executive summary - web viewkhin, pisey and thong meas. 2016. “consumer awareness and market...

STUDY REPORT

Consumer Awareness and Market Demand Survey for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Certified Fruit and Vegetables

in Siem Reap and Kampong Cham Towns

Prepared for:

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

General Directorate of Agriculture

Prepared by:

Khin Pisey and Meas Thong

March 2016

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

AUTHOR’S CONTACT

Khin, [email protected]+855-17-888-631

Meas, [email protected]+855-12-622-080

Suggested citation:

Khin, Pisey and Thong Meas. 2016. “Consumer Awareness and Market Demand Survey for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Certified Fruit and Vegetables in Siem Reap and Kampong Cham Towns.” Phnom Penh: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development (TSSD) project.

Executive Summary

Study Goal and Methodology

The goal of this study is to assess the awareness and market potential for Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) certification of domestic fresh produce sold in Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns. To achieve its goal, the study employs both quantitative and qualitative approaches. For the quantitative part, surveys with three consumer categories – comprising households (about 400 respondents), hotels and restaurants (around 30 respondents, each) – are conducted. For the qualitative part, in-depth interviews with wholesalers and retailers are used. The study covers ten markets: six markets in Siem Reap town and four in Kampong Cham town. Structured questionnaires are used to collect data for the study.

The report is mainly presented with descriptive statistics and graphs. For the estimation of willingness to pay (WTP) for GAP certified produce, the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is used, in addition to the direct method (i.e. asking the respondents to specify their premium).

Understanding Consumption Pattern of Fresh Produce

Most of households in Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns make a daily purchase of vegetables, but less frequent of fruit. About 80% of households in the two towns purchase vegetables every day as compared to only less than 10% of the households who make a daily purchase of fruit.

Based on this purchasing pattern, the annual per capita consumption among households in the two towns is 75 kilograms for vegetables. There is no significant difference in the pattern of vegetable purchase across the two towns. For fruit, such per capita consumption is 45 kilograms among households in Siem Reap town and 39 kilograms among those in Kampong Cham town. This means that households in Siem Reap town tend to consume more fruit than their peers in Kampong Cham town.

The active tourism sector in Siem Reap largely influences the consumption of fresh produce, especially among hotels. In Siem Reap town, hotels purchase 314 kilograms of vegetables and 237 kilograms of fruit on average per week. These purchase quantities are much larger than those of hotels in Kampong Cham town, which is 87 kilograms and 25 kilograms for vegetables and fruit, respectively. Unlike hotels, the purchase pattern is not significantly different across restaurants in the two towns. Their weekly purchase quantity averages 209 kilograms for vegetables and 73 kilograms for fruit.

Combining demands of consumers of the three categories – household, hotel and restaurant – yields the aggregate demand. For Siem Reap town, the daily aggregate demand is around 47 tons for vegetables and 26 tons for fruit. For Kampong Cham town, it is almost 8 tons for vegetables and 3.5 tons for fruit. Household demands account for the greatest proportion the produce purchased in both towns.

Regarding most commonly purchased vegetables, consumers in the two towns share a similar preference. The five most commonly purchased among households include water convolvulus, cucumber, curly-wrap pak choy, Chinese green, and cabbage or wax gourd. Among hotels and restaurants, they include cucumber, lettuce, tomato, carrot, and Bok Choy. Cucumber is the most commonly purchased by all categories of consumers. Cabbage is the second most popular only among households and restaurants, but not hotels.

For fruit, the five most commonly purchased among households comprise longan, banana, green orange, grape, and apple. There are some variations in preference among hotels and restaurants in the two towns. Among hotels, four fruit commodities most commonly purchased by hotels include pineapple, watermelon, dragon fruit, and banana. Among restaurants, the most commonly purchased commodities include pineapple, banana, mango, and apple. Overall, banana is the most popular among all consumer categories; and pineapple gains popularity among hotels and restaurants only, but not households.

Consumer Perception of Fresh Produce Safety

All the three consumer categories perceived that domestic produce is somewhat safe and the imported is somewhat unsafe. The fresh produce imported from Thailand is perceived less unsafe than that from Vietnam. The use of inputs – mainly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and growth hormones – is the key determinant of safety perception among the consumers. It is perceived that the more these inputs are used in the farming, the less safety the produce would have. Domestic produce gains a high safety perception

| Market Study for GAP Certified Fresh Produce

because consumers perceived that it is grown with a limited use of those inputs or, in some cases, without using them. Consumers considered the latter farming practice as a ‘naturally-grown’ method.

At the commodity level, four vegetable commodities which are perceived unsafe include Napa cabbage, Chinese kale, Bok Choy, and cabbage. For fruit, the unsafe include three commodities: grape, apple and pear. These produce commodities are mostly imported. This shows that the safety perception at the commodity level is largely consistent with that by the produce origin discussed above.

With regards to the health hazards from fresh produce consumption, about one in ten households in the two towns reported to experience a health problem of at least once during the last twelve months. Three common health problems include diarrhea, vomit and stomach ache. Problematic fresh produce causing such health problems include: 4 vegetable commodities (cucumber, cabbage, Napa cabbage, and Chinese green), and 6 fruit commodities (durian, longan, apple, rambutan, watermelon, and grape).

Awareness Assessment of Certified Safe Produce

One in ten household respondents reported to be aware of the GAP concept, after asking the confirming question. Quite a similar level of awareness is for vegetable and fruit retailers. That is, 13% of vegetable retailers and 9% of fruit retailers who participated in the study reported to be aware of the GAP concept. The awareness is wider among restaurant and hotel respondents, which is 16% and 26%, respectively.

Almost half of household respondents in the two towns rated the credibility of the GAP certification program potentially introduced in the future highly. This is also true for restaurant respondents, but not for hotel respondents. Only one third of hotel respondents expressed a high level of trust on the program. Concerns over counterfeit labeling, credibility of sellers and GAP standard compliance among farmers are the three main reasons making other respondents not to trust the program.

Market Demand and Willingness to Pay Assessment of GAP Certified Produce

To assess the market demand, the study first identifies fresh produce with high potential for GAP certification. It then determines the willingness to pay (WTP) or the price premium that consumers are willing to pay in addition to the normal price.

Based on recommendations from households and retailers, five vegetable commodities which have high potential for GAP certification include cucumber, cabbage, curly wrap pak choy, Chinese green, and water convolvulus. For hotels and restaurants, in addition to cucumber and cabbage, other three potential vegetable commodities for GAP certification are lettuce, tomato and bok choy. These commodities are generally among the most commonly purchased by consumers and also among those with low level of safety perception.

Regarding fruit, five potential commodities for GAP certification recommended by households and retailers include longan, rambutan, green orange, durian, and dragon fruit. Hotels and restaurants also share common views on rambutan and dragon fruit, and add three more fruit commodities including pineapple, watermelon and banana.

For household consumers, price premium for GAP certification ranges from about KHR 600 to almost KHR 850 per kilogram for vegetables and is between KHR 400 to about KHR 1,100 per kilogram for fruit. As a percentage of retail price, however, the magnitude varies across commodities and their retail price level. For vegetables, the premium averaging among the five potential varieties with low retail price (cucumber, cabbage, curly wrap pak choy, Chinese green, and water convolvulus) is 27% but for Chinese kale and cauliflower, which have high retail price, the premium is only about 13%. For fruit, such as longan, durian, and green orange which are retailed at over KHR 10,000 per kilogram or dozen, the premium stated by consumers was only at between 7% and 9%. Fruit with lower retail price, such as dragon fruit, mango, banana, and watermelon, on the other hand, could have a premium of between 23% and 30%. In evaluating the key determinants of the magnitude of the willingness to pay for GAP certification, household income factor is one of the key determinants, in addition to purchasing frequency and safety factors.

Market Study for GAP Certified Fresh Produce |

Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................ i

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... iii

Technical Notes............................................................................................................................................ iv

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................v

List of Figures..............................................................................................................................................vii

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Background....................................................................................................................................1

1.2. Study Objective..............................................................................................................................2

1.3. Methodology..................................................................................................................................2

1.4. Actual Sample and Respondent Characteristics............................................................................5

2. Understanding Consumption Pattern of Fresh Produce.........................................................................7

2.1. Purchasing Frequency....................................................................................................................7

2.2. Average Quantity and Expenditure................................................................................................7

2.3. Fresh Produce Most Commonly Purchased.................................................................................10

3. Consumer Perception of Fresh Produce Safety...................................................................................12

3.1. Safety Perception by Fresh Produce Origin.................................................................................12

3.2. Safety Perception by Fresh Produce Commodity........................................................................14

3.3. Household Experience on Fresh Produce Consumption..............................................................15

3.4. Household Behavior on Fresh Produce Hazard...........................................................................16

4. Awareness Assessment of Certified Safe Produce..............................................................................17

4.1. General Perception.......................................................................................................................17

4.2. Credibility of Certification Program............................................................................................19

5. Market Demand Assessment of GAP Certified Produce.....................................................................21

5.1. Identification of Potential Fresh Produce for Safety Certification..............................................21

5.2. Willingness-to-Pay.......................................................................................................................23

5.3. Key Determinants of Willingness-to-Pay....................................................................................28

6. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................30

7. References............................................................................................................................................32

Annex 1 – Market Structure of Fresh Produce............................................................................................33

Annex 2 – Tables.........................................................................................................................................35


Technical Notes

Fresh produce refers to fresh vegetables and fruit.

Safe produce refers to fresh produce which complies with the good agriculture practice (GAP) standards. Safe produce need not to be organic produce, which requires an independent assessment of compliance and certification.

Exchange rate between the United States Dollar (USD) and Cambodian Riel (KHR) isUSD 1 = KHR 4050.

Abbreviations

GAP Good Agriculture Practice

GDA General Directorate of Agriculture

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

SRP Siem Reap town (in this study only)

KPC Kampong Cham town (in this study only)

ALL All towns, including both Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns

WTP Willingness to pay (the term is used synonymous with the word ‘premium’, to represent the additional amount of price paid for a better quality attribute, such as safety ensured by GAP certification.)


List of Tables

Table 1. GAP in ASEAN member countries.................................................................................................1

Table 2. Population of major markets, hotels and restaurants.......................................................................3

Table 3. Sample of the study (proposed).......................................................................................................3

Table 4. Actual sample size...........................................................................................................................5

Table 5. Analysis of key determinants of willingness to pay for safe cucumber........................................29

Table 6. Average purchase quantity per household (Kg/week)...................................................................35

Table 7. Per capita purchase quantity (Kg/week)........................................................................................35

Table 8. Average purchase expenditure on produce per household (USD/week).......................................35

Table 9. Most purchased vegetables............................................................................................................35

Table 10. Evaluation of the most purchased vegetables..............................................................................36

Table 11. Most purchased fruit....................................................................................................................37

Table 12. Evaluation of the most purchased fruit........................................................................................38

Table 13. Evaluation of the safety of domestically grown vegetable..........................................................39

Table 14. Evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Vietnam....................................................39

Table 15. Evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Thailand...................................................39

Table 16. Evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from other countries.........................................39

Table 17. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of domestically grown vegetable......................40

Table 18. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Vietnam...............40

Table 19. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Thailand...............40

Table 20. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from other countries.....41

Table 21. Evaluation of the safety of domestically grown fruit..................................................................41

Table 22. Evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Vietnam............................................................41

Table 23. Evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Thailand............................................................41

Table 24. Evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from other countries..................................................42

Table 25. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of domestically grown fruit..............................42

Table 26. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Vietnam........................42

Table 27. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Thailand.......................43

Table 28. Reason supporting the evaluation of safety of fruit imported from other countries....................43

Table 29. Number of times Household experiencing unwell due to produce consumption........................43

Table 30. Health problem experienced due to produce consumption..........................................................44

Table 31. Vegetable which caused problem................................................................................................44

Table 32. Fruit which caused problem.........................................................................................................44

Table 33. Criteria used to select safe vegetable...........................................................................................45

Table 34. Criteria used to select safe fruit...................................................................................................45

Table 35. Method used to clean vegetable...................................................................................................46

Table 36. Method used to clean fruit...........................................................................................................46

Table 37. Awareness of safe produce..........................................................................................................46


Table 38. Understanding of safe produce....................................................................................................47

Table 39. Awareness of GAP safe produce.................................................................................................47

Table 40. Level of trust on certification......................................................................................................47

Table 41. Reason for not trusting the certification......................................................................................48

Table 42. How to improve trust on certification..........................................................................................48

