IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6827-d1126589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Embedded Agroecology of Coffee Agroforestry: A Contextualized Review of Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption and Resistance

Author

Listed:
  • Karl Wienhold

    (Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food (LEAF) Research Unit, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, (ISA/ULisboa), 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Luis F. Goulao

    (Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food (LEAF) Research Unit, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, (ISA/ULisboa), 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal
    Laboratory for the Sustainability of Land Use and Ecosystem Services (TERRA), School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, (ISA/ULisboa), 1349-017 Lisbon, Portugal)

Abstract

Contemporary ecology and agronomy point to the many benefits of agroforestry crop systems for the provision of ecosystem services by regenerating native ecologies, and in many contexts, socio-economic benefits for coffee farmers, especially the contribution of nitrogen-fixing trees’ litter to soil nutrition and water retention. However, the implementation of agroforestry in coffee cultivation is thus far incomplete and uptake has been uneven. In this paper, we examine the adoption and non-adoption of agroforestry coffee growing techniques as a reflection of the historical, social and cultural embeddedness of smallholder coffee cultivation. It is structured as a narrative literature review contextualized with the results of surveys of smallholder coffee farmers in Colombia, Malawi and Uganda regarding their perceptions of agroforestry coffee in their respective contexts. Findings suggest that coffee farmers’ perceptions of agroforestry and the decision to implement or remove it are influenced by factors included in the notion of embeddedness, involving social relations, historical memory and formal and informal institutions, as well as practical capabilities. Intention and action are sometimes discordant due to the complex interactions of these institutional factors, and they often conflict with outside interveners’ expectations based on epistemological differences. The study illuminates some of the main sources, manifestations and dimensions of the social embeddedness of agricultural practices which mediate the perception of current practices, the sacrifice implied by potential changes, the credibility of theories linking action with outcome and the desirability of expected outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Karl Wienhold & Luis F. Goulao, 2023. "The Embedded Agroecology of Coffee Agroforestry: A Contextualized Review of Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption and Resistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-30, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6827-:d:1126589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6827/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6827/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander BORDA-RODRIGUEZ & Sara VICARI, 2015. "Coffee Co-operatives in Malawi: Building Resilience Through Innovation," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 86(2), pages 317-338, June.
    2. 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).
    3. Aniseh S. Bro, 2020. "Climate Change Adaptation, Food Security, and Attitudes toward Risk among Smallholder Coffee Farmers in Nicaragua," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Mahmud Yesuf & Randall A. Bluffstone, 2009. "Poverty, Risk Aversion, and Path Dependence in Low-Income Countries: Experimental Evidence from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1022-1037.
    5. Hari Wahyu Wijayanto & Kai-An Lo & Hery Toiba & Moh Shadiqur Rahman, 2022. "Does Agroforestry Adoption Affect Subjective Well-Being? Empirical Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in East Java, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Blackman, Allen & Albers, Heidi & Crooks, Lisa & Ávalos-Sartorio, Beatriz, 2005. "Deforestation and Shade Coffee in Oaxaca, Mexico," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-39, Resources for the Future.
    7. Bacon, Christopher, 2005. "Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 497-511, March.
    8. Dona Octavia & Sri Suharti & Murniati & I Wayan Susi Dharmawan & Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Bambang Supriyanto & Dede Rohadi & Gerson Ndawa Njurumana & Irma Yeny & Aditya Hani & Nina Mindawat, 2022. "Mainstreaming Smart Agroforestry for Social Forestry Implementation to Support Sustainable Development Goals in Indonesia: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-29, July.
    9. Kiptot, Evelyne & Hebinck, Paul & Franzel, Steven & Richards, Paul, 2007. "Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 509-519, May.
    10. Hamid Hosseini, 2003. "Why development is more complex than growth: clarifying some confusions," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(1), pages 91-110.
    11. Blackman, Allen & Albers, Heidi J. & Avalos-Sartorio, Beatriz & Crooks, Lisa, 2005. "Deforestation and Shade Coffee in Oaxaca, Mexico: Key Research Findings," Discussion Papers 10799, Resources for the Future.
