Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:14:10.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multicriteria analysis of the sustainability performance between agroecological and conventional coffee farms in the East Region of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2020

Andrea Pronti Open the ORCID record for Andrea Pronti [Opens in a new window]  and
Mario Coccia Open the ORCID record for Mario Coccia [Opens in a new window]
Andrea Pronti*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Management, University of Ferrara, Via Voltapaletto 11, 44121FerraraItaly
Mario Coccia
Affiliation:
IRCRES-CNR – National Research Council of Italy, Collegio Carlo Alberto, Via Real Collegio, Moncalieri, Torino, 30-10024, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Andrea Pronti, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of this study is to perform a comparative analysis of agroecological and conventional small coffee farms. We investigated 15 coffee farms in the East region of Minas Gerais, a Brazilian rural region, based on coffee production using a multicriteria analysis with economic, social and environmental factors. The results suggest that agroecological farms perform better than conventional farms in terms of sustainability, reduce labor intensity and improve income stability and the environmental impact, such as agro-biodiversity and forest cover. In particular, the results reveal that agroecological farms, though they have lower levels of coffee productivity than conventional farms, perform better in terms of income stabilization. This result depends on product diversification (such as agri-food products, vegetables or fruits) for local markets, which reduces farmer risks associated with coffee price volatility, improving both the local economy and local food security. Moreover, agroecological farms rely more on labor than capital. Overall, the results of this study reveal that agroecological systems support the socio-economic sustainability of the rural areas under study and suggest the potential of agroecology to boost sustainable development in the East Region of Minas Gerais. In short, the spread of agroecological systems could improve local employment conditions, reducing migration toward large cities and shanty towns in other parts of Brazil. Hence, agroecology systems can represent the main alternative to conventional production systems to improve the well-being and wealth of rural populations in developing countries. The analysis presented in this study is based on a specific case study, but the rural area under study has many similarities with other areas in Latin America regarding all aspects of economic, social and environmental sustainability. Finally, some agricultural policy implications are discussed.

