IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/csc/ircrwp/201707.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agroecologia e agricoltura convenzionale a confronto. Un’analisi di sostenibilità socio-economica e ambientale nella produzione familiare di caffè in Brasile/Comparing agroecology and conventional agriculture. A socio-economic and environmental sustainability analysis in coffee smallholding production in Brazil

Author

Abstract

This paper aim at comparing agroecological and conventional practices for small coffee producers in Leste Region of Minas Gerais state (Brazil). Six production units have been deeply analyzed and compared in: income generation with price volatility, productivity, working conditions, product diversification, agrobiodiversity, cost composition, environmental impacts and forest conservation. The results show that agroecology practices help local small farmers in stabilizing and diversifying incomes, reducing production risks and improve working conditions. Furthermore agroecological practices both reduce the use of chemical inputs and improve forest conservation. According with the results of this study agroecology is a cost-effective and sustainable alternative of conventional monoculture agriculture for smallholder farmers of the examined region.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Pronti, 2017. "Agroecologia e agricoltura convenzionale a confronto. Un’analisi di sostenibilità socio-economica e ambientale nella produzione familiare di caffè in Brasile/Comparing agroecology and conventional agr," IRCrES Working Paper 201707, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY.
    • Handle: RePEc:csc:ircrwp:201707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ircres.cnr.it/images/wp/WP_07_2017_Pronti.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Perfecto, Ivette & Vandermeer, John & Mas, Alex & Pinto, Lorena Soto, 2005. "Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 435-446, September.
    2. Reichhuber, Anke & Requate, Till, 2012. "Alternative use systems for the remaining Ethiopian cloud forest and the role of Arabica coffee — A cost-benefit analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 102-113.
    3. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2015. "The State of Food Insecurity in the World Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress," Working Papers id:7595, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Viteri-Salazar, Oswaldo & Toledo, Lucía, 2020. "The expansion of the agricultural frontier in the northern Amazon region of Ecuador, 2000–2011: Process, causes, and impact," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Čermák, Michal & Ligocká, Marie, 2022. "Could Exist a Causality Between the Most Traded Commodities and Futures Commodity Prices in the Agricultural Market?," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 14(4), December.
    3. Charles Peter Mgeni & Klaus Müller & Stefan Sieber, 2018. "Sunflower Value Chain Enhancements for the Rural Economy in Tanzania: A Village Computable General Equilibrium-CGE Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    5. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Takahashi, Ryo & Todo, Yasuyuki & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "How Can We Motivate Consumers to Purchase Certified Forest Coffee? Evidence From a Laboratory Randomized Experiment Using Eye-trackers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 107-121.
    7. Jezeer, Rosalien E. & Santos, Maria J. & Verweij, Pita A. & Boot, René G.A. & Clough, Yann, 2019. "Benefits for multiple ecosystem services in Peruvian coffee agroforestry systems without reducing yield," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Greg Husak & Kathryn Grace, 2016. "In search of a global model of cultivation: using remote sensing to examine the characteristics and constraints of agricultural production in the developing world," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 167-177, February.
    9. Kitti, Mitri & Heikkila, Jaakko & Huhtala, Anni, 2006. "Fair policies for the coffee trade - protecting people or biodiversity?," Discussion Papers 11858, MTT Agrifood Research Finland.
    10. Valkila, Joni, 2009. "Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua -- Sustainable development or a poverty trap?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 3018-3025, October.
    11. Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina & Olofin, Ibironke & Fawzi, Wafaie & Fink, Gunther, 2016. "Associations between Food Scarcity during Pregnancy and Children’s Survival and Linear Growth in Zambia," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235111, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Kaaria, Susan & Osorio, Martha & Wagner, Sophie & Gallina, Ambra, 2016. "Rural women’s participation in producer organizations: An analysis of the barriers that women face and strategies to foster equitable and effective participation," Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security (Agri-Gender), Africa Centre for Gender, Social Research and Impact Assessment, vol. 1(2).
    13. Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki & George Xydis, 2020. "Indoor Vertical Farming in the Urban Nexus Context: Business Growth and Resource Savings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, March.
    14. De Leijster, V. & Santos, M.J. & Wassen, M.W. & Camargo García, J.C. & Llorca Fernandez, I. & Verkuil, L. & Scheper, A. & Steenhuis, M. & Verweij, P.A., 2021. "Ecosystem services trajectories in coffee agroforestry in Colombia over 40 years," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    15. Tricia Glazebrook & Emmanuela Opoku, 2020. "Gender and Sustainability: Learning from Women’s Farming in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-20, December.
    16. Patrick Heidkamp & Dean Hanink & Robert Cromley, 2008. "A land use model of the effects of eco-labeling in coffee markets," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(3), pages 725-746, September.
    17. Liesel Carlsson & Edith Callaghan & Göran Broman, 2021. "Assessing Community Contributions to Sustainable Food Systems: Dietitians Leverage Practice, Process and Paradigms," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 575-601, October.
    18. Jezeer, Rosalien E. & Verweij, Pita A. & Santos, Maria J. & Boot, René G.A., 2017. "Shaded Coffee and Cocoa – Double Dividend for Biodiversity and Small-scale Farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 136-145.
    19. Mekbib G. Haile & Jan Brockhaus & Matthias Kalkuhl, 2016. "Short-term acreage forecasting and supply elasticities for staple food commodities in major producer countries," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-23, December.
    20. Mitiku, Fikadu & Nyssen, Jan & Maertens, Miet, 2017. "Can Coffee Certification Promote Land-sharing and Protect Forest in Ethiopia?," Working Papers 253567, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agroecology; Smallholder agriculture; Sustainability appraisal; Cost Benefit Analysis; Coffee; Minas Gerais; Brazil; socio-economic comparison;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:csc:ircrwp:201707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anna Perin or Giancarlo Birello (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cerisit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.