IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i18p8461-d1754237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Typology of Lorena Avocado Production Systems in Colombian Lowlands (Casanare): Integrating Agronomic and Socioeconomic Characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Juan P. Taramuel-Taramuel

    (Escuela de Administración y Contaduría Pública, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá 111321, Colombia
    Grupo de Investigación Biogénesis, Departamento de Desarrollo Rural y Agroalimentario, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá 111321, Colombia)

  • Iván A. Montoya-Restrepo

    (Departamento de Ingeniería de la Organización, Facultad de Minas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín 050034, Colombia)

  • Aquiles Enrique Darghan Contreras

    (Departamento de Agronomía, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá 111321, Colombia)

  • Diego Miranda Lasprilla

    (Departamento de Agronomía, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá 111321, Colombia)

  • Dursun Barrios

    (Grupo de Investigación Biogénesis, Departamento de Desarrollo Rural y Agroalimentario, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá 111321, Colombia)

Abstract

Understanding the diversity of avocado production systems is crucial for developing effective agricultural policies and extension strategies. This study examined the Colombian avocado variety “Lorena” in the Colombian lowlands of Casanare through spatial typology analysis to inform sustainable agricultural development strategies. We employed spatial autoregressive modeling and clustering techniques to analyze data from 45 production systems, revealing heterogeneity despite small-scale operations with productivity (2.9 ton ha −1 ) below regional (8 ton ha −1 ) and national averages (11.03 ton ha −1 ). Five distinct typologies emerged: transitional traditional ( n = 15), intensive technical management ( n = 4), experience-based traditional ( n = 5), balanced management ( n = 10), and comprehensive technical systems ( n = 11). In contrast to conventional assumptions about economies of scale, productivity was not primarily determined by farm size, as smaller intensive technical management systems achieved the highest yields (3375 kg) despite having the smallest size (162.50 trees), followed by experience-based traditional systems (3280 kg). The spatial autoregressive model effectively captured spatial dependence in yield patterns, demonstrating the importance of geographic context in agricultural system analysis. Technology/practice adoption patterns varied markedly, with high adoption of established practices (>90%) but low foliar analysis adoption (17.78%). High organic fertilization adoption (93.33%) reflected a commitment to environmental sustainability but may partially explain productivity gaps, highlighting trade-offs between sustainability and short-term yield optimization. Socioeconomic analysis revealed characteristics of part-time farming systems, with 91.11% of producers having additional income sources and 95.56% using hired labor, suggesting evolved livelihood strategies that may enhance resilience. These findings challenge one-size-fits-all development approaches and demonstrate the need for tailored, spatially targeted interventions that account for specific production system characteristics, multiple pathways to sustainable intensification, and the complex interactions between productivity, sustainability, and socioeconomic factors in smallholder agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan P. Taramuel-Taramuel & Iván A. Montoya-Restrepo & Aquiles Enrique Darghan Contreras & Diego Miranda Lasprilla & Dursun Barrios, 2025. "Spatial Typology of Lorena Avocado Production Systems in Colombian Lowlands (Casanare): Integrating Agronomic and Socioeconomic Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-17, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8461-:d:1754237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8461/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/18/8461/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie Chavent & Vanessa Kuentz-Simonet & Amaury Labenne & Jérôme Saracco, 2018. "ClustGeo: an R package for hierarchical clustering with spatial constraints," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 1799-1822, December.
    2. Dicle Dönmez & Musab A. Isak & Tolga İzgü & Özhan Şimşek, 2024. "Green Horizons: Navigating the Future of Agriculture through Sustainable Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Rada, Nicholas E. & Fuglie, Keith O., 2019. "New perspectives on farm size and productivity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 147-152.