Table 43. How frequent cucumber is purchased..........................................................................................49

Table 44. Most recommended vegetable for certification...........................................................................50

Table 45. Most recommended fruit for certification....................................................................................51

Table 46. Premium for most recommended vegetable for certification (KHR per Kilogram)....................52

Table 47. Premium for most recommended vegetable for certification (KHR per Kilogram)....................53

Table 48. Premium for most recommended vegetable for certification (% of retail price).........................54

Table 49. Premium for most recommended fruit for certification (% of retail price).................................55


List of Figures

Figure 1. Household respondents, by age group (left) and education (right)................................................6

Figure 2. Household respondents, by income level.......................................................................................6

Figure 3. Frequency of fresh produce purchase (household, day/week).......................................................7

Figure 4. Average purchase of fresh produce per household........................................................................8

Figure 5. Average purchase of fresh produce per hotel.................................................................................8

Figure 6. Average purchase of fresh produce per restaurant.........................................................................8

Figure 7. Average daily demand of fresh produce in Siem Reap town.........................................................9

Figure 8. Average daily demand of fresh produce in Kampong Cham town................................................9

Figure 9. Vegetable commodities commonly purchased.............................................................................10

Figure 10. Fruit commodities commonly purchased...................................................................................11

Figure 11. Safety perception by fresh produce origin (all sample locations, score over 100)....................12

Figure 12. Reason for safety perception assessment on domestic produce (all sample locations)..............13

Figure 13. Reason for safety perception on produce imported from Vietnam (all sample locations).........13

Figure 14. Reason for safety perception on produce imported from Thailand (all sample locations)........14

Figure 15. Safety perception on vegetables among households (score over 100).......................................14

Figure 16. Safety perception on fruit among households (score over 100).................................................15

Figure 17. Household experience on fresh produce consumption...............................................................15

Figure 18. Fresh produce that causes a health problem to the reported households....................................16

Figure 19. Household measures to cope with fresh produce hazard...........................................................16

Figure 20. Awareness of certified safe produce..........................................................................................17

Figure 21. Description of certified safe produce.........................................................................................18

Figure 22. Awareness of GAP safe produce................................................................................................18

Figure 23. Level of trust on GAP certification program..............................................................................19

Figure 24. Reason for not trusting the certification program......................................................................19

Figure 25. Ways to improve trust on the certification program...................................................................20

Figure 26. Vegetables to be certified as safe produce (% respondents)......................................................21

Figure 27. Fruit to be certified as safe produce (% respondents)................................................................22

Figure 28. Premium for GAP certified vegetable (KHR/Kg)......................................................................23

Figure 29. Premium for GAP certified fruit (KHR/Kg)..............................................................................24

Figure 30. Premium for GAP certified vegetable (% retail price)...............................................................25

Figure 31. Premium for GAP certified fruit (% retail price).......................................................................26

Figure 32. Reason why retailers are willing or unwilling to sell GAP certified produce............................26

Figure 33. Premium for GAP certified cucumber using Contingency Valuation Method..........................27


1. Introduction

This chapter provides information related to study background, detailed description of study objectives and methodology – including the sample size, sample selection, data collection and processing, and analytical method – used in this study. Description of the characteristics of the actual sample is also subsequently provided.

1.1. BackgroundThe safety of agricultural produce attracts considerable amount of attention from consumers

worldwide. One well known initiative to address the concern of produce safety is the Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) standard. The early standard took shape when EurepGAP was created in Europe in 1997 to set a common standard to help farmers to conform to different retailers’ requirements of assurance for food safety. Its name was later changed to GLOBALGAP in 2007 to reflect its expanding global coverage. Overtime, Asian countries have also developed their country versions of the standard to address the issue of their producers/exporters having to meet various standard imposed by the destination countries (e.g. ChinaGAP 2009, JGAP 2006, ThaiGAP 2007, VietGAP 2008)

Driven by the scheduled ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) integration, which is set at the end of 2015, an ASEANGAP was launched in 20061 to set a unifying standard for fruit and vegetable production. All member nations have been instructed to develop their country standard which is to be benchmarked to ASEANGAP and compatible with each other.

Table 1. GAP in ASEAN member countries

Country GAP Responsible Institution YearBrunei Brunei GAP Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources 2013

Indonesia IndoGAP Ministry of Agriculture 2004Malaysia MyGAP Department of Agriculture 2013

Philippines PhilGAP Department of Agriculture 2005Singapore GAP-VF Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority 2005Thailand QGAP Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 2004

ThaiGAP Thai Chamber of Commerce 2007Vietnam VietGAP Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 2008

Cambodia Cam-GAP Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry 2010Laos LAO GAP Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2011Myanmar (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)

Source: Nabeshima et al. 2015 “Emergence of Asian GAPs and its relationship to Global G.A.P.”

Cambodia GAP was adopted in March 2010, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery’s Prakas 099, with the General Directorate of Agriculture having the mandate of the issuance of the certificate of GAP Compliance. The standard was adapted from the ASEANGAP guideline published in 2008, particularly the food safety module. Although the standard has been introduced for a few years since then, to date no certificate has been issued yet.

Demand for GAP certification is driven by the requirements that buyers impose on exporting producers. The success of such certification scheme is therefore determined by the success of exporting sector. Given that Cambodia is not a large exporter of fresh produce, the future adoption of GAP among producers will likely to be low. Even for neighboring Thailand and Vietnam, two of the large exporters of fruit and vegetables, earlier evidence from the adoption of GAP certification is not promising. Two reasons are noted by Nabeshima et al. (2015): 1) the international recognition of country GAP standards is still low and therefore they are not regarded as substitutes of other widely recognized standards such as GLOBALGAP, which are required by importers; 2) Furthermore, for the first reason, there is no

1 Guideline published in 2008

1 | Market Study for GAP Certified Fresh Produce

incentives for producers to pay extra certification costs since country certificates do not replace the internationally recognized certificates.

For this reason, for Cambodia’s GAP certification scheme to succeed, adoption of the certification to serve local market is important. The success hinges on local consumer’s demand for produce that is supplied from certified producers. Compliance with standard and certification does not come without costs, however. From a business perspective, producers need to weight the extra benefits possibly generated from adopting more costly practices and paying for certification. Such benefits can be approximated by the premium consumer willing to pay for the extra food safety assurance. To this end, the study aims to survey consumer’s awareness of GAP standard and to measure demand of such certification through a willingness to pay (WTP) study.

On the other hand, public demand of the certification is largely dependent on the consumer’s perception on whether such certification can raise or guarantee safety for produce. Therefore, the study also survey consumer’s evaluation of the safety of produce currently available on the market and their awareness of health risk associated with consuming produce sold in Cambodia and how they think GAP standard could improve safety or reduce risk.

1.2. Study ObjectiveThe goal of this study is to assess awareness and market potential for GAP certification of domestic fresh produce sold in Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns. To achieve this goal, six study objectives have been set:

1) To evaluate consumer’s perception on safety of fresh produce sold in Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns;

2) To evaluate consumer’s awareness on GAP concept and its roles in ensuring fresh produce safety;

3) To determine consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for GAP-certified produce;

4) To identify fresh produce which are perceived to pose the greatest risk to human health and the greatest potential for GAP certification;

5) To estimate the market potential for GAP-certified fresh produce in each town; and

6) To document information of wholesalers, buyers or distributors that engage in the distribution of fresh produce in the two towns or the exports of fresh produce to determine the export market potential.

1.3. MethodologyThe study employs both quantitative and qualitative approaches. For the quantitative part, surveys with three consumer categories – including household, hotel and restaurant – are conducted. For the qualitative part, in-depth interviews with wholesalers and retailers are used. Structured questionnaires are used as a tool for the survey and in-depth interview, as presented in the Annex of this report.

Study Location

The locations selected as target of this study are under the interventions of the Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Development (TSSD) project. The TSSD project reported that some farms supported and trained by the project have adopted the GAP standard and those farms have grown and delivered some GAP produce to the market of the two provinces. Therefore, these two provinces were identified as having the greatest potential for kicking start the production of GAP certified produce. For this reason, two provincial towns, Kampong Cham town and Siem Reap town, where the major produce markets are located, serve as the target areas for this study.


Sample Size

There are three categories of consumer respondents for the survey: household, hotel and restaurant. The primary sampling unit for each category is market, hotel and restaurant, respectively. Table 2 presents the population of major markets, hotels and restaurants in each provincial town.

Table 2. Population of major markets, hotels and restaurants

TownMarket1 Hotel2 Restaurant2

Unit % Unit % Unit %Siem Reap 7 64% 78 90% 141 93%Kampong Cham 4 36% 9 10% 10 7%All 11 100% 87 100% 151 100%

Note: 1. Markets in Siem Reap town include six wet markets (Phsar Leu, Samaki, Angkor Market, Kralanh

Market, Phsar Chas, Phsar Krom) and one supermarket (Lucky Market). Markets in Kampong Cham town include four wet markets (Kampong Cham Market, Boeung Kok Market, Prampi Makara Market, and the temporary market under Kizona Bridge).

2. Based on listing complied by the Provincial Department of Tourism (for Siem Reap) and Yellow Pages (for Kampong Cham).

For the household category, the total sample size is calculated by using the standard sampling equation2 with a specified confident level and margin of error. To achieve a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, the equation suggests a sample size of about 400 household representatives. The sample in each provincial town was divided based on the number of major markets in that town. At the town level the proposed sub-sample was 260 household representatives in Siem Reap town and 140 household representatives from Kampong Cham town (Table 3). This means that about 35 household representatives were to be interviewed per market.

For the hotel and restaurant categories, a minimum sample size of 20 respondents was set. This is mainly due to the small population as presented in Table 2 above and an expected low response rate based on previous survey experience. Given a small population of hotels and restaurants in Kampong Cham town, a minimum sample quota of at least 50% of the population, which is equivalent to at least 5 respondents, was applied. Doing this allows us to ensure sufficient information can be collected. For Siem Reap town, the plan was to sample at least 15 respondents from each category. Table 3 presents the sampling result.

Table 3. Sample of the study (proposed)

Town Household Hotel RestaurantRetailer Wholesaler

Vegetable Fruit Vegetable FruitSiem Reap 260 15 15 18 18 6 6Kampong Cham 140 5 5 12 12 4 4All 400 20 20 30 30 10 10

Regarding the in-depth interview, the initial proposal was to interview 3 vegetable retailers and 3 fruit retailers per market. This numbers was made based on the consideration of time and resource constraints of the study. As a result, around 12 retailers each were to be interviewed in Kampong Cham town. In Siem Reap town, retailers are present in only the six wet markets, and Lucky Market is a supermarket without retailers. Hence, the proposed retailer sample for this town was 18 retailers.

For wholesalers, one respondent each from vegetable and fruit wholesalers was to be interviewed. Therefore, the numbers of wholesalers proposed were 4 for Kampong Cham and 6 for Siem Reap (also adjusted for Lucky supermarket). Fewer interviews were made with wholesalers than retailers for two

2 Based on the equation: n0=Z2 ∙ p(1−p)

e2 ≈ 385; Z=1.96, e=0.05, and p=0.5 assuming that half of the

population support GAP certified produce (for a maximum sample).


reasons. First, the former has less direct interaction with consumers. Therefore, retailers could provide more meaningful and accurate evaluation on market potential for GAP certification. Second, the total number of wholesalers is also generally smaller than that of retailers in any market.

Respondent Selection

Respondents in the household category are individuals who go shopping on behalf of the household. Those in the hotel and restaurant categories are represented by fresh produce purchasing managers of hotels and restaurants, respectively.

A random procedure is used to select respondents in the household category. The interview was to be made with every third or fourth customer who comes to purchase fresh produce at retail stores in the market. To ensure a more balanced response on vegetable and fruit purchase, about half of respondents were to be interviewed at vegetable stalls and the other half at fruit stalls.

For respondents in the hotel and restaurant categories, a random selection is also used. The names of hotels and restaurants obtained from the Provincial Department of Tourism and the Yellow Pages were first listed. Then random integers were generated. Based on the order of which the random integers appeared, the original lists were re-ordered in ascending order. Those hotels and restaurants on the top of the lists were first selected and contacted.

Regarding selection of retailers and wholesalers, the study team has to conduct a listing in each market. Retailer respondents are purposively selected, contingent on their availability for the interview. For wholesalers, a snowball method was used to identify the contact. The contacts of wholesalers were gathered during interviews with retailer respondents.

