Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-16T18:16:51.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in women’s and men’s conservation of cacao agroforests in coastal Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Trent Blare Open the ORCID record for Trent Blare [Opens in a new window]  and
Pilar Useche
Trent Blare*
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), formerly of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Carretera México-Veracruz Km. 45, El Batan, Texcoco, 56237, Mexico
Pilar Useche
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department, 1103 McCarty Hall B, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Trent Blare, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Stakeholder preferences for the conservation of cacao agroforests are scarcely known. Here, a revealed preference model was used to estimate the value that smallholders place on the conservation of their cacao agroforests in coastal Ecuador. Variables in the model included plot-level data (the gender of those who owned and managed the plot, profit, land title and years of ownership) and household demographic data (ages, educational levels and wealth indicators). Households were willing to give up some profit to conserve agroforests especially if they had managed the plot longer. Furthermore, when women were included in the management of a plot, the household was more likely to conserve the cacao agroforest, but the gender of the person who owns the plot had no effect on the probability of conserving the agroforest. These findings provide further evidence of the gender differences in preferences for agroforests and that more inclusive land-use decisions may lead to the use of more sustainable farming practices. They also demonstrate that policies that encourage inclusive land ownership do not necessarily ensure equal gender participation in plot decision-making and management.

Keywords

decision-makinggenderland-use policyLatin Americarural developmentsustainable farming
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 46 , Issue 4: Thematic Section: Bringing Species and Ecosystems Together with Remote Sensing Tools to Develop New Biodiversity Metrics and Indicators , December 2019 , pp. 302 - 309
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamowicz, W, Louviere, J, Williams, M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamowicz, W, Swait, J, Boxall, P, Louviere, J, Williams, M (1997) Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adesina, AA, Mbila, D, Nkamleu, GB, Endamana, D (2000) Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 80: 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alavalapati, JRR, Luckert, MK, Gill, DS (1995) Adoption of agroforestry practices: a case study from Andhra Pradesh, India. Agroforestry Systems 32: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alwang, J, Larochelle, C, Barrera, V (2017) Farm decision making and gender: results from a randomized experiment in Ecuador. World Development 92: 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asociación Nacional de Exportadores de Cacao (2019) Historia del cacao [www document]. URL http://www.anecacao.com/index.php/en/quienes-somos/cacao-en-ecuador.html Google Scholar
Baltagi, BH, Bresson, G, Pirotte, A (2003) Fixed effects, random effects or Hausman–Taylor?: A pretest estimator. Economics Letters 79: 361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bascle, G (2008) Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization 6: 285–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beer, J, Muschler, R, Kass, D, Somarriba, E (1998) Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations. Agroforestry Systems 38: 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R, Kerrigan, F, O’Reilly, D, Lee, Z, Sargeant, A (2011) Dealing with social desirability bias: an application to charitable giving. European Journal of Marketing 45: 703–719.Google Scholar
Bentley, J, Boa, E, Stonehouse, J (2004) Neighbor trees: shade, intercropping and cacao in Ecuador. Human Ecology 32: 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blare, T, Useche, P (2015) Is there a choice? Choice experiment to determine the value men and women place on cacao agroforests in coastal Ecuador. International Forestry Review 17: 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolaños, O, Schmink, M (2005) Women’s place is not in the forest: gender issues in a timber management project in Bolivia. In: The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community and Natural Resources , ed. CJP, COLFER, pp. 274–295. Washington, DC, USA: RFF/CIFOR.Google Scholar
Bromley, R (1981) The colonization of humid tropical areas in Ecuador. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 2: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussolo, M, De Hoyos, RE, Wodon, Q (2009) Higher prices of export crops, intra-household inequality and human capital accumulation in Senegal. In: Gender Aspects of the Trade and Poverty Nexus: A Macro–Micro Approach , eds. Bussolo, M & De Hoyos, RE, pp. 165–184. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byiringiro, F, Reardon, T (1996) Farm productivity in Rwanda: effects of farm size, erosion and soil conservation investments. Agricultural Economics 15: 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, AC, Trivedi, PK (2010) Microeconomics Using Stata . College Station, TX, USA: Stata Press Publications.Google Scholar
Campbell, C, Chicchón, A, Schmink, M, Piland, R (2005) Intrahousehold differences in natural resource management in Peru and Brazil. In: The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community and Natural Resources , ed. Colfer, C.J.P., pp. 207–228. Washington, DC, USA: RFF/CIFOR.Google Scholar
Corporación de Promoción de Exportaciones e Inversiones (2009) Cacao . Quito, Ecuador: Calidad de Origen.Google Scholar
Cronkleton, P (2005) Gender, participation, and the strengthening of indigenous forest management in Bolivia. In: The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community and Natural Resources , ed. Colfer, C.J.P., pp. 256–273. Washington, DC, USA: RFF/CIFOR.Google Scholar
Cuesta, F et al. (2006) Identificación de vacíos y prioridades de conservación en el Ecuador Continental . Quito, Ecuador: Ecociencia, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador.Google Scholar
Deere, CD, Twyman, J (2012) Asset ownership and egalitarian decision making in dual-headed households in Ecuador. Review of Radical Political Economics 44: 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deere, CD, Oduro, AD, Swaminathan, H, Doss, C (2013) Property rights and the gender distribution of wealth in Ecuador, Ghana and India. Journal of Economic Inequality 11: 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinda, S. (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecological Economics 49: 431–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguma, BJ (2001) Smallholder cacao (Theobroma cacao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of west and central Africa: challenges and opportunities. Agroforestry Systems 51: 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gondard, P (1988) Land use in the Andean region of Ecuador: from inventory to analysis. Land Use Policy 5: 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto Ecuatoriano de la Properidad Intelectual (2014) Cacao arriba, la pepa de oro [www document]. URL http://www.propiedadintelectual.gob.ec/cacao-arriba-la-pepa-de-oro/ Google Scholar