    4. Dimitrios Iakovidis & Yiorgos Gadanakis & Julian Park, 2023. "Farmer and Adviser Perspectives on Business Planning and Control in Mediterranean Agriculture: Evidence from Argolida, Greece," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Ana Trigo & Ana Marta-Costa & Rui Fragoso, 2021. "Principles of Sustainable Agriculture: Defining Standardized Reference Points," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Stéphanie Alvarez & Carl J Timler & Mirja Michalscheck & Wim Paas & Katrien Descheemaeker & Pablo Tittonell & Jens A Andersson & Jeroen C J Groot, 2018. "Capturing farm diversity with hypothesis-based typologies: An innovative methodological framework for farming system typology development," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Haonan Zhang & Zheng Chen & Jieyong Wang & Haitao Wang & Yingwen Zhang, 2023. "Spatial-Temporal Pattern of Agricultural Total Factor Productivity Change (Tfpch) in China and Its Implications for Agricultural Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, 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. Pépin, Antonin & Morel, Kevin & van der Werf, Hayo M.G., 2021. "Conventionalised vs. agroecological practices on organic vegetable farms: Investigating the influence of farm structure in a bifurcation perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Ionuț-Alexandru Spânu & Alexandru Ozunu & Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag, 2022. "A Comparative View of Agri-Environmental Indicators and Stakeholders’ Assessment of Their Quality," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Elizabeth Ahikiriza & Joshua Wesana & Xavier Gellynck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Ludwig Lauwers, 2021. "Context Specificity and Time Dependency in Classifying Sub-Saharan Africa Dairy Cattle Farmers for Targeted Extension Farm Advice: The Case of Uganda," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Jaime Martín-García & José A. Gómez-Limón & Manuel Arriaza, 2023. "Conventional versus organic olive farming: which has a better economic performance?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.
    5. Ana Filipa Fonseca & Fabíola Polita & Lívia Madureira, 2024. "How Agroecological Transition Frameworks Are Reshaping Agroecology: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, November.
    6. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Hannah Romanowski & Lauren Blake, 2023. "Neonicotinoid seed treatment on sugar beet in England: a qualitative analysis of the controversy, existing policy and viability of alternatives," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(3), pages 453-472, September.
    8. Movedi, Ermes & Valiante, Daniele & Colosio, Alessandro & Corengia, Luca & Cossa, Stefano & Confalonieri, Roberto, 2022. "A new approach for modeling crop-weed interaction targeting management support in operational contexts: A case study on the rice weeds barnyardgrass and red rice," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 463(C).
    9. Wang, Linlin & Li, Qiang & Coulter, Jeffrey A. & Xie, Junhong & Luo, Zhuzhu & Zhang, Renzhi & Deng, Xiping & Li, Linglin, 2020. "Winter wheat yield and water use efficiency response to organic fertilization in northern China: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    10. Lucia Mancini, 2013. "Conventional, Organic and Polycultural Farming Practices: Material Intensity of Italian Crops and Foodstuffs," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Daniel P. Roberts & Autar K. Mattoo, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture—Enhancing Environmental Benefits, Food Nutritional Quality and Building Crop Resilience to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Atanu Mukherjee & Emmanuel C. Omondi & Paul R. Hepperly & Rita Seidel & Wade P. Heller, 2020. "Impacts of Organic and Conventional Management on the Nutritional Level of Vegetables," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    13. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, . "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(01).
    14. Schindele, Stephan & Trommsdorff, Maximilian & Schlaak, Albert & Obergfell, Tabea & Bopp, Georg & Reise, Christian & Braun, Christian & Weselek, Axel & Bauerle, Andrea & Högy, Petra & Goetzberger, Ado, 2020. "Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    15. Sadowski, Arkadiusz & Wojcieszak-Zbierska, Monika Małgorzata & Zmyślona, Jagoda, 2024. "Agricultural production in the least developed countries and its impact on emission of greenhouse gases – An energy approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    16. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    17. Marijn A. Bolhuis & Swapnika R. Rachapalli & Diego Restuccia, 2021. "Misallocation in Indian Agriculture," NBER Working Papers 29363, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.
    19. Janet MacFall & Joanna Lelekacs & Todd LeVasseur & Steve Moore & Jennifer Walker, 2015. "Toward resilient food systems through increased agricultural diversity and local sourcing in the Carolinas," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 608-622, December.
    20. Pacheco de Castro Flores Ribeiro, Paulo & Osório de Barros de Lima e Santos, José Manuel & Prudêncio Rafael Canadas, Maria João & Contente de Vinha Novais, Ana Maria & Ribeiro Ferraria Moreira, Franci, 2021. "Explaining farming systems spatial patterns: A farm-level choice model based on socioeconomic and biophysical drivers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8461-:d:1754237. 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.