Data Collection and Processing

The study team implemented data collection first in Kampong Cham town during October 19-24, 2015, a week after Pchum Ben festival. Then, the data collection in Siem Reap town took place from October 26, 2015 to November 3, 2015. The data processing, which includes coding, cleaning and entry, took place at the data entry lab of Nuppun Institute for Economic Research (Nuppun) in November 2015. Double data entry method was applied by using a template built using the CSPro software. The double data entry method helps minimize errors occurring during the data entry process.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and graph illustration are used for data analysis and presentation which mainly follows the contents of the ‘consumer’ questionnaire presented in the Annex of this report. Overall, the analysis of household data is presented for three sample groups: All households (both Siem Reap and Kampong Cham Towns), households in Siem Reap Town (SRP), and households in Kampong Cham Town (KPC). On the other hand, for the results of hotel and restaurant buyers and retailers, the presentation focused chiefly on the total sample (i.e. all hotel buyers, all restaurant buyers, and all vegetable retailers or all fruit retailers) due to the small sample size of these groups of respondents.

For the estimation of consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for GAP certification, in addition to a direct method (i.e. asking the respondents to specify their premium), the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is used. Box 1 provides a brief description of the CVM.


Box 1. About Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)

In estimating consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP) for a new product attribute or product, the biggest challenge is how to accurately elicit the true amount of premium and to reduce potential biases. Potential biases arise mainly when using the direct method to elicit premium, which includes asking an open-ended question – i.e. how much would you be willing to pay for GAP certification?

Over the past three decades survey methods have evolved from the basic method. One of the most widely used method of WTP elicitation is the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) (Hanemann 1984). This approach presents respondents with a bid price and asks whether they were willing to accept it, which very much mimics the decision that individuals face in selecting goods or services on the market.

The Contingency Valuation Method (CVM) is popular in assessing consumer’s WTP for non-market good (e.g. improved environment or water quality) and also commodities or product characteristics that are not (yet) exchanged in the market (e.g. being certified by GAP standard in this study). Different levels of premium are set and an amount is randomly assigned to a respondent and each will be asked if he/she is willing to accept the product at the price. The earlier CVM was in the format of a (single bounded) dichotomous choice (DC) situation, in which respondents are presented with only one bid price and asked to indicate whether to accept or reject. Over time the double bounded dichotomous choice (DB-DC) has been adopted (Hanemann, Loomis, Kanninen 1991) to improve statistical efficiency. In a DB-DC format, an additional question is used to follow up after the respondents indicate their acceptance or refusal to the first question: those who accept the first price are asked whether they would accept a higher price while conversely those who reject the first price are asked whether they would accept a lower price.

A DB-DC of the CVM is proposed for this study using cucumber as a choice of produce. The premium estimated by this method is used to as a case study to compare with the premium directly stated by respondents for the various produce varieties they suggest for certification. The stated WTP amount can be regressed on demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, income, etc.) and other factors to further identify the demographic segments which are likely to support GAP certification and willing to pay more for it. The data collected are analyzed using STATA’s doubleb command (Lopez-Feldman 2010).

1.4. Actual Sample and Respondent CharacteristicsThe actual sample is presented in Table 4, disaggregated by respondent category and town. Some discrepancy between the planned and actual sample is noted. The allocation of household sample between the two towns changed because of a change in the number of markets to be surveyed. After field mapping of markets in Siem Reap town, one of the seven proposed markets, Angkor market, was dropped. The market has only very few retailers and produce quantity sold in the market is also very small. The decision to drop Angkor market from the sample brought the total number of markets down to 10 (6 in Siem Reap town and 4 in Kampong Cham town). The actual sample reflects this proportion, and based on a total household sample of 400, in each market 40 household respondents were interviewed.

For hotel and restaurant respondents, the team was able to make more interviews than planned (7 and 12, respectively) due to a high successful rate of request for interview. The numbers of retailers interviewed are also larger than that planned. Upon actual fieldwork the team found that there were very few wholesalers in the distribution of vegetable and fruit in the markets of the two towns. In Siem Reap, for instance, one vegetable wholesaler supplies about 80% of the market. In Kampong Cham, there are only a total of three fruit wholesalers who supply to the entire market in the town and nearby provinces. Given the small population of wholesalers, the number of retailers interviewed was increased to compensate the lower numbers of wholesalers.

Table 4. Actual sample size

Town Market Household Hotel Restaurant Retailer Wholesaler

Vegetable Fruit Vegetable FruitSiem Reap 6 239 22 23 25 25 1 1Kampong Cham 4 160 5 9 20 18 0 2

Total 10 399 27 32 45 43 1 3


In the household category, the majority of respondents in the two towns are female. Male respondents account for only 11% of the total 399 household representatives. The dominant share of female respondents explains the traditional gender situation in Cambodia, where women are generally responsible for shopping.

The largest age group of respondents is in the age of 30s, which accounts for more than one third of the total household respondents. The second largest age group is those in the age of 20s or younger, which represents one fourth of the total. These two age groups, hence, represent 60% of the household category, as illustrated in Figure 1 (left side). This demographic characteristic reflects the current situation of Cambodia, where most of the people are young and dynamic.

Regarding educational attainment, about 10% of household respondents do not attend school; while only 12% are university graduates. This means that the other 78% respondents have either attended or completed general education: primary school (32%), secondary school3 (28%) and high school4 (18%). Figure 1 (right side) illustrates detail information about education attainment of consumer respondents.

Figure 1. Household respondents, by age group (left) and education (right)

In terms of income level, the average monthly income is USD 536 for households in Kampong Cham town, about 22% lower than the USD 691 in Siem Reap town. This means that households in Siem Reap town are wealthier than those in Kampong Cham town.

It is worthy to note that about half of respondents reported that their household income level ranges between USD 250 and USD 1,000 per month. This reflects emerging status of middle-income households in the Cambodian economy. The wealthiest group of respondents – those with income level of USD 2,000 or above – accounts for only 5% of the total respondents as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Household respondents, by income level

3 Here, secondary school includes grades 7 until 9.4 For high school, it includes grades 10 until 12.


2. Understanding Consumption Pattern of Fresh Produce

The analysis in this chapter starts with the calculation of purchasing frequency of fresh produce in Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns. It then focuses on the average quantity and expenditure of weekly purchase of fresh produce, followed by the estimation of aggregate demands at town level for vegetables and fruit. The comparison between the two towns is presented in most aspects of the analysis. To conclude this chapter, the analysis shifts its focus to the identification of fresh produce most commonly purchased by households. This identification will be used as a basis for safety perception assessment, which is presented in the next chapter.

2.1. Purchasing FrequencyThe majority of households in the two provincial towns purchase vegetables daily, but purchase fruit on a much less frequent basis. About 80% of household respondents purchase vegetables every day, while just 1% reported to purchase only once per week. For fruit purchase, it is opposite. Those who purchase fruit every day account for less than 10%. The other 21% do not purchase fruit, and more than one third purchase only once per week. This purchasing pattern shows that households in these two towns tend to consume more vegetables than fruit.

Figure 3. Frequency of fresh produce purchase (household, day/week)

Vegetables Fruit

2.2. Average Quantity and ExpenditurePurchase quantity and expenditure of fresh produce varies across different respondent categories and towns. Households in both Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns purchase vegetables of an average 6 kilograms per week and spend around KHR 30,000 (USD 7.5). With this weekly consumption level, the annual per capita consumption of vegetables is 75 kilograms on average, below the 146 kilograms5 recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

For fruit consumption, households in Siem Reap town tend to eat more fruit than their peers in Kampong Cham town. The average purchase quantity of fruit is 3.5 kilograms per week for households in Siem Reap town, which is 28% higher than the 2.7 kilograms in Kampong Cham town. This suggests that the annual per capita consumption of fruits is 45 kilograms for Siem Reap town and 39 kilograms for Kampong Cham town. The average expenditure for fruit purchase among households in Siem Reap town is also higher than that in Kampong Cham. On average, households in Siem Reap town spend KHR 38,000 (USD 9.5) for fruit purchase per week, compared to KHR 25,000 (USD 6.3) in Kampong Cham.

5 A joint report of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recommends a per capita intake of vegetables and fruit of 400 grams per day. The total intake for 365 days is 146 kilograms. Source: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/ accessed on 17 December 2015.


http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/

Figure 4. Average purchase of fresh produce per household

Quantity (Kg/week) Expenditure (USD/week)

The average unit price of fruit purchase (USD 2.6 per kilogram) among households is twice as expensive as that of vegetables (USD 1.2 per kilogram). This price factor can be a possible reason explaining why households tend to purchase fruit less frequently than vegetables.

Regarding fresh produce purchase among hotels, there is a significant difference between the two towns. Hotels in Siem Reap town purchase 314 kilograms of vegetables and 237 kilograms of fruit on average per week. These purchase quantities are much larger than those of hotels in Kampong Cham town, which is 87 kilograms and 25 kilograms for vegetables and fruit, respectively. These larger quantities reflect a more active tourism sector in Siem Reap town if compared with that in Kampong Cham. On average, hotels in Siem Reap town spend USD 381 for vegetable purchase and USD 351 for fruit purchase per week. In Kampong Cham town, the average expenses among hotels are much smaller at USD130 and USD 70 for vegetable and fruit purchases per week, respectively.

Figure 5. Average purchase of fresh produce per hotel


For restaurants, the purchase pattern is not significantly different across the two towns. On average, restaurants purchase 209 kilograms of vegetables and 73 kilograms of fruit per week. The average expenses among this group are USD 276 and USD 101 for vegetables and fruit, respectively. Figure 6 presents detail information.

Figure 6. Average purchase of fresh produce per restaurant



The aggregate demand – the summation of demands from all the three consumer categories, including household, hotel and restaurant – is also estimated, using the average quantity of fresh produce purchase calculated above. The aggregate demand in Siem Reap town is 6 times larger than that in Kampong Cham town for vegetables, and more than 7 times for fruit. This greater demand is due to the larger number of households6, hotels7 and restaurants8 in Siem Reap town, if compared to Kampong Cham.

For Siem Reap town, it is estimated that the daily aggregate demand is around 47 tons for vegetables and 26 tons for fruit. The demand by households accounts for the majority – 83% for vegetables, and 84% for fruit – of the aggregate demand in the town. This means that tourism industry in Siem Reap town absorbs almost 20% of the total fresh produce demand in the town.

Figure 7. Average daily demand of fresh produce in Siem Reap town

Vegetables Fruit

For Kampong Cham town, the daily aggregate demand is almost 8 tons for vegetables and 3.5 tons for fruit. Similar to Siem Reap town, the demand by households accounts for the majority of the aggregate demand in the town, as illustrated in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8. Average daily demand of fresh produce in Kampong Cham town

Vegetables Fruit

6 Based on data from the Commune Database 2014, the number of households in Siem Reap town was 44,553 households. For Kampong Cham town, the number was 8,800 households.7 For the number of hotels, please refer to Table 1.8 For the number of restaurants, please refer to Table 1.


2.3. Fresh Produce Most Commonly Purchased In general, households in both Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns purchase quite similar vegetable commodities. Top five commodities most commonly purchased by these households include water convolvulus9 (52% of households), cucumber (39%), curly-wrap pak choy (37%), Chinese green (27%), and cabbage or wax gourd (16%).

Among hotels and restaurants in the two towns, five vegetable commodities most commonly purchased include cucumber, lettuce, tomato, carrot, and Bok Choy. Cabbage is popular only among restaurants, but not hotels, as illustrated in Figure 9 below.

It is observed that cucumber is the most commonly purchased vegetable commodity by all the three consumer categories in the two towns, which comprise households (39%), hotels (59%) and restaurants (69%). Cabbage is the second most commonly purchased by 16% of households, 11% of hotels and 41% of restaurants.

Figure 9. Vegetable commodities commonly purchased

Household (% respondents) Hotel and Restaurant (All towns, % respondents)

9 Water convolvulus (in Khmer language, ត្រ�កួនត្រ�ប់ឬត្រ�កួនចិន) here may include water spinach (ត្រ�កួនខ្មែ �រ). Based on general observation of the research team, Cambodians prefer water spinach to water convolvulus.


Regarding fruit purchase, top five fruit commodities commonly purchased by households include longan (46% of households purchasing fruit), banana (39%), green orange10 (37%), grape (35%), and apple (30%). Figure 10 presents the detail list of key commodities purchased.

There are some variations in fruit commodities purchased by hotels and restaurants in the two towns. Among hotels, four fruit commodities most commonly purchased by hotels include pineapple (80% of hotels surveyed), watermelon and dragon fruit (68%, each), and banana (64%). Among restaurants, the most common commodities include pineapple (73%), banana (50%), and mango and apple (46%, each).

