Assessment of sustainability in cocoa farms in Ecuador: application of a multidimensional indicator-based framework

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study area. Source: Author’s own creation.

Table 1. Types of capital and variables used to characterize the rural livelihoods of cocoa farmers.

Capital	Variables
Human and social	Ethnicity; gender; age; household members; education of household head; training; youth and child labor; membership in an association; trust in neighbors; COVID-19 infection.
Natural	Farm area (ha); cocoa area (ha); forest area (ha); pastureland (ha); area of other crops (ha); existence of natural water sources; diversity of crops.
Physical and financial	Internet access; land property rights; cell phone; motorcycle or car; chainsaw; grass strimmer; distance from the farm to a city (km); type of access road; access to credit; receives government subsidies; off-farm income; indebtedness; farm income covers debt payments.

Source: Author’s own creation.

Table 2. Indicators applied in the assessment of cocoa farm sustainability in the study area.

Dimension	Subdimension	Indicator	Description
Environmental	Biodiversity	Crops	Number of crops
		Animals	Number of animals
		Connectivity	Degree of connectivity between the agro-ecosystem and the landscape
	Risk of erosion	Row orientation	Cocoa row routing in relation to slope
	Soil conservation	Soil management	Soil alteration and % of soil covered by residues and crops
		Recycling	Level of recycling of crop residues and by-products
	Environmental efficiency	Water saving	Number of water-saving technologies applied
		Renewable energy	Production and use of renewable energy
	Management practices	Fertilization	Fertilizers applied
		Pest and disease control	Use of chemical pesticides
Economic	Economic risk	Productive activities	Number of sales (diversification)
		Commercialization	Number of commercialization channels
		Income stability	Income variability and ability to recover from shocks
		Vulnerability	Mechanisms to reduce vulnerability (e.g. insurance and loans)
	Value chain	Producer cooperation	Cooperation with producer organizations
		Negotiation power	Bargaining power in the market and relationship with consumers
	Economic viability	Indebtedness	Indebtedness and repayment capacity
		Economic profitability	Profits/Total assets
		Cost-benefit analysis	Benefits/Production costs
		Poverty	Monthly income per capita (USD)
Social	Satisfaction of basic needs	Basic services	Access to basic services (electricity and drinking water)
		Education	Level of education
	Working conditions and generational change	Working conditions	Level of satisfaction with labour conditions (salary and risks)
		Generational change	Abandonment of agricultural activity and emigration
	Ecological awareness	Knowledge and ecological awareness	Farmers’ environmental awareness
Nutrition and health	Adequate nutrition	Coverage of food needs	Provision of the household’s food needs
		Diversity and quality of nutrition	Quality of food
	Health	Hygiene and safety	Safety of facilities and hygiene on farms
		Health access and coverage of medical centres	Proximity and coverage of medical centres
Governance	Rule of law	Land tenure	Land rights and conflict resolution
		Law enforcement	Law enforcement effectiveness
		Transparency and corruption	Transparency and corruption in the municipal government
	Participation	Governance of land and natural resources	Participation of producers in land and natural resource governance
		Participation in networks and organizations	Participation of producers in local organizations
		Women’s empowerment	Women’s participation in decision-making and access to resources

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 3. Variables with significant differences in human and social capital between fine flavour and CCN-51 cocoa farmers.

Variable		Fine flavour cocoa	CCN-51 cocoa	p-value
Ethnicity (%)	Indigenous	0.00	1.00	0.0004
	Montubio	59.00	29.00
	Mestizo	41.00	70.00
Age (years)		57.7	48.54	0.0001
Education (years)		7.67	9.54	0.0017
Membership of an association (%)	Yes	99.00	39.00	<0.0001
	No	1.00	61.00

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 4. Variables with significant differences in natural capital between fine flavour and CCN-51 cocoa farms.

