Rural finance and accounting management in small-scale farmers of Los Rios – Ecuador

Finanzas rurales y gestión contable en pequeńos agricultores de los Ríos – Ecuador

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33262/rmc.v6i1.862

Dav= id Gortaire Díaz ¹

<= !--[if gte vml 1]> = Universidad Técnica de Babahoyo, Ecuador =

= = = = = https://orcid.org/0000= -0001-7364-7305.

= = = = dgortaire@utb.edu.ec

<= span lang=3DES style=3D'letter-spacing:-.05pt'>=

Mig= dalia Díaz Chong ²

<= !--[if gte vml 1]> = Universidad Técnica de Babahoyo, Ecuador =

= = = = = = https://or= cid.org/0000-0003-3656-7001.

= = = = = mdiazc@u= tb.edu.ec

<= /o:p>

Tania Bastidas Arbeláez ³=

<= !--[if gte vml 1]> = Universidad Técnica de Babahoyo, Ecuador

<= span lang=3DES>https://orcid.org/000-0002-5731-1489.

<= span lang=3DES>tbastidasa@utb.edu.ec

<= span lang=3DES>

Julio Mora Aristega<= /span> ⁴

<= !--[if gte vml 1]> = Universidad Técnica de Babahoyo, Ecuador

<= span lang=3DES>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9928-9179.

<= span lang=3DES>jmora@utb.edu.ec

<= span lang=3DES style=3D'mso-no-proof:yes'>

RESUMEN

La provincia de Los Ríos, es una de las más importantes productivamente hablan= do, gracias a su repercusión positiva en la economía ecuatoriana y sus múltiples fincas y agroindustrias dedicadas a la producción agrícola tanto para consu= mo interno y exportación. El objetivo de esta investigación es analizar la ges= tión financiera de productores a pequeńa escala dedicados principalmente a la agricultura familiar. El estudio se llevó a cabo en la provincia de Los Río= s, donde se explican los principales problemas analizando los pros de llevar u= na gestión contable para los agricultores, así como los problemas de no manten= er registros financieros. Los datos se recopilaron a través de una encuesta semiestructurada que se realizó en productores a pequeńa escala que se dedi= can a la agricultura familiar. Se utilizó estadística descriptiva para explicar= la hipótesis principal del estudio. Como principal resultado, más del 50% de l= os productores, incluso cuando presentan ingresos bajos, tienden a llevar un registro de ingresos y gastos, de manera formal o informal, independienteme= nte de no contar con servicios de capacitación o extensión adecuados que respal= den esta gestión. Los productores de Los Ríos tienen una gran fuente de biodiversidad, lo que indica que cosechan aproximadamente 79 especies y respaldan el autoconsumo y la seguridad alimentaria. Finalmente, se present= an en la discusión implicaciones de políticas pública para la toma de decision= es.

PALABRAS = CLAVE: Finanzas rurales, contabilidad, agricultura, productores, cultivos.

ABSTRACT

Los Ríos is one of the most important provinces productively speakin= g, thanks to its positive impact on the Ecuadorian economy and its multiple fa= rms and agro-industries dedicated to agricultural production for both domestic consumption and export. This research aims to analyze the financial management of small-scale producers mainly dedicated = to family farming. The study was carried out in the province of Los Rios, wher= e it explains the main issues regarding the pros of having accounting and manage= ment for farmers and issues related to not keeping financial records. The data w= ere collected through a semi-structured survey which was carried out on small-s= cale producers who are engaged in family farming. Descriptive statistics were us= ed to explain the main hypothesis of the study. As a result, more than 50% of producers, even when presenting small incomes, tend to keep a record of inc= omes and expenses, in a formal or informal method, independently of not having proper training or extension services that support this management. Produce= rs of Los Rios have a great source of biodiversity, indicating they harvest approximately 79 species and support self-consumption and food security. Finally, public policy implications for decision-making are presented in the discussion.

KEYWORDS: Rural finance, accounting, agriculture, small-scale, producers, crops.=

INTRODUCTION

Due to globalization, financ= es have become one of the most important tools in any economic activity (Lindao = et al., 2016). However, there are people<= /span> without basic knowledge of accounting or finance, which does not allow them to keep records of incomes and expenses <= /span>(Grossma= n et al., 2014).