Banana is the most popular among the three consumer categories, commonly purchased by 39% of households, 64% of hotels and 50% of restaurants. Pineapple is the top most commonly purchased fruit commodity among the large majority of hotels (80%) and restaurants (73%), but not households.

Figure 10. Fruit commodities commonly purchased

Household (% respondents purchasing fruit) Hotel and Restaurant (All towns, % respondents)

10 In Khmer language, ត្រកចូពោ�ធិ៍សា�់ (Krauch Por Sath).


3. Consumer Perception of Fresh Produce Safety

This chapter focuses on the assessment of fresh produce safety perceived by households. It begins with the analysis of household’s safety perception by origin of fresh produce, followed by the supporting reasons. It then analyses the perception by fresh produce commodity. The chapter also discusses about household’s experience regarding health hazards from fresh produce consumption and their coping measures toward such health hazards.

3.1. Safety Perception by Fresh Produce OriginRespondents in the survey were requested to provide their thought about the safety level of fresh produce, including domestic and imported, sold in the market. The Likert scale was used for the assessment of the safety perception.

The result shows that domestic fresh produce is perceived to be the safest in comparison with the imported. Among household respondents, the safety level reaches 40% for domestic vegetables and 54% for domestic fruit. This means that households perceive that domestic vegetables and fruit have a medium level of safety.

The imported fresh produce, on the other hand, is perceived to be unsafe. Households perceive that fresh produce imported from Vietnam has the highest unsafe level, of 62% for vegetables and 68% for fruit. For the produce imported from Thailand, the unsafe level is slightly lower than that from Vietnam but remains high at 44% for vegetables and 50% for fruit. In general, there is no significant difference in safety perception across the three sample categories, except the imported from other countries including the United States, Korea and China.

Figure 11. Safety perception by fresh produce origin (all sample locations, score over 100)


Limited use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and naturally-grown method are three main reasons which make domestic produce perceived safer than the imported. About 43% of household respondents believed that domestic vegetables are grown with a limited use of chemical fertilizers. The frequency is higher at 50% and 56% among restaurant and hotel respondents, respectively. The use of naturally-grown method – referring to the traditional method in which natural compost is used, instead of chemical fertilizers – and the limited use of pesticides are the other two reasons mentioned by 25% and 15% of household respondents, correspondingly.

Quite a similar pattern of responses is provided by household respondents, regarding the reasons for safety perception assessment on domestic fruit, as illustrated in Figure 12 below.

Figure 12. Reason for safety perception assessment on domestic produce (all sample locations)

Vegetables (% respondents) Fruit (% respondents)

Excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and use of growth hormones and preservatives are four main reasons which make the imported from Vietnam perceived unsafe. The similar reasons are for safety perception evaluation on the fresh produce imported from Thailand. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the detail.

Figure 13. Reason for safety perception on produce imported from Vietnam (all sample locations)



Figure 14. Reason for safety perception on produce imported from Thailand (all sample locations)


3.2. Safety Perception by Fresh Produce Commodity11

Ivy gourd leaf and loofah are the two vegetable commodities which households perceive to be the safest, with a high safety level of 82% and 81%, respectively. Wax gourd and water convolvulus are the other two commodities perceived to have a medium level of safety, with the respective safety levels of 64% and 48%. These vegetable commodities are mostly domestically grown. There is no considerably difference in pattern of safety perception on vegetables among households in the two towns.

Figure 15. Safety perception on vegetables among households (score over 100)

11 The score of 100 on both side of the scale was achieved by keeping the rating of ‘unsafe’ at 1 and ‘somewhat unsafe’ at 2 and converting the rating of ‘somewhat safe’ to 4, and ‘safe’ to 5. This is a slight modification from the score recorded on the questionnaires.


Regarding the unsafe, there are four vegetable commodities, including Napa cabbage and Chinese kale (the unsafe level reaches 24%, each), Bok Choy (unsafe level of 12%), and cabbage (11%). Although it is perceived to be somewhat unsafe, cabbage remains one of the most commonly purchased vegetables as discussed in the previous chapter. This reflects the consumption preference for this particular vegetable commodity among Cambodians. Cabbage presents in many dishes which are most popular among Cambodians, including Cambodian traditional sauce12 and various soups.

For fruit, households also perceive that domestic produce is safe. Two fruit commodities with high safety level include banana (69%) and green orange (61%). Grape, apple and pear are perceived to be unsafe, with unsafe level of 21%, 10% and 8% as illustrated in Figure 16, respectively.

Figure 16. Safety perception on fruit among households (score over 100)

3.3. Household Experience on Fresh Produce ConsumptionAbout 14% of household respondents reported to experience a health problem caused by fresh produce consumption during the last twelve months. Among those reported, three common problems include: diarrhea (84% of those reported), vomit (57%) and stomach ache (52%).

Figure 17. Household experience on fresh produce consumption

Vegetables (% respondents) Fruit (% reported respondents)

12 Known as teuk kroeung (ទឹកពោត្រ��ង) in Khmer language.


Key fresh produce causing health problem include: 4 vegetable commodities (cucumber, cabbage, Napa cabbage, and Chinese green), and 6 fruit commodities (durian, longan, apple, rambutan, watermelon, and grape).

Figure 18. Fresh produce that causes a health problem to the reported households

Vegetables (% reported respondents) Fruit (% reported respondents)

3.4. Household Behavior on Fresh Produce HazardGiven the aforementioned health hazard caused by fresh produce consumption, household respondents were requested to provide their coping measures. These measures are categorized into two stages: the selection stage and the cleaning stage.

At the selection stage, there are 4 measures most commonly used to select vegetables: inspecting for some damage by insects (mentioned by 41% of household respondents), choosing small size vegetables (39%), asking for the locally grown produce (22%), and looking at the freshness of the produce (21%). For fruit selection, two methods were mentioned: looking at the freshness of the produce (51%), and asking for the locally grown produce (30%).

At the cleaning stage, three measures are most commonly practiced for vegetable treatment: soaking in solution of salt (57%), washing multiple times with plain water (46%), and soaking in water (28%). For fruit, only one method is mostly practiced: washing multiple times with plain water (84%).

Figure 19. Household measures to cope with fresh produce hazard

Selection (% respondents) Cleaning (% respondents)


4. Awareness Assessment of Certified Safe Produce

There are two topics discussed in this chapter. The first topic is related to the awareness assessment of ‘safe produce’ which includes vegetables and fruit. It identifies characteristics which respondents perceive to make produce safe. The second topic assesses the potential credibility of the Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) certification program, followed by the discussion of supporting arguments of the assessment and ways to improve the credibility of the program.

4.1. General PerceptionThe safety of agricultural produce means different to different consumers. Some people may associate being ‘safe’ to being natural, chemical-free and organic. In fact, there are different practices which could ensure the safety of agricultural produce. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) is a set of voluntary standards, which regulate the procedure of cultivation, care, harvest, and post-harvest handling of vegetables and fruit to ensure that the produce is safe from microbiological and chemical contamination.

One section in the survey explores the respondent’s awareness of certified safe produce and their perception and understanding of what quality or characteristics make produce safe. The results presented in Figure 20 suggest that very few respondents know what certified safe produce is. The proportion of respondents reported that they were aware of certified safe produce are the lowest for the household group (at 16%), but also not much larger for the hotel and restaurant groups of respondents. Surprisingly, among the 43-45 retailers interviewed, the proportions of respondents who said they were aware of safe produce are even smaller. For fruit retailers, only one out of the 43 respondents said she knew about safe produce.

Figure 20. Awareness of certified safe produce

The perception of what constitute certified safe produce varies among the respondents. The majority of household respondents, about 60%, regard safe produce as being naturally grown or grown (totally) without the application of chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Such a perception implies that only produce which is organically grown (whether certified or not) is regarded as safe. This perception is also similarly held by hotel and restaurant purchasers, about 43% and 67% of whom so described, respectively. The second top description of safe produce was that safe produce is grown with less chemical application, which is also closely related to the first description.

Interestingly, about one tenth (11%) of the households view produce grown domestically as safe produce. The description roots in the perception that domestically grown produce is always safe, or at least safer as compared to imported produce, as explained in section 3.1. A slightly larger proportion of hotel and restaurant respondents also gave such a similar description. Only about 10% of households regard proper production techniques (i.e. proper amount of fertilizer and pesticide application) as a determinant for safe produce. Other description of safe produce by the households surveyed include: produce packed and sold in supermarkets, produce from CEDAC (which most likely to be organic) and hydroponic produce. The descriptions of certified safe produce by the retailers are not reported in Figure 21 due to small numbers of responses. Among the seven retailers who said they were aware of safe


produce, all descriptions were associated with chemical application. That is, all retailers regard safe produce as either being grown naturally, without or with only minimal chemical application.

Figure 21. Description of certified safe produce

Overall, it can be seen from the above results that all respondents view chemical application in agricultural production as having adverse impact on the safety of produce. On the other hand, it can also be attributed to the distrust on the way farmers apply chemical fertilizers and pesticides in their production. In general, there is a lack of a good understanding of how fruit and vegetables can be safely produced, even under the practices which apply chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

In the survey respondents were also asked if they were aware of safe produce grown following the GAP. When being briefed that “Certified safe produce following GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) standards, which control all the hazards during cultivation, harvest, and handling of vegetables and fruit, is safer than regular produce” and asked if they were aware of such produce, only a small proportion of the respondents in each category indicated that they were. The result is reported in Figure 22. The proportions are similar to those reported in Figure 20 but are smaller. For households, only 12% said that they were aware of safe produce following GAP, and 26% and 16% of hotel and restaurant buyers, respectively, said so.

Figure 22. Awareness of GAP safe produce


4.2. Credibility of Certification ProgramThe respondents were further asked how much trust they will have if there were a GAP certification program for fresh produce. The levels of trust range from ‘don’t trust at all’ to ‘totally trust’. The distribution of responses is presented in Figure 23. Most of the households in the survey reported a high level of trust, as can be seen from the distribution which is highly skewed to ‘totally trust’ level. Slightly lower trust, however, was expressed among hotel and restaurant buyers, with the restaurant buyers having greater trust on the program than the hotel buyers. On the retailer side, similarly the majority will be likely to ‘somewhat trust’ or ‘totally trust’ the program.

Figure 23. Level of trust on GAP certification program

Reasons were also sought from the respondents as to why they trust or distrust the program and the responses are summarized and reported in Figure 24. The most cited reason for low level of trust was the concern that the certification program may be ineffective because safe label can be easily forged. 41% of households, 44% of hotel and 59% of restaurant buyers indicated this as a reason. Related to this concern was how such a label will be used. In the market, fresh produce is still largely traded and sold unpackaged, which poses a great challenge for the introduction and implementation of any safety label.

Figure 24. Reason for not trusting the certification program


The other two major concerns for buyers include the distrust on both sellers and producers. One of the concerns was related to the marketing of produce. Households (29%) and hotel (28%) and restaurant (6%) buyers were concerned that, given an ineffective system of certification, sellers may market their produce as certified safe to earn extra premium even if the produce was not certified safe. To some degree, such concern is warranted. For instance, households who were not able to distinguish domestically grown produce from import usually rely on seller’s claim, and often time some sellers exploit such reliance. The other concern was related to the production of produce. That is, although a set of standard practices will be in place in the production chain to ensure the safety of produce, the buyers were wary about whether such standard will be adhered strictly by farmers.

Opinions have also been sought as to how greater trust on certification program could be achieved. These are summarized in Figure 25. The chief recommendation provided was to widely disseminate information about the program and label. This is the most cited across respondent categories, as most of the respondents have yet heard about GAP standard. Second to this fundamental method to build greater trust was the reinforcement of inspection and quality control at both production and marketing levels, to ensure that buyers are not cheated by sellers while sellers are not cheated by producers. The third most recommended method was to designate a specific location or section in the market for certified safe produce, as it would be hard to regulate produce given the way produce is sold unpackaged in wet markets.

Other recommendations, mostly from household respondents and hotel and restaurant buyers, include: 1) adding details production location and practices on label, 2) providing strong assurance from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) that the certification program will be strictly controlled, and 3) performing testing of certified produce at markets to boost consumer confidence.

Figure 25. Ways to improve trust on the certification program


5. Market Demand Assessment of GAP Certified Produce

This chapter aims to assess the market demand for Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) certified produce. It first identifies fresh vegetable and fruit commodities which have potential for GAP certification, then determining the willingness to pay (WTP) for the premium of the GAP certified produce. At the end of this chapter, key factors influencing the WTP are discussed.