International Fund for Agricultural Development (2014) Rural poverty portal: rural poverty in Ecuador [www document]. URL https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/country/id/ecuador Google Scholar
Kabeer, N (1999) Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change 30: 435–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, R (1990) Women in Forestry in India. World Bank Review Paper. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.Google Scholar
Kelly, JJ (2009) Reassessing Forest Transition Theory: Gender, Land Tenure Insecurity and Forest Cover Change in Rural El Salvador. Doctoral Dissertation. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.Google Scholar
Khudri, MM, Chowdhury, F (2013) Evaluation of socio-economic status of households and identifying key determinants of poverty in Bangladesh. European Journal of Social Sciences 37: 377–387.Google Scholar
Leakey, R (1996). Definition of agroforestry revisited. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [www document]. URL http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=QI9600003 Google Scholar
Mercer, DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agroforestry Systems 61: 311–328.Google Scholar
Mundlak, Y (1978) On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46: 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, Fonseca, G, Kent, J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakazibwe, P, Pelupessy, W (2014) Towards a gendered agro-commodity approach. Journal of World-Systems Research 20: 229–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neupane, RP, Sharma, KR, Thapa, GB (2002) Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems 72: 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattanayak, SK, Mercer, DE, Sills, E, Yang, JC (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforestry Systems 57: 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterman, A, Behrman, JA, Quisumbing, AR (2014) A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries. In: Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gaps , ed. Raney, T., pp. 145–186. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porro, NM, Stone, S (2005) Diversity in living gender: two cases from the Brazilian Amazon. In: The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community and Natural Resources , ed. Colfer, C.J.P., pp. 242–255. Washington, DC, USA: RFF/CIFOR.Google Scholar
Potón Cevallos, J (2005). Relaciones de Género en el Ciclo Productivo de Cacao: ¿Hacia un Desarrollo Sostenible? Master’s Thesis. Quito, Ecuador: Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLASCO).Google Scholar
Quisumbing, AR (2010). Gender and household decision making in developing countries: a review of evidence. In: The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy , ed. Chant, S., pp. 161–166. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ramirez, OA, Somarriba, E, Ludewigs, T, Ferreira, P (2001). Financial returns, stability and risk of cacao–plantain–timber agroforestry systems in Central America. Agroforestry Systems 51: 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitsma, R, Parrish, JD, McLarney, W (2001) The role of cacao plantations in maintaining forest avian diversity in southeastern Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 53: 184–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherr, SJ (2000) A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy 25: 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scoones, I (1995) Investigating difference: applications of wealth ranking and household survey approaches among farming households in southern Zimbabwe. Development and Change 26: 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A (1973) Behaviour and the concept of preference. Economica 40: 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, P, Da Silva, FC, MacDonald, T (2011) Brazil’s social movement, women and forests: a case study from the national council of rubber tappers. International Forestry Review 12: 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffan-Dewenter, I, Kessler, M, Barkmann, J, Bos, MM, Buchori, D, Erasmi, S, Faust, H et al. (2007) Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 4973–4978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suyanto, S, Pandu Permana, R, Khususiyah, N, Joshi, L (2005) Land tenure, agroforestry adoption and reduction of fire hazard in a forest zone: a case study from Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 65: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tendayi, AM, George, A, Nguiébouri, J (2005) Women in Campo-Maán National Park: uncertainties and adaptations in Cameroon. In: The Equitable Forest: Diversity, Community and Natural Resources , ed. Colfer, C.J.P., pp. 242–255. Washington, DC, USA: RFF/CIFOR.Google Scholar
Thacher, T, Lee, DR, Schelhas, JW (1996) Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 35: 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twyman, J, Muriel, J, García, MA (2015a) Identifying women farmers: informal gender norms as institutional barriers to recognizing women’s contributions to agriculture. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security 1: 1–17.Google Scholar
Twyman, J, Useche, P, Deere, CD (2015b) Gendered perceptions of land ownership and agricultural decision making in Ecuador: who are the farm managers? Land Economics 91: 479–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udry, C, Hoddinott, J, Alderman, H, Haddad, L (1995) Gender differentials in farm productivity: implications for household efficiency and agricultural policy. Food Policy 20: 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (2019) FAOSTAT. Crops [www document]. URL http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC Google Scholar
Useche, P, Blare, T (2013) Traditional vs. modern production systems: environmental and price considerations of cacao producers in northern Ecuador. Ecological Economics 93: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velázquez Gutiérrez, AM (1999) Hacia la construcción de un modelo de desarrollo sustentable: Una visioén desde la perspectiva de género. In: Una Mirada desde el Género: Ajuste, Integración y Desarrollo en America Latina , ed. Rivera, M., pp. 153–164. Caracas, Venezuela: IESALC/UNESCO.Google Scholar
Villamor, GB, Akiefnawati, R, Van Noordwijk, M, Desrianti, F, Pradhan, U (2015) Land use change and shifts in gender roles in central Sumatra, Indonesia. International Forestry Review 17: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villamor, GB, Desrianti, F, Akiefnawati, R, Amaruzaman, S, Van Noordwijk, M (2014) Gender influences decisions to change land use practices in the tropical forest margins of Jambi, Indonesia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 19: 733–755.Google Scholar
Waldron, A, Justicia, R, Smith, L, Sanchez, M (2012) Conservation through chocolate: a win-win for biodiversity and farmers in Ecuador’s lowland tropics. Conservation Letters 5: 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar