Download fulltext HTML

https://doi.org/10.18502/espoch.v3i1.14479

statistics

  • 906 Abstract Views
  • 117 PDF Views
  • 0 HTML Views

authors

  • M. Ayala Ayala

    M. Ayala Ayala

    UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO (UNM), Albuquerque, United States of America
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2501-7197
  • M. Lane

    M. Lane

    UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO (UNM), Albuquerque, United States of America
  • R. Montúfar

    R. Montúfar

    Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (PUCE), Quito, Ecuador

Published Date

  • Nov 9, 2023

Motivations to adopt Agroecology in rural communities of the Northern Andes of Ecuador

ESPOCH Congresses: The Ecuadorian Journal of S.T.E.A.M. / Volume 3 Issue 1 / Pages 666–694

Abstract

Agroecology (AE) is a discipline of study that is consistently expanding in the scientific, sociopolitical, and environmental fields, both globally and regionally in Latin America. This study focuses on understanding the dynamics and diversity of motivations that farmers have when deciding whether to adopt AE or not in the Northern Andes of Ecuador. Using mixed methods, we described the historical evolution of the perceptions of agroecological practitioners and external agents regarding the motivations, incentives, compensations, and expectations they had. This study discusses the nature and dynamics of motivations using sustainability as a transversal axis to assess responses. We worked with a proportionally similar number of indigenous and mestizo farmers who declared to have an interest in the study and had access to a piece of land for agroecological production. This study reveals convergences and divergences of perceptions among stakeholders about the different strategies used by external agencies to address AE and rural extension. The types and levels of participation throughout the historical evolution of AE showed low participation of farmers in the early stages, associated with planning; however, there was a steady increase in farmer participation in the stages associated with hands-on activities. In general, there is very little motivation for agroecological food production among youth and men, whereas younger rural men and women feel more motivated to work on agribusiness export projects such as the cut-flower industry.


Keywords: incentives, compensations, sustainable agriculture, behavioral drivers, stakeholder motivations, environmental perception.


Resumen


La agroecología es una disciplina que se encuentra en constante expansión en el ámbito científico, sociopolítico y ambiental, tanto a nivel mundial como regional en América Latina. Este estudio se centra en comprender la dinámica y diversidad de motivaciones que tienen los agricultores a la hora de decidir adoptar o no la agroecología (AE) en los Andes del Norte de Ecuador. Utilizando métodos mixtos, describimos la evolución histórica de las percepciones de los agricultores y de los agentes externos sobre las motivaciones, incentivos, compensaciones y expectativas que tenían. Este estudio analiza la naturaleza y la dinámica de las motivaciones utilizando la sostenibilidad como eje transversal para evaluar las respuestas. Se trabajó con un número proporcionalmente similar de agricultores indígenas y mestizos, quienes declararon tener interés en el presente estudio y que tenían acceso a un pedazo de tierra para la producción agroecológica. Este estudio revela convergencias y divergencias de percepciones entre los actores involucrados acerca de las diferentes estrategias utilizadas por los organismos externos para abordar la AE y la extensión rural. Los tipos y niveles de participación a lo largo de la evolución histórica de la AE mostraron una baja participación de los agricultores en las primeras etapas, asociadas a la planificación; sin embargo, se produjo un aumento constante de la participación de los agricultores en las etapas asociadas a actividades más bien prácticas. También se observó que los agricultores son de edad y en su mayoría son mujeres. En general, hay muy poca motivación para la producción de alimentos en los jóvenes y los hombres, puesto que los hombres rurales jóvenes y también las mujeres se sienten más motivados para trabajar en proyectos agroindustriales de exportación, como en la industria de las flores de corte.


Palabras Clave: incentivos, compensaciones, agricultura sostenible, impulsores del comportamiento, motivaciones en actores clave, percepción ambiental.

References
[1] Altieri MA, Nicholls CI. Agroecology: A brief account of its origins and currents of thought in Latin America. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2017 Apr;41(3–4):231–237.

[2] Arora S. Farmers’ Participation in knowledge circulation and the promotion of agroecological methods in South India. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 2012 Feb;36(2):207–235.

[3] Intriago R, Amézcua RG, Bravo E, O’Connell C. Agroecology in Ecuador: Historical processes, achievements, and challenges. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2017 Apr;41(3–4):311–328.