Keywords

AgroecologyBrazilcoffeemulticriteria analysissustainabilitysustainable agricultureN50N56O13Q00Q18Q20
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 299 - 306
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Agenda 21 (1992) Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development, Chapter 14, United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janerio, Brazil, June 3–14, 1992.Google Scholar
Altieri, MA (2002) Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 93, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altieri, MA and Nicholls, C (2005) Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Altieri, MA and Rosset, P (1996) Agroecology and the conversion of large-scale conventional systems to sustainable management. International Journal of Environmental Studies 50, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altieri, MA and Toledo, V (2011) The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasant. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38, 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altieri, MA, Funes-Monzote, FR and Petersen, P (2012) Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bockstaller, C, Girardin, P and van der Werf, HMG (1997) Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. Developments in Crop Science 25, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossel, H (2002) Assessing viability and sustainability a systems-based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets. Conservation Ecology 5(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavallo, E, Ferrari, E, Bollani, L and Coccia, M (2014) Strategic management implications for the adoption of technological innovations in agricultural tractor: the role of scale factors and environmental attitude. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 26, 765–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavallo, E, Ferrari, E and Coccia, M (2015) Likely technological trajectories in agricultural tractors by analysing innovative attitudes of farmers. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 15, 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaparro Africano, A and Collado, ÁC (2017) Peasant economy sustainability in peasant markets, Colombia. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41, 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinelli, M, Coles, SR and Kirwan, K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecological Indicators 46, 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coccia, M (2019) Why do nations produce science advances and new technology? Technology in Society. 59, 101124, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Coccia, M and Watts, J (2020) A theory of the evolution of technology: technological parasitism and the implications for innovation management. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 55, 101552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Costa, MBB, Souza, M, Müller Júnior, V, Comin, JJ and Lovato, PE (2017) Agroecology development in Brazil between 1970 and 2015. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41, 276–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Annolfo, R, Gemmill-Herren, B, Graeub, B and Garibaldi, LA (2017) A review of social and economic performance of agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15, 632–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Olde, EM, Oudshoorn, FW, Sørensen, CAG, Bokkers, EAM and de Boer, IJM (2016) Assessing sustainability at farm-level: lessons learned from a comparison of tools in practice. Ecological Indicators 66, 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London, UK: Communities and Local Government Publications.Google Scholar
Di Cicco-Bloom, B and Crabtree, BF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Medical Education 40, 314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durbach, IN and Stewart, TJ (2012) Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 223, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elver (2015) Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, United Nations General Assembly, A/70/287, August 2015.Google Scholar
FAO (2018) Agroecology Knowledge Hub, Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO. http://www.fao.org/agroecology/knowledge/10-elements/en/ (accessed 16 January 2018).Google Scholar
Ferrari, SF and Diego, VH (1995) Habitat fragmentation and primate conservation in the Atlantic Forest of eastern Minas Gerais, Brazil. Oryx 29, 192–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueira, J, Greco, S and Ehrgott, M (2005) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Boston, USA: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, C, Rickerl, D, Lieblein, G, Salvador, R, Gliessman, S, Wiedenhoeft, M, Breland, TA, Simmons, S, Creamer, N, Allen, P, Harwood, R, Altieri, M, Salomonsson, L, Flora, C, Helenius, J and Poincelot, R (2003) Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garibaldi, LA, Gemmill-Herren, B, D'Annolfo, R, Graeub, BE, Cunningham, SA and Breeze, TD (2016) Farming approaches for greater biodiversity, livelihoods, and food security. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32, 68–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gliessman, SR (1990) Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez-Limón, J and Sanchez-Fernandez, G (2010) Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators. Ecological Economics 69, 1062–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, R, Saha, S and Dasgupta, P (2017) Sustainability assessment of smallholder farms in developing countries. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41, 546–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansmann, R, Mieg, HA and Frischknecht, P (2012) Principal sustainability components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 19, 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, IB, Keisler, J and Linkov, I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment 409, 3578–3594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IBGE (2006) Censo Agropecuario 2006. Agricultura Familiar. Primeiros Resultados. Brasil, Grandes Regioes E Unidades da Federação. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil: Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia e Estatística IBGE.Google Scholar
IBGE (2010) Censo 2010. Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia e Estatística. Available at http://censo2010.ibge.gov.br/ (accessed on June 2020).Google Scholar
ICO (2011) Volatility of prices paid to coffee growers in selected exporting countries. International Coffee Organization – ICO 107th session of the International Coffee Council, September 2011(London). Available at http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp?section=Statistics (accessed December 2018).Google Scholar
ICO (2020) Available at http://www.ico.org/historical/1990%20onwards/PDF/1a-total-production.pdf, International Coffee Organization (accessed on June 2020).Google Scholar
Keeney, RL (1982) Decision analysis: an overview. Operations Research 30, 803–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerr, BR, Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H, Dakishoni, L, Lupafya, E, Shumba, L, Luginaah, I and Snapp, S (2018) Knowledge politics in participatory climate change adaptation research on agroecology in Malawi. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 33, 238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levkoe, CZ (2018) Engaging the tensions of ecological internships: considerations for agroecology and sustainable food systems movements. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42, 242–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez-Ridaura, S, Masera, O and Astier, M (2002) Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators 2, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAPA (2015) Cafés do Brasil, Informe estatístico do café, Ministério Da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, December 2015, Secretaria de política agrícola – SPA, Departamento de crédito, recursos e riscos – DCRR. Brasilia.Google Scholar
Munda, G, Nijkamp, P and Rietveld, P (1994) Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management. Ecological Economics 10, 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opricovic, S and Tzeng, GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research 156, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paracchini, ML, Bulgheroni, C, Borreani, G, Tabacco, E, Banterle, A, Bertoni, D, Rossi, G, Parolo, G, Origgi, R and De Paola, C (2015) A diagnostic system to assess sustainability at a farm level: the SOSTARE model. Agricultural Systems 133, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peano, C, Tecco, N, Dansero, E, Girgenti, V and Sottile, F (2015) Evaluating the sustainability in complex agri-food systems: the SAEMETH framework. Sustainability 7, 6721–6741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretty, J, Noble, AD, Bossio, D, Dixon, J, Hine, RE, Penning De Vries, FWT and Morrison, JI (2006) Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology 4, 1114–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pronti, A (2018a) Agroecological farmers’ movement in Brazil. a practical example of multi-stakeholder approach for rural development. Revista Movimentos Sociais e Dinâmicas Espaciais 7, 92–114.Google Scholar
Pronti, A (2018b) Do agroecology practices help small coffee producers in income generation? A case study in Minas Gerais. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia 13, 48–59.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, J, Molnar, J, Fazio, R, Sydnor, E and Lowe, M (2009) Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: change agent perspectives. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosset, P, Machìn Sosa, BM, Roque Jaime, AM and Ávila Lozano, DR (2011) The campesino-to-campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38, 161–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabarelli, M, Pinto, LP, Silva, JMC, Hirota, M and Bedê, L (2005) Challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Conservation Biology 19, 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triantaphyllou, E (2000) Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Dordrecht: Springer Science Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Asselt, ED, van Bussel, LGJ, van der Voet, H, van der Heijden, GWAM, Tromp, SO, Rijgersberg, H, van Evert, F, Van Wagenbergd, CPA and van der Fels-Klerxa, HJ (2014) A protocol for evaluating the sustainability of agri-food production systems—a case study on potato production in peri-urban agriculture in The Netherlands. Ecological Indicators 43, 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, KD (2006) Extending agroecology: grower participation in partnerships is key to social learning. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, DCH, Ilbery, B and Maye, D (2005) Making reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative systems of food provision. Progress in Human Geography 29, 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, Y, White, R, Hu, K and Willett, I (2010) Valuing the environmental externalities of oasis farming in Left Banner, Alxa, China. Ecological Economics 69, 2151–2157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wezel, A and Soldat, V (2009) A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wezel, A, Bellon, S, Doré, T, Francis, C, Vallod, D and David, C (2009) Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarghami, M and Szidarovszky, F (2011) Multicriteria Analysis Applications to Water and Environment Management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pronti and Coccia supplementary material

Pronti and Coccia supplementary material

Download Pronti and Coccia supplementary material(File)
File 26.1 KB