4.1 Article

Sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District of Ghana

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indic.2021.100121

关键词

Sustainability; Farming systems; Organic; Cocoa; Ghana

资金

  1. Dutch Humanist Institute for Cooperation (Hivos)
  2. Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC)
  3. Mercator Foundation Switzerland through the ProEcoAfrica project
  4. Mercator Foundation Switzerland through the OFSA project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research found that organic cocoa farming systems in Ghana perform better in terms of environmental sustainability compared to conventional systems, and also have advantages in terms of economic, social, and environmental aspects. Organic farming systems have smaller farm sizes, require more manual labor, and are more diverse in crop cultivation.
The potential of organic agriculture to contribute to sustainable development in Ghana is unclear. This article assesses the sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Ghana. Data was collected from 398 organic and conventional cocoa farmers using the SMART-Farm tool. Compared to conventional cocoa farming systems, we found a higher environmental sustainability performance in organic cocoa farming systems regarding water withdrawal (+29%), species diversity (+26%), land degradation (+24%), genetic diversity (+24%) and greenhouse gases (+22%). The organic farming systems performed better compared to conventional in profitability (+20%) due to market premiums, gender equity (+27%), and verbally committed to sustainability topics (+25%). Agronomic practices had a strong influence on the observed sustainability performance, especially the environmental performance. Typical organic cocoa farming system has small farm sizes, spends more hours weeding manually since chemical weedicides are prohibited and has more diverse crops. Measures to improve performance is paramount for farming systems sustainability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据