[4] Acosta A. Avances y retrocesos de la soberanía alimentaria. Cambio climático, biodiversidad y sistemas agroalimentarios. Cuenca, Ecuador: Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; 2020. https://doi.org/10.7476/9789978105689.0001.

[5] Gliessman S. Defining agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2018 Jul;42(6):599–600.

[6] Gliessman S. The co-creation of agroecological knowledge. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2018 Jan;42(1):1–1.

[7] Breilh J. [New model of accumulation and agro-business: The ecological and epidemiological implications of the Ecuadorian cut flower production]. Ciência & Saúde coletiva. 2007;12(1):91–104.

[8] Handal AJ, Harlow SD. Employment in the Ecuadorian cut-flower industry and the risk of spontaneous abortion [Internet]. BMC International Health and Human Rights. 2009 Oct;9(1):25. [cited 2019 Sep 18] Available from: https://bmcinthealthhumrights.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-698X-9-25

[9] Pinzón N. Herramientas para la comprensión de acciones colectivas que propenden a una transición agroecológica | Letras Verdes. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Socioambientales. Let Verdes Rev Latinoam Estud Socioambientales. 2017;(21):49– 67.

[10] Potocnjak D. Exploring smallholder motivations and agroecological options to manage their organic farms A case study in Los Lagos Region – Chile. [Wageningen, The Netherlands]: Wageningen; 2014.

[11] Vasco C, Sánchez C, Abril VH, Limaico K, Eche D, García G. Motivaciones para el consumo de productos agroecológicos en Quito. SIEMBRA. 2017 Dec;4(1):31–38.

[12] Andrade D, Flores M. Consumo de productos orgánicos / agroecológicos en los hogares ecuatorianos. Ecuador: VECO Ecuador; 2008.

[13] Ayala M. La investigación agroecológica en el contexto de la sostenibilidad. Segundo Encuentro Internacional Investigación y Agroecología Memorias. Quito: SIPAE; 2021. pp. 239–247.

[14] Levidow L, Pimbert M, Vanloqueren G. Agroecological research: Conforming—or transforming the dominant agro-food regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2014;38(10):1127–1155.

[15] Daza E. La desmovilización lugo del “triunfo” normativo. Cambio climático, biodiversidad y sistemas agroalimentarios. Cuenca, Ecuador: Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; 2020.

[16] Jacobi J, Mathez-Stiefel SL, Gambon H, Rist S, Altieri M. Whose knowledge, whose development? Use and role of local and external knowledge in agroforestry projects in Bolivia. Environmental Management. 2017 Mar;59(3):464–476.

[17] Rubio B. Explotados y excluídos: los campesinos latinoamericanos en la fase agroexportadora neoliberal. D.F, México: Plaza y Valdés; 2012.

[18] Gallar D. La construcción de sujetos políticos y la agroecología: una lucha por la vida. Foro Agrario Primer encuentro internacional investigación y agroecología. Quito, Ecuador: Universidad Central del Ecuador; 2019; 87–99.

[19] Larrea F. Estado y movimiento indígena en el Ecuador: del multiculturalismo neoliberal al Estado plurinacional degradado | Fernando Larrea Maldonado. Antropol Cuad Investigation. 2017;(17):114–127.

[20] República del Ecuador AC. Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Montecristi Ecuad [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2016 Nov 13]; Available from: http://www.inae.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/Registro-Oficial-449.pdf

[21] Domínguez JM, Sánchez V, Zambrano JL. La investigación del INIAP, base para una agricultura sostenible. In Quito, Ecuador: Universidad Central del Ecuador; 2017; 266. [cited 2019 Aug 5], Available from http://repositorio.iniap.gob.ec/handle/41000/5338

[22] Chiriboga M, Las ON. Ecuatorianas en los procesos de cambio [Internet] Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala; 2014.[ cited 2019 Aug 5], Available from http://confederacionecuatorianaosc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/LIBRO-LASONG- ECUATORIANAS-EN-LOS-PROCESOS-DE-CAMBIO.pdf

[23] Gortaire R. Agroecología en el Ecuador. Proceso histórico, logros, y desafíos. Antropol Cuad Investigation. 2017 Aug;(17):12.