5.1. Identification of Potential Fresh Produce for Safety CertificationBased on recommendations from households and retailers, five vegetable commodities which have high potential for GAP certification include cucumber, cabbage, curly wrap pak choy, Chinese green, and water convolvulus. The left and right panels of Figure 26 lists the top 10 most referred vegetables varieties. These five vegetable commodities are among the most commonly purchased by households and also among those with low level of safety perception, with an exception of water convolvulus which has a medium level of safety perception as presented earlier in Chapters 2 and 3.

For hotels and restaurants, in addition to cucumber and cabbage, other three potential vegetable commodities for GAP certification are lettuce, tomato and bok choy. The top five potential vegetables are listed in the middle panel of Figure 26. These vegetables are also the most commonly purchased by hotels and restaurants.

Figure 26. Vegetables to be certified as safe produce (% respondents)


Regarding fruit, five potential commodities recommended by households and retailers include longan, rambutan, green orange, durian, and dragon fruit. Longan and green orange are the two fruit commodities among the most commonly purchased by households and have a medium level of safety perception as discussed in earlier chapters. Rambutan and dragon fruit are not among the top list of most commonly purchased fruit by households. Only 19% and 10% of households in the two towns reported to have purchased rambutan and dragon fruit, respectively. These two fruit commodities have low levels of safety perception of 13% and 25%, correspondingly. For durian, only 1% of households reported to have purchase this fruit and perceived that it is the most unsafe compared with other fruits. The unsafe level perceived by households for durian is high at 75%.

Sharing the same thoughts as households and retailers, hotels and restaurants also recommend rambutan and dragon fruit as the two potential commodities for GAP certification. In addition to these two commodities, they also recommend pineapple, watermelon and banana. In total, there are five potential fruit commodities recommended by hotels and restaurants for GAP certification.These five fruit commodities are among the top most commonly purchased hotels and restaurants in the two towns.

Figure 27. Fruit to be certified as safe produce (% respondents)


5.2. Willingness-to-PayIn addition to suggesting produce varieties for GAP certification, respondents also indicated in the survey how much premium they would pay if each GAP certified variety was available in the market. For the top 10 vegetable varieties, the average stated premium for GAP certification in KHR as presented in Figure 28 ranges from about KHR 600 to almost KHR 850 per kilogram for household consumers and does not differ very much across variety.

Only the premium for the top 5 vegetables varieties are presented for hotel and restaurant buyers due to small samples. For hotel and restaurant buyers, the stated premiums are lower, especially restaurant buyers, who appears to be more price conscious.

Figure 28. Premium for GAP certified vegetable (KHR/Kg)

For retailers, the figures represent the extra retail price they would be likely to charge when selling certified safe produce. The premiums reported in Figure 28 (right panel) are also lower than those stated by household consumers. This reflects sellers’ reservation about the success of GAP certified produce (i.e. commanding high premium), as compared to the likely strong support indicated by buyers.


The premium stated for fruit is on average higher than that for vegetable across varieties, as shown in Figure 29. The average stated premium for GAP certified fruit in Riel is between KHR 400 to about KHR 1,100 per kilogram. There is also some degree of variation across the premiums for fruit as compared to those for vegetable. However, the stated premiums do not differ much across the groups of households, hotel and restaurant buyers, and fruit retailers.

Figure 29. Premium for GAP certified fruit (KHR/Kg)

Note: * premium per dozen of oranges and ** premium per one fruit (about 1 to 1.5 Kg per fruit)


The premium percentages presented next in Figure 30 and Figure 31 are calculated as the percentage of retail prices, based on the respondent’s reported purchase/retail price. In term of percentage of retail price, it can be seen that the premium varies between as low as 13% for Chinese kale and as high as 34% for water convolvulus. The numbers suggest that the premium for GAP certified produce is not proportionate to retail price. That is, the premium as a percentage is higher for produce which has low price, for example cucumber, cabbage, curly wrap pak choy, Chinese green, and long bean. These vegetables have retail prices at only about KHR 2,500 per kilogram. Conversely, Chinese kale, lettuce and cauliflower, which are retailed at between KHR 5,000 to 7,000 per kilogram, the premium percentages are only about half of those former varieties. Therefore, strategically, production of GAP certified produce should first target those varieties with lower retail price.

Figure 30. Premium for GAP certified vegetable (% retail price)

Note: The premium as % of retail price is calculated as: Stated premium(¿KHR)×100

Reported purchase price(¿ KHR)


For fruit, when reported in premium percentage, the similar pattern is also observed. As presented in Figure 31, for fruit such as longan, durian, and green orange which are retailed at over KHR 10,000 (USD 2.5) per kilogram or dozen, the premium stated was only at between 7% and 9%. Fruit with lower retail price, such as dragon fruit, mango, banana, and watermelon, on the other hand, could have a premium of between 23% and 30%.

Figure 31. Premium for GAP certified fruit (% retail price)

Note: The premium as % of retail price is calculated as: Stated premium(¿KHR)×100

Reported purchase price(¿ KHR)

The survey with retailers also asked them whether they were willing to source and sell GAP certified produce if it was available at a price higher than regular uncertified produce. About 80% of vegetable retailers and 88% of fruit retailers indicated that they were likely to do so, with the following reasons provided. Most of the retailers believe that consumer’s demand for domestically grown produce and demand for such produce to be safer will make GAP certified produce marketable.

Note that the premiums estimated by retailers for vegetables (presented in Figure 30) are lower than those stated by buyers. This reflects that some retailers were still conservative about the demand for GAP produce as they believed that consumers were price conscious and would not be willing to pay any premium for safer produce. That consumers are price conscious was raised as the only reason which discourages those retailers from selling safer produce.

Figure 32. Reason why retailers are willing or unwilling to sell GAP certified produce


Box 2. Willingness to pay for gap certified cucumber using contingency valuation method

Besides asking the consumers to specify the amount of premium they were willing to pay for various vegetables, the survey also employs a contingency valuation method to elicit the WTP, by choosing cucumber as an example. The data were collected by using the double bounded dichotomous choice format (DB-DC) (as explained in Box 1 of section 1.3 – Methodology), a DB-DC model is estimated for household consumer and hotel and restaurant buyers. The elicited WTP, as a percentage of the price which the respondents usually paid for cucumber, is presented in Figure 33 beneath.

Figure 33. Premium for GAP certified cucumber using Contingency Valuation Method

Compared with the premiums elicited through direct questions, which are presented in Figure 30, the premiums elicited using CVM method of different groups of buyers are about twice as much. The magnitude of the premiums is considerably larger than that calculated from the directly stated amount by the respondents; however, this is not too unrealistic or unachievable.

First, some of the respondents accepted the premium of about KHR 1,500 to KHR 2,000, when the average price of domestically grown cucumber is about KHR 2,400 per Kilogram. Those respondents argued that although the premium they accepted was high, given that each purchase was less than 0.5 Kilogram, the total price paid would not be too hefty. Second, the premium found also appears to be reasonable if being compared with the premiums for organic or chemical-free vegetables available in the market at the time of the survey. Prices of certified organic or chemical-free vegetables were well in the range of 100% to 200% above those of regular vegetables.13 Third, WTP for safe produce in neighboring countries, such as Thailand, was also found to be large. Using a Choice Experiment method, Wongprawmas (2014) estimated that the WTP for a ‘safe produce’ label on Chinese cabbage was about 116% of its regular retail price.

On the other hand, the direct method of asking consumers to indicate their premium has its limitation. The lower WTPs for cucumber and other produce presented in Figure 30 is due to consumer’s tendency to state an amount between KHR 500 and KHR 1,000, perhaps out of convenience. Nevertheless, the premiums elicited using both direct and contingency valuation method could provide a range of premium to make inference for the potential premium.

13 Based on the authors’ observation of retail prices at Natural Garden, a store which sell organic and chemical free produce in Phnom Penh.


5.3. Key Determinants of Willingness-to-PayThe study is also interested in identifying the factors which may influence the respondent’s WTP. Again, using the data for GAP certified cucumber collected through the CVM, several explanatory variables are added in the estimation of the DB-DC function. The selection of these explanatory variables is elaborated in detail in Box 3.

Box 3. Choice of explanatory variables included in the WTP estimation

The first explanatory variable included is the level of trust on the certification program. It is hypothesized that consumers who express high level of trust may be willing to pay a higher premium than those who do not have much trust, ceteris paribus.

In addition, how frequent consumers purchase cucumber is also included as a potential factor. This is reflected by two dummy variables: frequent cucumber buyer (indicates consumer who purchases cucumber 2-3 times or more per week) and occasional cucumber buyer (represents consumer who purchases cucumber about once a week). The results are to be compared with buyers who rarely purchase cucumber (once every 2-3 weeks or less frequent).

The other variable added concerns consumer’s indication of preference between domestically grown and imported cucumber. The variable, always prefer domestic produce, is for consumer who always purchase domestically grown cucumber, when both domestically grown and imported cucumbers are available at the same time. This is to be compared with those who mostly choose domestically grown cucumber but also purchase imported cucumber sometimes.

Others are demographic variables, which include respondent’s age, sex, number of years of education, household income level, whether the respondent’s household has children aged 12 years old or under, and town. These variables are included to explore the demographic groups which support and value GAP certification.

The DB-DC model with added explanatory variables is estimated using the data from 398 consumers. The results are reported in Table 5. It was found that the level of trust on certification program does not affect consumer’s WTP for safe cucumber. Perhaps this is because the respondents indicated their premiums under the assumption that the cucumber in question is guaranteed to be safe. Rather, frequent cucumber buyers were willing to pay more for safe cucumber than those who rarely purchase. These consumers, as compared to those who buy cucumber once every 2-3 weeks or less frequent, were willing to pay about 9% more in premium. Occasional cucumber buyers, however, do not have a different WTP than those who rarely purchase. The results are reasonable because those who purchase and consume more frequently would want to have safer produce and would be willing to pay more for the added safety. The consumers who always prefer domestic vegetables were also willing to pay more for the safe cucumber. Those respondents’ average premium was 17% higher than those who do not strictly prefer domestically grown produce and purchase imported cucumber sometimes.

In terms of demographic factors, age, gender, year of education, and town do not have effect on the consumer’s WTP. Only income has a significant effect on the variation of WTP. The WTP of the consumers whose household earns more than USD 1,000 per months was 11% higher than the WTP of those whose household has a monthly income of less than USD 500. The results suggest that the WTP and support for safe cucumber is quite homogenous among the consumers of the two towns and only differ in terms of household income.


Table 5. Analysis of key determinants of willingness to pay for safe cucumber

Variable Coefficient

Level of trust on the certification program -0.01Frequent cucumber buyer(a) 0.09 **Occasional cucumber buyer(a) -0.01Always prefer domestic produce 0.17 ***Age 0.00Sex 0.01Year of education 0.01Medium household income group (USD 500-999) (b) 0.07High household income group(USD 1,000-) (b) 0.11 *Having children under 12 years old 0.04Town Kampong Cham -0.02Constant 0.49 ***Wald Chi2 =42.71 (p<0.00001)Number of observations =399*** statistically significant at 1% (p<0.01)** statistically significant at 1% (p<0.05)* statistically significant at 1% (p<0.1)(a) reference group: buyers who rarely purchase cucumber(b) reference group: buyers whose household income in low income group (less than USD 500)


6. Conclusion

The findings discussed in previous chapters are more or less as expected. The research team would like to conclude by providing the following remarks:

1) Consumers – including households, hotels and restaurants – in both Siem Reap and Kampong Cham towns perceive that domestically grown fresh produce is somewhat safe, while imported produce is somewhat unsafe. This different safety perception by origin of produce subsequently influences their judgment of the safety level of individual produce commodity. The result is in line with a previous study which was conducted in 2004.14

However, this safety evaluation does not accurately reflect the actual situation in the country, given that the judgment was based on consumer’s perception rather than knowledge based on actual testing on residue on produce. Most Cambodian farmers also use large quantity of fertilizers and chemicals, especially in commercial farming practices, according to the authors’ knowledge gained from other research projects. The level of pesticide residue of certain vegetable commodities, regardless domestic or imported, exceeds the recommended level, according to the testing result conducted in a study in 2004.15 That is, there is no significant difference between the levels of residue in domestic and imported vegetables. Due to changes in farming practice over the last decade, the team suggests that pesticide residue test should be conducted on domestically grown produce and evidence should be disseminated to consumers. By doing so, consumers will have a better and accurate understanding of the safety of produce grown in Cambodia. This could subsequently boost the demand for safer produce among the consumers. Otherwise, the success for GAP produce would likely be affected by consumer’s strong preference for conventionally grown produce which is already believed to be safe.

2) There is a misperception among both consumers and sellers that chemical fertilizers pose an adverse effect to produce safety. Since GAP does not entirely eliminate chemical application from production, the public should be communicated that chemical application in a proper amount and at an appropriate time does not affect the safety of produce. Efforts should target the misperception that ‘safe’ produce should be grown as organic, natural or chemical free.

3) The awareness of biological contamination is still extremely limited across all respondents, as none have raised such issue when evaluating the safety of produce. For GAP certified produce to have a comparative advantage over domestically grown produce, the awareness of biological contamination should be raised and GAP’s benefit in mitigating the risk of such contamination should be widely promoted.

4) The majority of consumers are not aware of the GAP concept, as what expected earlier prior to the study implementation. However, they tend to anticipate the important role of the GAP in ensuring fresh produce safety. Almost half of household consumers in the two towns expressed a high level of trust on the GAP certification program potentially introduced in the future. The effective enforcement of GAP standard compliance and certification is the key determinant of credibility among consumers and the real assurance of fresh produce safety.

5) Two factors are considered in determining the potential of fresh produce for GAP certification: a) the demand, characterized by the most commonly purchased; and b) the safety level, characterized by the low safety level perceived by consumers.

For vegetables, five potential commodities recommended by households and retailers include cucumber, cabbage, curly wrap pak choy, Chinese green, and water convolvulus. Among hotels and restaurants, in addition to cucumber and cabbage, they recommended the other three potential commodities comprising lettuce, tomato and bok choy. These commodities are generally among the most commonly purchased by consumers and also among those with low level of safety perception.

14 Chan, Sipana and Paule Moustier. “Socio-economic Strategies and Results of Vegetable Traders in Phnom Penh (Cambodia).” (2004). Phnom Penh: Sustainable Development of Peri-urban Agriculture in South East Asia Project.15 Ibid.


For fruit, households and retailers recommended five commodities: longan, rambutan, green orange, durian, and dragon fruit. Hotels and restaurants also share common views on rambutan and dragon fruit, and add three more fruit commodities including pineapple, watermelon and banana.

6) Regarding the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for or the price premium of GAP certified produce, the team recommends that the priority of program implementation should be placed on fruit and vegetable varieties which has low retail prices. The estimation of WTP across produce varieties shows that the amount of premium is similar across varieties. When calculated as percentage of retail price, the magnitude of premium percentage is higher for produce with low retailer price and vice versa. This suggests that farmers should select produce varieties which have low retail prices to grow.


7. References

Global G.A.P. 2015. Accessed October 15, 2015.http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/who-we-are/about-us/history/

Hanemann, Michael W. 1884. “Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses.” American journal of agricultural economics 66(3): 332-341.

Hanemann, Michael, John Loomis, and Barbara Kanninen. 1991. “Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation.” American journal of agricultural economics 73(4): 1255-1263.

Lopez-Feldman, A. 2010. “doubleb: Stata module to estimate contingent valuation using Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Model.” Accessed September 15, 2015.http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457168.html

Nabeshima, Kaoru, Etsuyo Michida, Hoang Nam Vu, and Aya Suzuki. 2015. “Emergence of Asian GAPs and its relationship to global GAP.” Institute of Developing Economics, IDE Discussion Paper No. 507.

Wongprawmas, Rungsaran. 2014. “Fresh Produce Safety and Good Agricultural Practices: Stakeholders' Perception and Consumers' Choice in Thailand.”. PhD Dissertation, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna. Dottorato di ricerca in Scienze e tecnologie agrarie, ambientali e alimentari, 26 Ciclo.

Chan, Sipana and Paule Moustier. 2004. “Socio-economic Strategies and Results of Vegetable Traders in Phnom Penh (Cambodia).” Phnom Penh: Sustainable Development of Peri-urban Agriculture in South East Asia Project.


http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/view/dottorati/DOT515/

http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457168.html

http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/who-we-are/about-us/history/

Annex 1 – Market Structure of Fresh Produce

1. Kampong Cham Town1.1. Vegetable

In Kampong Cham, most vegetable wholesalers do not have a fixed establishment. Produce grown in the province is mostly supplied to the market directly from growers to retailers. Some wholesalers source produce from Phnom Penh, while others directly import vegetables from Vietnam through its border with Kampong Cham. These wholesalers normally go to source the produce in Phnom Penh and at the border during daytime. Distribution of vegetables to retailers takes place at around 2:00-4:00AM before dawn. Due to logistical constraint and without a fixed establishment for the research team to track and visit, no interview with vegetable wholesalers was made during the time the survey team visited Kampong Cham town.

1.2. Fruit

The interview with two fruit wholesalers in Kampong Cham town revealed that there are three wholesalers who supply to the entire province and nearby provinces such as Kampong Thom and Siem Reap. Their daily sales range from 2,000 kg to 5,000 kg. These wholesalers mostly supply imported fruit, the majority of which is imported from Vietnam and a small proportion from Thailand. The most common varieties are longan, rambutan, green orange, dragon fruit, and grape.

These wholesalers also trade domestically grown fruit, such as durian, rambutan, and dragon fruit, which are grown in Kampong Cham, when these fruit varieties are in season. They also export certain amount of the domestically grown fruit to market in Phnom Penh.

In terms of safety evaluation, the two wholesalers evaluated domestically grown fruit more favorably than imported fruit, which is similar to the evaluation of consumers. The reasons cited to support such evaluation are also similar, including ‘limited use of chemical fertilizers’ and ‘no use of stimulus to make produce available all year round’ in the production of domestically grown produce.

Both wholesalers indicated that they were not aware of safe produce and did not know about GAP certified produce either. Nevertheless, both interviewees expressed their willingness to source and sell such GAP certified fruit if it is available. Similar to the premium for safe fruit stated by consumers, the wholesalers also said approximately about 500 to 1,000 riel premium (or about 10% of regular fruit price) may be achievable for safe fruit.

2. Siem Reap Town2.1. Vegetable

In Siem Reap, vegetable wholesalers are all located in Samaki Market. The biggest wholesaler, who supplies about 80% of the total vegetables in the market, was interviewed. His reported daily quantity sold is about 12,000 kg. Vegetables grown locally in Siem Reap province was said to account for only about 10% of the total supply in the province, with the rest coming from Battambang and Phnom Penh (grown in other provinces) or being imported from Vietnam and Thailand. The vegetables identified as having the highest quantity sold include: cabbage, Napa cabbage, onion, Chinese kale, and Bok Choy.

The wholesaler evaluated domestically grown vegetables (‘somewhat unsafe’) more poorly than vegetables imported from Vietnam (‘somewhat safe’), however. He explained that local farmers still lack proper production techniques, particularly those related to the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Unfavorable weather condition in Cambodia (hot climate) also demands high level of chemical application to ensure good crop and protect crop.

In the wholesaler’s opinion, ‘safe’ produce refers to produce which is grown chemical-free, and he was not aware of GAP produce yet. When being asked about his willingness to source and sell GAP certified produce, the wholesaler expressed that it would be hard to market certified vegetables with those uncertified in the wet markets. He recommended target certified produce at stores or supermarkets. Furthermore, he suggested that the issue of irregular vegetable supply should be tackled. That is, if certified vegetables are to be marketed to hotels or restaurants, it should be ensured that the produce is available all year round to sustain demand.


2.2. Fruit

All fruit wholesalers are also based in Samaki Market. However, most wholesalers only trade either imported fruit or only one single variety of domestically grown fruit (such as exclusively banana, green orange or watermelon). One fruit wholesaler interviewed at the market who trade multi-varieties of domestically grown fruit reported that the quantity sold daily is about 4,500 kg. Fruit such as papaya is sourced from as far as Pailin and Kampot, while mango is from within the province and nearby provinces such as Kampong Thom and Battambang.

The wholesaler evaluated domestically grown fruit more favorably than imported fruit; however, domestically grown fruit was rated as ‘somewhat unsafe’, with the reasons such as the ‘use of stimulus to make produce available all year round’ and ‘use of growth hormones’ in the production cited.

Similarly, the wholesaler was not aware of either what safe produce means or GAP certified produce, but indicated the willingness to source and sell certified produce if available. Nonetheless, the interviewee was skeptical that safe produce will command any premium at all, citing the reason that most retailers who get fruit from him do not make inquiry about safety as long as the fruit is fresh, in good condition and not rotten.


Annex 2 – Tables

Table 6. Average purchase quantity per household (Kg/week)

Produce Household Hotel RestaurantALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP

Vegetable 6.1 5.9 6.2 271.6 86.8 313.5 208.6 192.1 215.1Fruit 3.2 2.7 3.5 203 24.8 237 72.7 41.3 82.1

Table 7. Per capita purchase quantity (Kg/week)


Vegetable 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.6 1.4 2.9 2.7 1.9 3.0Fruit 0.8 0.7 0.9 2.1 0.4 2.4 0.9 0.6 1.0

Table 8. Average purchase expenditure on produce per household (USD/week)


Vegetable 7.5 7.3 7.7 334.7 129.6 381.3 276.5 246.2 288.3Fruit 8.2 6.3 9.5 306.4 70.0 351.4 101.4 63.2 112.8

Table 9. Most purchased vegetables

Vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPWater convolvulus 209 95 114 6 8 15Cucumber 154 47 107 16 22 25Curly wrap pak choy 149 50 99 2 1 14Chinese green 106 40 66 3 6 8Cabbage 65 22 43 3 13 17Wax Gourd 64 41 23 - - 5Loofah/Angled luffa 61 28 33 2 - 7Ivy gourd leaf 54 24 30 - - 3Lettuce 49 20 29 15 10 7Bok Choy 43 15 28 9 9 6Chinese kale 43 16 27 7 5 4Long bean 42 14 28 4 4 13Napa Cabbage 38 10 28 6 7 11Mustard 35 8 27 1 1 5Carrot 32 7 25 13 18 10Waterlily 31 10 21 - - -Eggplant 29 10 19 1 1 9Amaranth 22 1 21 - - 6Tomato 22 7 15 14 14 10Pumpkin 21 10 11 - - -Cauliflower 20 8 12 1 7 -Bitter gourd 13 6 7 - - 3Green Papaya 13 6 7 1 - 1Radish 13 5 8 3 - 4Banana flower pod 12 5 7 - - 1


Vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPBottle Gourd 12 11 1 - - -Onion 8 3 5 6 6 7Potato 8 2 6 9 6 3Straw mushroom 8 1 7 1 - 4Pennata Wawtle 7 2 5 - - -Water mimosa 7 4 3 - - -Green pepper 6 3 3 8 3 4Lotus root 6 6 - - - -Ginger 5 2 3 1 - 2Winged Bean 5 3 2 - - -Baby corn 4 2 2 - 2 -Moringa leaf 4 3 1 - - -Thai Egg plant 4 - 4 - - -Basil 3 1 2 - - -Broad bean 3 1 2 - 1 -Enoki mushroom 3 - 3 - 1 -Katuk (Sauropus androgynous) 3 3 - - - -Bean sprout 2 1 1 - - -Cress 2 - 2 - - -Okra 2 2 - - - -Oyster mushroom 2 - 2 - - -Chilly plant leaves 1 1 - - - -Chive flower 1 1 - - - -Total respondents 399 160 239 27 32 45

Table 10. Evaluation of the most purchased vegetables

Vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPWater convolvulus 4.0 4.3 3.7 3.5 2.8 4.0Cucumber 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.6Curly wrap pak choy 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.0 4.0 3.2Chinese green 3.4 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6Cabbage 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5Wax Gourd 4.3 4.5 3.8 - - 4.4Loofah/Angled luffa 4.6 4.8 4.5 3.5 - 4.6Ivy gourd leaf 4.6 4.7 4.6 - - 4.7Lettuce 3.3 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.9Bok Choy 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.5Chinese kale 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.5Long bean 3.6 4.0 3.4 4.0 2.5 3.6Napa Cabbage 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.7Mustard 2.9 2.8 2.9 4.0 2.0 2.8Carrot 2.6 2.7 2.6 3.4 2.7 2.6Waterlily 4.8 4.9 4.8 - - -Eggplant 4.0 4.2 3.9 2.0 5.0 4.1Amaranth 4.5 5.0 4.5 - - 4.3Tomato 2.8 3.9 2.3 3.4 2.5 3.6


Vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPPumpkin 4.8 4.9 4.6 - - -Cauliflower 2.4 2.4 2.3 4.0 2.7 -Bitter gourd 3.9 4.2 3.7 - - 4.7Green Papaya 4.3 5.0 3.7 5.0 - 4.0Radish 3.6 4.0 3.4 2.7 - 3.8Banana flower pod 4.7 5.0 4.4 - - 5.0Bottle Gourd 4.7 4.7 4.0 - - -Onion 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.7 3.1Potato 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.6 2.7 3.3Straw mushroom 3.5 4.0 3.4 2.0 - 4.5Pennata Wawtle 4.4 5.0 4.2 - - -Water mimosa 4.7 5.0 4.3 - - -Green pepper 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.5Lotus root 4.5 4.5 - - - -Ginger 3.8 4.0 3.7 5.0 - 3.0Winged Bean 4.4 4.3 4.5 - - -Baby corn 4.3 4.5 4.0 - 3.0 -Moringa leaf 4.8 5.0 4.0 - - -Thai Egg plant 3.0 - 3.0 - - -Basil 4.7 5.0 4.5 - - -Board bean 2.0 2.0 2.0 - 2.0 -Enoki mushroom 3.3 - 3.3 - 4.0 -Katuk (Sauropus androgynous) 4.7 4.7 - - - -Bean sprout 2.0 2.0 2.0 - - -Cress 4.5 - 4.5 - - -Okra 4.0 4.0 - - - -Oyster mushroom 3.5 - 3.5 - - -Chilly plant leaves 4.0 4.0 - - - -Chive flower 5.0 5.0 - - - -Total respondents 399 160 239 27 32 45

Table 11. Most purchased fruit

Fruit Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPLongan 148 71 77 3 1 27Banana 127 34 93 16 13 15Green orange 121 59 62 3 5 17Grape 113 49 64 3 - 19Apple 98 31 67 3 12 24Rambutan 61 28 33 4 - 12Dragon Fruit 32 8 24 17 7 18LongKong 22 8 14 - - 2Persimmon 22 15 7 - - 17Pear 20 3 17 1 4 8Pomegranate 15 4 11 - - 13Watermelon 12 3 9 17 10 1Jack fruit 11 4 7 - 1 -


Fruit Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPTangerine 11 4 7 - 1 3mango 9 - 9 8 12 3Guava 8 - 8 - - 2Papaya 8 2 6 7 5 3Custard apple 7 2 5 - - -Grape Fruit 7 4 3 1 1 1Sapodilla 7 5 2 - - 2Mangosteen 5 3 2 - - -Organge 5 - 5 - 1 2Durian 4 2 2 - - -Lychee 2 1 1 - - -Passion 2 - 2 1 2 -Pineapple 2 - 2 20 19 1Plum 2 2 - - - -Avocado 1 1 - - 1 -Burmese grape 1 1 - - - -Cherry 1 - 1 - - -LEKAM 1 1 - - - -Melon Khmer 1 - 1 - - -Total respondents 324 129 195 25 26 43

Table 12. Evaluation of the most purchased fruit

Fruit Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPLongan 3.4 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.0 3.0Banana 4.4 4.8 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.5Green orange 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.6 4.0Grape 2.6 2.7 2.5 3.3 - 3.3Apple 2.8 2.9 2.8 4.0 2.9 3.2Rambutan 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.8 - 3.2Dragon Fruit 3.6 4.0 3.5 3.8 2.9 3.8LongKong 3.5 3.6 3.4 - - 3.0Persimmon 3.0 3.2 2.6 - - 3.2Pear 2.9 2.7 2.9 4.0 2.0 3.3Pomegranate 2.6 2.8 2.5 - - 3.2Watermelon 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.6 3.1 5.0Jack fruit 4.0 4.5 3.7 - 2.0 -Tangerine 2.7 2.5 2.9 - 4.0 4.0mango 3.7 - 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.3Guava 3.5 - 3.5 - - 4.0Papaya 4.8 5.0 4.7 3.9 2.8 4.0Custard apple 3.9 4.5 3.6 - - -Grape Fruit 4.9 5.0 4.7 5.0 2.0 4.0Sapodilla 4.1 4.6 3.0 - - 4.0Mangosteen 3.2 3.3 3.0 - - -Organge 2.8 - 2.8 - 2.0 4.0Durian 1.5 1.5 1.5 - - -


Fruit Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPLychee 2.0 2.0 2.0 - - -Passion 3.0 - 3.0 4.0 4.0 -Pineapple 3.0 - 3.0 3.9 3.7 4.0Plum 4.5 4.5 - - - -Avocado 4.0 4.0 - - 5.0 -Burmese grape 4.0 4.0 - - - -Cherry 2.0 - 2.0 - - -LEKAM 4.0 4.0 - - - -Melon Khmer 4.0 - 4.0 - - -Total respondents 324 129 195 25 26 43

Table 13. Evaluation of the safety of domestically grown vegetable

Town Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerObs Mean S.D. Obs Mean S.D. Obs Mean S.D. Obs Mean S.D.

All 398 3.8 1.1 27 3.9 1.1 32 3.7 0.9 45 4.0 0.9Kampong Cham 159 4.0 1.0 5 3.0 1.4 9 3.6 1.2 20 4.1 0.8Siem Reap 239 3.7 1.1 22 4.0 1.0 23 3.7 0.8 25 4.0 1.0

Table 14. Evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Vietnam



Table 15. Evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Thailand



Table 16. Evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from other countries


All 2 4.0 0.0 9 2.8 1.2 3 3.3 1.2 2 3.0 1.4Kampong Cham - - - - - - 1 4.0 . 1 4.0 .Siem Reap 2 4.0 0.0 9 2.8 1.2 2 3.0 1.4 1 2.0 .

Table 17. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of domestically grown vegetable

Reason Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPExcessive use of chemical fertilizers 45 12 33 2 4 2

Excessive use of pesticides 41 15 26 2 2 2

Use of preservatives 22 4 18 2 0 4

Use of growth hormones 41 10 31 5 3 1

Farmers lacking production technique 15 2 13 2 3 2Use of stimulus to make produce 0 0 0 0 0 0


available year roundProduce naturally grown 99 46 53 5 4 10

Limited use of chemical fertilizers 173 70 103 15 16 20

Limited use of pesticides 58 25 33 5 8 16

Grown with proper techniques 1 0 1 0 2 0No use of stimulus to make produce available year round 1 1 0 1 0 0

Proper inspection and quality control 0 0 0 0 0 0Total respondents 398 159 239 27 32 45

Table 18. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Vietnam





Farmers lacking production technique 0 0 0 0 0 1Use of stimulus to make produce available year round 6 2 4 0 0 0

Produce naturally grown 0 0 0 0 0 0





Table 19. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from Thailand











Table 20. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of vegetable imported from other countries

Reason Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRP


Excessive use of chemical fertilizers 0 0 0 7 0 1










Table 21. Evaluation of the safety of domestically grown fruit


Total 386 4.1 0.9 26 4.2 0.8 30 3.9 1.0 43 4.1 0.8Kampong Cham 157 4.2 0.9 5 4.6 0.5 8 3.5 1.3 18 4.2 0.7Siem Reap 229 4.0 1.0 21 4.1 0.9 22 4.0 0.8 25 4.0 0.9

Table 22. Evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Vietnam



Table 23. Evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Thailand



Table 24. Evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from other countries


Total 20 3.2 1.4 8 2.6 1.2 2 3.0 1.4 12 3.3 1.2Kampong Cham 5 3.0 1.4 1 2.0 . 1 4.0 . 6 3.7 1.4Siem Reap 15 3.3 1.4 7 2.7 1.3 1 2.0 . 6 3.0 1.1

Table 25. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of domestically grown fruit












Table 26. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Vietnam












Table 27. Reason supporting the evaluation of the safety of fruit imported from Thailand











Table 28. Reason supporting the evaluation of safety of fruit imported from other countries











Table 29. Number of times Household experiencing unwell due to produce consumption

Number of times HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Never 343 136 207Once 37 12 25Twice 15 9 6Three times or more 4 3 1Total respondents 399 160 239


Table 30. Health problem experienced due to produce consumption

Type of health problem HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Diarrhea 47 19 28Dizzy 6 1 5Fainting 2 0 2Headache 1 0 1IV injection 3 1 2Sore throat 1 1 0Stomach ache 29 16 13Vomit 32 7 25Total respondents 56 24 32

Table 31. Vegetable which caused problem

Vegetables HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Bean sprout 1 1 0Bok Choy 1 1 0Cabbage 5 4 1Chinese green 3 2 1Chinese kale 2 2 0Cucumber 14 4 10Curly wrap pak choy 2 1 1Lettuce 2 2 0Long bean 1 0 1Loofah/Angled luffa 1 1 0Napa Cabbage 3 3 0Potato 1 1 0Straw mushroom 2 0 2Total respondents 31 16 15

Table 32. Fruit which caused problem

Fruit HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Apple 4 3 1Dragon Fruit 1 0 1Durian 6 1 5Grape 3 1 2Grape Fruit 1 0 1Guava 1 1 0Jack fruit 1 0 1Longan 5 2 3Plum mango 1 1 0Pomegranate 1 1 0Rambutan 4 2 2Rose apple 1 1 0Watermelon 4 1 3Total respondents 30 13 17


Table 33. Criteria used to select safe vegetable

Criteria HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Grown locally 87 40 47

Produce that is fresh 84 26 58

Not damaged by insects 18 8 10

Sourced from known growers 8 6 2

Having some damage by insects 162 67 95

Small in size 155 57 98

Not too fresh 48 19 29

Assured to be naturally grown 6 2 4

Having good size and shape 2 2 0

Not having pesticide smell 2 1 1

Grown by oneself 1 0 1

Having soil attached to root 1 1 0

Nicely washed and cleaned 1 1 0

Withering fast 1 1 0Total respondents 363 150 213

Table 34. Criteria used to select safe fruit

Criteria HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Produce that is fresh 128 45 83Grown locally 75 51 24Assured to be naturally grown 10 5 5Not damaged by insects 9 3 6Having good size and shape 6 6 0Small in size 29 6 23Not too fresh 15 4 11Having some damage by insects 4 0 4Sourced from known growers 4 4 0Having more aromatic smell (fruit) 3 0 3Grown by oneself 2 2 0In season 2 0 2Withering fast 2 1 1Labeled in supermarkets 1 0 1Total respondents 250 108 142


Table 35. Method used to clean vegetable

Cleaning method HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Soaking in solution of salt 217 89 128Washing multiple times 175 66 109Soaking in water 108 48 60Parboiling 49 29 20Soaking in water from rice cleaning 13 7 6Soaking in produce cleansing solution 12 4 8Soaking in solution of lemon 7 4 3Soaking in solution of vinegar 7 1 6Soaking in icy cold water 1 1 0Total respondents 381 154 227

Table 36. Method used to clean fruit

Cleaning method HouseholdALL KPC SRP

Washing multiple times 242 88 154Soaking in water 46 25 21Soaking in solution of salt 26 15 11Refrigerating 7 5 2Soaking in produce cleansing solution 5 0 5Soaking in icy cold water 2 2 0Total respondents 289 113 176

Table 37. Awareness of safe produce

ResponseHousehold Hotel Restaurant Vegetable

RetailerFruit Retailer

ALL KPC SRP ALL ALL KPC SRP KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP

No 336 131 205 20 3 17 23 8 15 39 18 21 42 17 25

Yes 63 29 34 7 2 5 9 1 8 6 2 4 1 1 0

Total 399 160 239 27 5 22 32 9 23 45 20 25 43 18 25


Table 38. Understanding of safe produce

UnderstandingHousehold Hotel Restaurant Vegetable


ALL KPC SRP ALL ALL KPC SRP KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRPGrown with only organic fertilizers /chemical free

38 17 21 3 0 3 6 1 5 4 2 2 1 1 0

Grown with less chemical substance

12 7 5 4 1 2 8 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0

Domestically grown 7 4 3 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grown with proper techniques

6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Packed and sold in supermarkets 6 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Produce from CEDAC 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grown in hydroponics 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Organic produce 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Grown in family garden 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grown in protective net 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 63 29 34 7 2 5 9 1 8 6 4 2 1 1 0

Table 39. Awareness of GAP safe produce

ResponseHousehold Hotel Restaurant Vegetable


ALL KPC SRP ALL ALL KPC SRP KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP

No 336 131 205 20 3 17 23 8 15 39 18 21 42 17 25

Yes 63 29 34 7 2 5 9 1 8 6 2 4 1 1 0

Total 399 160 239 27 5 22 32 9 23 45 20 25 43 18 25

Table 40. Level of trust on certification

Level of trustHousehold Hotel Restaurant Vegetable


ALL KPC SRP ALL ALL KPC SRP KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRPDon't trust at all 17 7 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0Somewhat don't trust 94 36 58 11 2 9 7 1 6 8 4 4 10 5 5

Somewhat trust 100 55 45 6 1 5 9 1 8 13 8 5 16 5 11Totally trust 183 61 122 9 1 8 15 6 9 17 6 11 14 6 8No idea 5 1 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 1 4 2 1 1Total 399 160 239 27 5 22 32 9 23 45 20 25 43 18 25


Table 41. Reason for not trusting the certification

ReasonHousehold Hotel Restaurant Vegetable


ALL KPC SRP ALL ALL KPC SRP KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRPLabel may be easily forged 84 32 52 8 2 6 10 1 9 5 2 3 7 3 4

Do not trust sellers 60 32 28 5 1 4 1 0 1 6 3 3 6 4 2Growers may not adhere to standards 41 21 20 3 2 1 3 0 3 8 6 2 5 1 4

Label perhaps does not have details of production location

9 6 3 4 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Inspection and quality control is still weak

4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1

Labeled produce may be confused with imports

3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 2

It is hard to control labeled produce in wet markets

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total respondents 207 94 113 18 4 14 17 2 15 39 18 21 41 18 23

Table 42. How to improve trust on certification

SuggestionHousehold Hotel Restaurant Vegetable


ALL KPC SRP ALL ALL KPC SRP KPC SRP ALL KPC SRP ALL KPC SRPDisseminating information about the label and certification program

50 28 22 12 2 10 4 2 2 5 5 0 8 2 6

Reinforcing inspection and quality control

39 8 31 7 1 6 3 0 3 2 0 2 4 0 4

Setting up a specific location in the market

24 14 10 8 1 7 3 0 3 2 2 0 3 2 1

Providing details of production location and practice on the label

12 8 4 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

Assurance from MAFF 11 6 5 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Testing the labeled produce sold in the market

11 7 4 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Educating Households on how to identify safe produce

4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Organizing farmer co-ops and create co-op brands

3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Marketing produce through a specific company

2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Educating sellers on produce safety 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Total respondents 116 60 56 15 3 12 13 2 11 10 8 2 11 3 8


Table 43. How frequent cucumber is purchased

Purchasing frequencyHousehold Hotel Restaurant

ALL KPC SRP ALL ALL KPC SRP KPC SRPEveryday 17 6 11 23 4 19 31 9 22Every 2-3 days 168 66 102 3 1 2 1 0 1Once a week 74 34 40 0 0 0 0 0 0Once every 2-3 weeks 92 32 60 0 0 0 0 0 0Once a month 21 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0Very occasionally 27 12 15 1 0 1 0 0 0Total respondents 399 160 239 27 5 22 32 9 23


Table 44. Most recommended vegetable for certification

Recommended vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPCucumber 218 83 135 21 23 26Cabbage 194 67 127 12 12 27Curly wrap pak choy 172 62 110 3 2 18Chinese green 129 55 74 7 8 12Water convolvulus 115 57 58 4 9 9Chinese kale 93 33 60 8 9 9Lettuce 64 21 43 17 20 9Cauliflower 63 18 45 7 8 1Long bean 59 27 32 5 7 12Bok Choy 50 16 34 8 12 8Wax Gourd 40 24 16 - - 3Tomato 33 9 24 12 11 10Mustard 34 11 23 1 1 5Loofah/Angled luffa 18 11 7 - - 2Eggplant 17 8 9 - 1 7Bitter gourd 16 9 7 1 - 3Radish 12 8 4 6 2 4Green pepper 8 4 4 3 1 2Bean sprout 6 1 5 - - -Pumpkin 5 3 2 - 1 1Straw mushroom 6 - 6 - - 1Bottle Gourd 3 2 1 - - -Green Papaya 3 - 3 - - -Banana flower pod 2 1 1 - - -Ginger 2 - 2 - - 2Ivy gourd leaf 2 2 - - - -Thai Egg plant 2 - 2 - - 3Amaranth 1 - 1 - - -Board bean 1 1 - - 1 -Cilantro 1 1 - - - -Garland Chrysanthemum 1 1 - - - -Green melon 1 - 1 - - 1Okra 1 1 - - - -Water mimosa 1 1 - - - -Winged Bean 1 1 - - - -Total respondents 394 160 239 27 32 45


Table 45. Most recommended fruit for certification

Recommended fruit Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPLongan 238 106 132 5 8 29Rambutan 198 73 125 9 9 22Green orange 126 57 69 3 5 14Durian 108 40 68 3 5 12Dragon Fruit 96 33 63 18 12 21Banana 50 8 42 11 9 11Mango 35 6 29 7 9 7Watermelon 30 9 21 14 12 2Mangosteen 29 13 16 1 3 2Sapodilla 25 13 12 - 1 2Jack fruit 23 12 11 3 1 1Custard apple 15 5 10 - - -Grape Fruit 13 7 6 - 1 2Guava 11 2 9 - - 2Papaya 10 1 9 7 6 2Pailin logan 9 1 8 - - 4Pomegranate 9 4 5 - - 5Pineapple 7 2 5 12 13 -Lychee 6 2 4 - 1 -Avocado 5 3 2 1 - -Burmese grape 1 1 - - - -Melon Khmer 2 - 2 1 - -Passion 2 - 2 - 2 -Rose apple 2 1 1 - - -Soursop 2 2 - - - 1Milk fruit 1 - 1 - - -Plum 1 - 1 - - 1Total respondents 394 158 236 26 30 43


Table 46. Premium for most recommended vegetable for certification (KHR per Kilogram)

Vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPCucumber 726 715 732 524 461 431Cabbage 685 619 721 425 275 456Curly wrap pak choy 708 665 732 333 500 528Chinese green 737 755 725 614 250 683Water convolvulus 748 754 741 375 200 500Chinese kale 728 706 740 450 500 333Lettuce 776 714 807 741 540 667Cauliflower 842 833 845 486 600 500Long bean 665 604 719 760 429 358Bok Choy 676 563 729 450 358 438Wax Gourd 537 520 563 - - 233Tomato 617 455 692 475 545 350Mustard 732 536 826 0 500 400Loofah/Angled luffa 687 845 469 - - 100Eggplant 628 589 667 - 200 329Bitter gourd 718 520 1000 500 - 600Radish 577 625 500 333 500 325Green pepper 625 625 625 533 1000 750Bean sprout 1000 500 1100 - - -Pumpkin 217 75 500 - 500 0Straw mushroom 1000 - 1000 - - 500Bottle Gourd 733 600 1000 - - -Green Papaya 1167 - 1167 - - -Banana flower pod 1000 500 1500 - - -Ginger 750 - 750 - - 433Ivy gourd leaf 167 167 - - - -Thai Egg plant 750 - 750 - - 267Amaranth 2000 - 2000 - - -Board bean 1000 1000 - - 1000 -Cilantro 500 500 - - - -Garland Chrysanthemum 1000 1000 - - - -Green melon 500 - 500 - - 500Water mimosa 1500 1500 - - - -Winged Bean 500 500 - - - -Cucumber 726 715 732 524 461 431Cabbage 685 619 721 425 275 456Curly wrap pak choy 708 665 732 333 500 528Chinese green 737 755 725 614 250 683Water convolvulus 748 754 741 375 200 500Chinese kale 728 706 740 450 500 333Lettuce 776 714 807 741 540 667Total respondents 394 160 239 27 32 45


Table 47. Premium for most recommended vegetable for certification (KHR per Kilogram)

Vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPLongan 960 1068 872 500 813 897Rambutan 923 953 905 889 722 923Green orange* 999 1121 900 667 600 1136Durian 1074 1050 1088 667 1000 1167Dragon Fruit 902 939 883 600 542 762Banana 690 563 714 482 556 591Mango 658 357 731 1071 411 214Mangosteen 967 821 1094 500 500 1000Watermelon** 823 411 1000 807 517 750Sapodilla 920 577 1292 - 500 1000Jack fruit 1087 1292 864 333 200 1000Custard apple 967 900 1000 - - -Grape Fruit 1077 1286 833 - 0 750Guava 545 500 556 - - 500Papaya 580 500 589 571 233 750Pailin logan 1444 1000 1500 - - 1250Pomegranate 833 750 900 - - 900Pineapple** 629 1000 480 775 446 -Lychee 1000 1000 1000 - 500 -Avocado 200 333 0 0 - -Burmese grape 750 500 1000 - - -Melon Khmer 1500 - 1500 1000 - -Passion 1000 - 1000 - 750 -Rose apple 750 1500 0 - - -Soursop 250 250 - - - 2000Milk fruit 500 - 500 - - -Plum 1000 - 1000 - - 500Total respondents 394 160 239 27 32 45


Table 48. Premium for most recommended vegetable for certification (% of retail price)

Vegetables Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPCucumber 31% 30% 31% 20% 21% 18%Cabbage 21% 17% 23% 16% 7% 14%Curly wrap pak choy 22% 22% 22% 12% 14% 17%Chinese green 28% 30% 27% 26% 6% 24%Water convolvulus 34% 37% 32% 19% 7% 23%Chinese kale 13% 13% 12% 7% 6% 4%Lettuce 18% 17% 18% 17% 11% 17%Cauliflower 13% 13% 13% 7% 10% 10%Long bean 26% 25% 27% 34% 16% 15%Bok Choy 18% 14% 19% 18% 9% 10%Wax Gourd 38% 36% 40% - - 21%Tomato 20% 14% 22% 17% 18% 11%Mustard 21% 15% 23% 0% 13% 13%Loofah/Angled luffa 60% 70% 45% - - 14%Eggplant 37% 35% 38% - 7% 13%Bitter gourd 23% 17% 30% 29% - 20%Radish 29% 25% 35% 10% 23% 13%Green pepper 15% 13% 17% 11% 33% 18%Bean sprout 36% 20% 40% - - -Pumpkin 16% 10% 25% - 20% 0%Straw mushroom 9% - 9% - - 7%Bottle Gourd 51% 52% 50% - - -Green Papaya 32% - 32% - - -Banana flower pod 54% 33% 75% - - -Ginger 18% - 18% - - 6%Ivy gourd leaf 33% 33% - - - -Thai Egg plant 33% - 33% - - 11%Amaranth 100% - 100% - - -Board bean 10% 10% - - 13% -Cilantro 100% 100% - - - -Garland Chrysanthemum 40% 40% - - - -Green melon 20% - 20% - - 38%Okra 0% 0% - - - -Water mimosa 38% 38% - - - -Winged Bean 7% 7% - - - -Total respondents 394 160 239 27 32 45


Table 49. Premium for most recommended fruit for certification (% of retail price)

Fruit Household Hotel Restaurant RetailerALL KPC SRPLongan 9% 11% 8% 6% 7% 9%Rambutan 14% 15% 13% 15% 11% 15%Green orange 7% 8% 7% 4% 4% 8%Durian 8% 8% 9% 5% 8% 9%Dragon Fruit 19% 23% 16% 12% 14% 13%Banana 23% 16% 24% 14% 19% 17%Mango 20% 19% 20% 30% 15% 7%Watermelon 30% 16% 36% 26% 30% 33%Mangosteen 15% 13% 17% 3% 7% 14%Sapodilla 18% 11% 25% - 20% 16%Jack fruit 12% 13% 11% 5% 3% 14%Custard apple 16% 14% 17% - - -Grape Fruit 44% 60% 26% - 0% 21%Guava 17% 17% 17% - - 18%Papaya 18% 13% 18% 22% 12% 19%Pailin logan 19% 13% 19% - - 17%Pomegranate 12% 11% 13% - - 10%Pineapple 31% 45% 25% 25% 34% -Lychee 11% 13% 10% - 3% -Avocado 3% 4% 0% 0% - -Burmese grape 10% 10% - - - -Melon Khmer 30% - 30% 20% - -Passion 17% - 17% - 15% -Rose apple 21% 43% 0% - - -Soursop 4% 4% - - - 20%Milk fruit 17% - 17% - - -Plum 40% - 40% - - 17%Total respondents 394 158 236 26 30 43


executive summary - web viewkhin, pisey and thong meas. 2016. “consumer awareness and market...

Documents