    12. Richey, Lisa Ann & Ponte, Stefano, 2021. "Brand Aid and coffee value chain development interventions: Is Starbucks working aid out of business?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. Jeffrey Neilson, 2014. "Value chains, neoliberalism and development practice: The Indonesian experience," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 38-69, February.
    14. Víctor Rolo, 2022. "Agroforestry for Sustainable Food Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-3, August.
    15. Michel Mbumba Bandi & Martin Bitijula Mahimba & Paul Mafuka Mbe Mpie & Alphonse Roger Ntoto M’vubu & Damase P. Khasa, 2022. "Adoption of Agroforestry Practices in and around the Luki Biosphere Reserve in the Democratic Republic of the Congo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-13, August.
    16. Joel Buyinza & Ian K. Nuberg & Catherine W. Muthuri & Matthew D. Denton, 2022. "Why Farmers Are Hesitant to Adopt What Appears Good on the Basis of Science: Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions of Biophysical Research," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(3), pages 1-68, May.
    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. Meike Wollni & Manfred Zeller, 2007. "Do farmers benefit from participating in specialty markets and cooperatives? The case of coffee marketing in Costa Rica1," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(2‐3), pages 243-248, September.
    2. Wollni, Meike & Zeller, Manfred, 2006. "Do Farmers Benefit from Participating in Specialty Markets and Cooperatives? The Case of Coffee Marketing in Costa Rica," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25670, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    4. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    5. Bryan, Elizabeth & Ringler, Claudia & Okoba, Barrack & Koo, Jawoo & Herrero, Mario & Silvestri, Silvia, 2011. "Agricultural management for climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation, and agricultural productivity: Insights from Kenya," IFPRI discussion papers 1098, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Pritish Behuria, 2018. "The politics of upgrading in global value chains: The case of Rwanda’s coffee sector," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-108-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    7. Vicol, Mark & Neilson, Jeffrey & Hartatri, Diany Faila Sophia & Cooper, Peter, 2018. "Upgrading for whom? Relationship coffee, value chain interventions and rural development in Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 26-37.
    8. Groom, Ben & Palmer, Charles, 2014. "Relaxing constraints as a conservation policy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 505-528, August.
    9. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2013. "Traditional vs. modern production systems: Price and nonmarket considerations of cacao producers in Northern Ecuador," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Teklewold, Hailemariam, 2011. "Farming or burning? shadow prices and farmer’s impatience on the allocation of multi-purpose resource in the mixed farming system of Ethiopia," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116080, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Trung X. Hoang & Nga V. T. Le, 2021. "Natural disasters and risk aversion: Evidence from Vietnam," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(3), pages 211-229, August.
    12. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    13. Alessandro Arrighetti, 2009. "Market Imperfections and Fair Trade," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 1, March.
    14. Carlos Omar Trejo-Pech & Roselia Servín-Juárez & Álvaro Reyes-Duarte, 2023. "What sets cooperative farmers apart from non-cooperative farmers? A transaction cost economics analysis of coffee farmers in Mexico," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Chiputwa, Brian & Spielman, David J. & Qaim, Matin, 2015. "Food Standards, Certification, and Poverty among Coffee Farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 400-412.
    16. Yuhan Ge & Qing Yuan & Yaxi Wang & Keunsoo Park, 2021. "The Structural Relationship among Perceived Service Quality, Perceived Value, and Customer Satisfaction-Focused on Starbucks Reserve Coffee Shops in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, August.
    17. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Alastair M. Smith, 2010. "Lack Of Rigour In Defending Fairtrade: Some Important Clarifications Of A Distorting Account – A Reply To Peter Griffiths," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 50-53, June.
    19. Avalos-Sartorio, Beatriz & Blackman, Allen, 2008. "Agroforestry Price Supports as a Conservation Tool: Mexican Shade Coffee," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-48, Resources for the Future.
    20. Thi Minh Chi Nguyen & Li-Hsien Chien & Shwu-En Chen, 2015. "Impact of certification system on smallhold coffee farms` income distribution in Vietnam," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(6), pages 137-149, June.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6827-:d:1126589. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.