[24] Daza E, Artacker T, Lizano R, editors. Cambio climático, biodiversidad y sistemas agroalimentarios: avances y retos a diez años de la Ley Orgánica del Régimen de la Soberanía Alimentaria en Ecuador. 1. Cuenca, Ecuador: Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; 2020:295.

[25] Provincial de Pichincha G. gaceta_oficial_007_2015.pdf [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2019 Aug 5]. Available from: http://sitp.pichincha.gob.ec/repositorio/diseno_paginas/archivos/gaceta_oficial_007_2015.pdf

[26] Caporal FR, Costabeber JA. Agroecologia e extensao rural contribuicoes para a promocao de desenvolvimento rural sustentavel [Internet]Brasilia: DATER/IICA; 2004:166.[ cited 2019 Sep 4], Available from http://www.emater.tche.br/site/arquivos_pdf/teses/agroecologia%20e%20extensao%20rural%

[27] Nicholls-Estrada C, Altieri M. Caminos para la amplificación de la Agroecología [Internet]. Centro Latinoamericano de Investigaciones Agroecológicas; 2018 [cited 2019 Sep 23]. Available from: http://celia.agroeco.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2019/02/Boletin-Cientifico-CELIA-1.pdf

[28] Guzmán ES, Woodgate G. Agroecology: Foundations in agrarian social thought and sociological theory. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2013 Jan;37(1):32– 44.

[29] Nelson E, Scott S, Cukier J, Galán ÁL. Institutionalizing agroecology: Successes and challenges in Cuba. Agriculture and Human Values. 2009 Sep;26(3):233–243.

[30] Menozzi D, Fioravanzi M, Donati M. Farmer’s motivation to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Bio-based and Applied Economics. 2015 Mar;4:125–147.

[31] Schoonhoven Y, Runhaar H. Conditions for the adoption of agro-ecological farming practices: A holistic framework illustrated with the case of almond farming in Andalusia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2018 Nov;16(6):442– 454.

[32] Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000 Jan;25(1):54–67.

[33] Wolcott L. Dynamics of faculty participation in distance education: Motivations, incentives, and rewards 549 Linda L. Wolcott. Handbook of Distance Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers; 2003; 549–566.

[34] Wolcott L, Betts K. What’s in it for me? Incentives for faculty participation in distance education. The International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education. 2007 Aug 10;14(2):34–49.

[35] Scarborough G, Méndez E. Building resilient food systems through agroecological principles and practices [Internet]. Mercy Corps; 2015 [cited 2017 May 17]. Available from: https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/Agroecology_Resilient_ FS_Discussion_Final_4__12.pdf

[36] Stobbelaar DJ, Groot JC, Bishop C, Hall J, Pretty J. Internalization of agrienvironmental policies and the role of institutions. Journal of Environmental Management. 2009 May;90 Suppl 2:S175–184.

[37] Souza MC, Otani MN, Oliveira MD, Moreira SR, Castro CE, Turco PH, et al. Conversion to agroecological practices: The case of family farmers of Ubatuba, Sao Paulo, Brazil. In: Neuhoff D, Sohn SM, Ssekyewa C, Halberg N, Rasmussen IA, Hermansen (editors J, editors. Organic is Life, knowledge for Tomorrow Proceedings of the Third Scientific Conferenc of ISOFAR. Korea; 2011. p. 264–267.

[38] Epule T, Bryant C. Adoption of agroecology and conventional farming techniques varies with socio-demographic characteristics of small-scale farmers in the Fako and Meme divisions of Cameroon. GeoJournal [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Aug 31]; Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10708-016-9734-y

[39] Cechin A, Bijman J, Pascucci S, Zylbersztajn D, Omta O. Drivers of pro-active member participation in agricultural cooperatives: Evidence from Brazil. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. 2013;84(4):443–468.

[40] Moller AC, Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and public policy: Improving the quality of consumer decisions without using coercion. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. 2006 Apr;25(1):104–116.

[41] MAE M del A del E. Sistema de Clasificación de los Ecosistemas del Ecuador Continental [Internet]. Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio del Ambiente; 2012 [cited 2019 Sep 8] p. 136. Available from: http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wpcontent/ uploads/downloads/2012/09/LEYENDA-ECOSISTEMAS_ECUADOR_2.pdf

[42] Breilh J. [New model of accumulation and agro-business: The ecological and epidemiological implications of the Ecuadorian cut flower production]. Ciência & Saúde coletiva. 2007;12(1):91–104.

