricultural Cooperatives (ACs) in Drought Risk Management among Smallholder Farmers in Pursat and Kampong Speu Provinces, Cambodia. Water, 15(8), 1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081447

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop