World Food Policy Volume/Issue 2-2/3-1 Fall 2015/Spring 2016 | Page 91
World Food Policy
In Table 4, we classify the FCS
into three groups, namely (1) poor,
(2) borderline, and (3) acceptable. We
then find that the number and share of
households from clusters 1 and 2 in the
poor and borderline food consumption
groups are very similar if natural
resources are excluded.
In sum, this case study from
Cambodia highlights (1) the importance
of natural resources to poverty reduction
and/or food security and (2) that different
indicators lead to different findings.
Table 4: Number and share (per total sample of 580 households (% in brackets)) of
households classified into three food consumption groups with and without natural
resources in Cambodia (2013)
Food consumption groups
Poor
(FCS ≤21)
With
Borderline
(2135)
Without
With
Without
Cluster 1 0 (0.0)
25 (4.3)
3 (0.5)
41 (7.1)
218 (37.6) 155 (26.7)
221 (38.1)
Cluster 2 0 (0.0)
28 (4.8)
7 (1.2)
42 (7.2)
178 (30.7) 115 (19.8)
185 (31.9)
Cluster 3 1 (0.2)
8 (1.4 )
2 (0.3)
17 (2.9)
171 (29.5) 149 (25.7)
174 (30.0)
Total
61
(10.5)
12 (2.1)
100
(17.2)
567(97.8) 419 (72.2)
580 (100)
1 (0.2)
With
Without
Total
number of
households
Note: definition of clusters: cluster 1: farming and low-skilled jobs; cluster 2: farming and environmental extraction; cluster 3: farming and self-employment or high-skilled jobs.
Source: based on Nguyen et al. (2015)
91