Variable		Fine flavour cocoa	CCN-51 cocoa	p-value
Total farm area (ha)		4.60	9.89	<0.0001
Cocoa cultivation (ha)		1.82	2.62	0.0009
Other crops (ha)		1.25	4.28	<0.0001
Existence of natural water sources on the farm (%)	Yes	40.00	96.00	<0.0001
	No	60.00	4.00

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 5. Variables with significant differences in physical and financial capital between fine flavour and CCN-51 cocoa farmers.

Variable		Fine flavour cocoa	CCN-51 cocoa	p-value
Has motorcycle or car (%)	Yes	47.00	84.00	<0.0001
	No	53.00	16.00
Has grass strimmer (%)	Yes	29.00	75.00	<0.0001
	No	71.00	25.00
Distance from the farm to a city (km)		6,28	12.83	0.0003
Type of access road	Gravel	28.00	41.00	0.0002
	Stone	24.00	11.00
	Asphalt	48.00	17.00
Has debts (%)	Yes	32.00	61.00	0.0003
	No	68.00	39.00
Farm income covers debt payments (%)	Yes	17.00	57.00	<0.0001
	No	83.00	43.00

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 6. Sustainability performance of farms growing fine flavour and CCN-51 cocoa.

Note: Red signifies bad performance; orange signifies fair performance; yellow signifies medium performance; and green signifies good performance. Indicators showing significant differences between fine flavour and CCN-51 cocoa are indicated in bold (* indicates statistically significant difference p<0.01, 99% confidence).

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Figure 2. Ranking of CCN-51 and fine flavor cocoa production systems according to sustainability performance variables at the subdimension level. Note: Biodiversity (ES1), Risk of erosion (ES2), Soil conservation (ES3), Environmental efficiency (ES4), Management practices (ES5), Economic risk (ECS1), Value chain (ECS2), Economic viability (ECS3), Satisfaction of basic needs (SS1), Working conditions and generational change (SS2), Ecological awareness (SS3), Adequate nutrition (NHS1), Health (NHS2), Rule of law (GS1), and Participation (GS2). Source: Authors’ own creation.

Figure 3. Frequency distribution of CCN-51 and fine flavour cocoa farms on the discriminant axis adjusted based on the sustainability subdimensions. Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 7. Weights of the subdimensions of sustainability in the discriminant function between fine flavour and CCN-51 cocoa farms.

Subdimension of sustainability	Code	Discriminant function
Risk of erosion	ES2	-0.34
Environmental efficiency	ES4	-0.31
Adequate nutrition	NHS1	−0.31
Soil conservation	ES3	−0.19
Working conditions and generational change	SS2	−0.19
Biodiversity	ES1	−0.18
Economic viability	ECS3	−0.16
Governance and participation	GS2	−0.12
Value chain	ECS2	−0.05
Ecological awareness	SS3	−0.02
Rule of law	GS1	0.11
Economic risk	ECS1	0.23
Satisfaction of basic needs	SS1	0.28
Health	NHS2	0.32
Management practices	ES5	0.96

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Table 8. Links between capital theory variables and sustainability performance (PC1).

Capital theory variable		Measure of association		p-value
		Measure	Spearman’s correlation coefficient
Human and social
Gender	F		−0.74	0.0072
	M		0.44
Member of an association	Yes		0.43	0.0003
	No		−1.25
Natural
Total farm area (ha)			0.21	0.0074
Area of pastureland (ha)			0.21	0.0059
Area of forest (ha)			0.22	0.0035
Existence of wild animals	Yes	0.23		0.0003
	No	−2.07
Physical and financial
Distance from farm to city (km)			−0.19	0.0100
Internet access	Yes	0.33		0.0018
	No	−0.78
Access to credit	Yes	0.73		<0.0001
	No	−0.9

Note: Only significant correlations. P-values are <0.01, showing 99% confidence.

Source: Authors’ own creation.

Data availability statement

Data used in this research are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.