[43] Aspiazu C. Somos tierra, semilla, rebeldía: mujeres, tierra y territorio en América Latina, Claudia Korol, 2016. Antropol Cuad Investigion. 2017Aug;(17):170–171.

[44] Montúfar R, Ayala M. Perceptions of agrodiversity and seed-saving practices in the northern Andes of Ecuador. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2019 Jul;15(1):35.

[45] Ayala NM. Sustainable consumption, the social dimension. Revista ecuatoriana de medicina y ciencias biologicas [Internet]. 2018 May 21 [cited 2019 Sep 20];39(1). Available from: http://remcb-puce.edu.ec/index.php/remcb/article/view/563 https://doi.org/10.26807/remcb.v39i1.563.

[46] Rodrigues Hirata A, Rocha LC. Assis TR de P, Souza-Esquerdo VF de, Bergamasco SMPP. The contribution of the participatory guarantee system in the revival of agroecological principles in Southern Minas Gerais, Brazil. Sustainability (Basel). 2019 Aug;11(17):4675.

[47] Pino M. Los Sistemas Participativos de Garantía en el Ecuador. Aproximaciones a su desarrollo. Letras Verdes. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Socioambientales. 2017 Sep;(22):120–145.

[48] Zambrana NY, Bussmann RW, Hart RE, Huanca AL, Soria GO, Vaca MO, et al. To list or not to list? The value and detriment of freelisting in ethnobotanical studies. Nature Plants. 2018 Apr;4(4):201–204.

[49] Sistema Integrado de Conocimiento y Estadística Social - SICES [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 2]. Available from: http://www.conocimientosocial.gob.ec/

[50] Farrington J. The role of nongovernmental organizations in extension. In: Improving agricultural extension A reference manual [Internet]. 1st ed. Roma; 1997 [cited 2019 Sep 15]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/W5830e/w5830e0p.htm

[51] Campesina V. La agricultura campesina sostenible puede alimentar al mundo [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2018 Jun 24]. Available from: https://www.alainet.org/images/Agriculturacampesina.pdf

[52] Altieri MA, Toledo VM. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 2011 Jul;38(3):587–612.

[53] Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1969 Jul;35(4):216–224.

[54] Gouraldo Choguill M. Ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat International. 1996;20(3):431–444.

[55] Holt-Giménez E. Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2002 Dec;93(1–3):87–105.

[56] Altieri MA, Koohafkan P, Gimenez EH. Agricultura Verde: Fundamentos agroecológicos para diseñar sistemas agrícolas biodiversos, resilientes y productivos. 2012;7(1):7–18.

[57] Franze J, Ciroth A. A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2011;16(4):366–379.

[58] Warren ST, Kyles L, Lim JS, Nicholson J, Ryalls ED, Cooley S, et al. The effect of participants’ race and gender on perceptions of STEM and non-STEM images of women. International Journal of Science and Society. 2013;4(3):63–73.

[59] Calderón CI, Jerónimo C, Praun A, Reyna J, Santos Castillo ID, León R, et al. Agroecology-based farming provides grounds for more resilient livelihoods among smallholders in Western Guatemala. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2018 Nov;42(10):1128–1169.

[60] Freire P. Extensión o comunicación? La concientización en el medio rural. México: Siglo XXI Editores; 1973.

[61] Giraldo OF. Agroecology in post-development. In: Giraldo OF, editor. Political ecology of agriculture: Agroecology and post-development [Internet]Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019; 75–95. [cited 2019 Aug 20]].

[62] Giraldo OF, Rosset P. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 2018 Mar;45(3):545–564.

[63] Oyarzun PJ, Borja RM, Sherwood S, Parra V. Making sense of agrobiodiversity, diet, and intensification of smallholder family farming in the Highland Andes of Ecuador. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 2013;52(6):515–541.

[64] Collective Impact Forum | Resources [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 25]. Available from: http://collectiveimpactforum.org/resources/guide-evaluating-collective-impact

[65] Kumar DS. An inquiry into collective action and sustainable participatory watershed management: evidence from Southern India. Water International. 2011 May;36(3):370–385. References