On the other hand, the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador in its Article 27: "Education is essential for the knowledge, the exercise <= span class=3DSpellE>of rights and the construction of a sovereign country ", consti= tutes a strategic axis for national development. However, there are several comments regarding the education (in fina= nce and accounting areas) in rural areas or the = agriculture producers. As a result, there is a clea= r need for a robust agricultural finance system in small-scale producers ADDIN CSL_CITATION {"citationItems":[{"id":"ITEM-1","itemDa= ta":{"DOI":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.= 003","ISSN":"0305-750X","abstract":"= ;Summary It has now become almost a stylized fact that sustained agricultural growth= is central to rapid poverty reduction and economic development. Yet, world pov= erty is largely concentrated in the agrarian societies, which have the potential= for agricultural productivity growth. This is particularly true for Sub-Saharan African countries, where the gaps between potential and actual yields remain high. Minimizing this gap through the promotion of modern inputs—such as fertilizer and modern seeds—has been at the core of almost all development strategies in Ethiopia. Among other initiatives, the country has promoted microfinance institutions and member-owned financial cooperatives to allevi= ate credit constraints of the smallholder farmers. This paper analyzes the impa= cts of these institutions. Using household survey data and a propensity-score-matching technique, we examine the effects that institutio= nal financial services have on farmers’ adoption of agricultural technology in Ethiopia. The results suggest that access to institutional finance has a significant positive impact on both the adoption and extent of technology u= se. However, when impacts are disaggregated by type of financial institution and farm size, heterogeneities are observed. In particular, financial cooperati= ves have a greater impact on technology adoption than microfinance institutions, and the results appear to vary depending on farm size and types of inputs. = The paper concludes with implications for policies to promote adoption of modern agricultural inputs.","author":[{"dropping-particle":"&quo= t;,"family":"Abate","given":"Gashaw Tadesse","non-dropping-particle":"","parse-na= mes":false,"suffix":""},{"dropping-particle&q= uot;:"","family":"Rashid","given":&= quot;Shahidur","non-dropping-particle":"","pa= rse-names":false,"suffix":""},{"dropping-part= icle":"","family":"Borzaga","given&= quot;:"Carlo","non-dropping-particle":"",&quo= t;parse-names":false,"suffix":""},{"dropping-= particle":"","family":"Getnet","giv= en":"Kindie","non-dropping-particle":"",= "parse-names":false,"suffix":""}],"conta= iner-title":"World Development","id":"ITEM-1","issued":{&qu= ot;date-parts":[["2016"]]},"page":"235-253&qu= ot;,"title":"Rural Finance and Agricultural Technology Adoption in Ethiopia: Does the Institutional Design of Lending Organizations Matter?","type":"article-journal","volume&quo= t;:"84"},"uris":["http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=3Dab8c6c95-c23= 6-4049-a79c-a6cf6e50e9c7"]}],"mendeley":{"formattedCita= tion":"(Abate et al., 2016)","plainTextFormattedCitation":"(Abate et = al., 2016)","previouslyFormattedCitation":"(Abate et al., 2016)"},"properties":{"noteIndex":0},"schema&= quot;:"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/cs= l-citation.json"}(Abate e= t al., 2016).

According to ESPAC (2017= ), Los Rios is one of the most important provinces in the agricultural matter because of the positive repercussions in the Ecuadorian economy, and a path that allows farmers to = use to obtain economic sustenance. Even though smallholder= farmers produce 86% of th= e country’s agricultural production, they are resource-poor and on average, own less than one hectare of land (Carrio&= #769;n & Herrera, 2012).

This could imply that a potential high credit demand (mostly coming from smallholders) that is unlikely to be approved by the banking system, because of the risk, transaction cost, and the lack = of access to adequate investment= inputs (Hoff &a= mp; Stiglitz, 1990) and even mor= e difficult for women farmer access to formal credit (Fletsch= ner & Kenney, 2014). Usually in = developing countries, the mainstream financial insti= tutions lack the capacity <= span class=3DSpellE>to serve resources to poor households and smallholder farmers (Obo, 20= 09).

Therefore, besides informal = sources, low-income households and smallholders heavily rely on financial cooperativ= es and microfinance institutions or even in informal credits, which are now the forerunners in delivering financial services to farmers (Santos-= Ordońez et al., 2017). Their contributions are no= table in lending small-uncollateralized loans, in savings mobilization, and in inculcating financial literacy in society (Motsoar= i et al., 2015).

On the other hand, those small-scale farmers are mostly = dedicated to family farming. According = to Toader &= amp; Roman (2015), family farming is a subject of great importance for the sustainable development <= span class=3DSpellE>of rural communities and = the promotion of a healthy lifestyle. family farming is a means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, past= oral, and aquaculture production= which is managed and operated by a <= span class=3DSpellE>family and predominantly = reliant on family labor, including both women’s and men’s = (FAO, 20= 14). This is the predominant form of agriculture in the food production sector for both developing and developed = countries (Juárez,= 2011). Thus, subsistence and semi-subsistence= small farms are of particular importance = in the current global agricultural policy (Davidov= a & Thomson, 2014). They are a = way of life, through which much of the rural population provides their livelihood.

The purpose <= span class=3DSpellE>of this study is to inform the financial environment<= /span> in small-scale producers in the Province of Los= Rios – Ecuador, focusing = on their issues such as contributions and = resources, accounting records,= and information systems, which could influence the development of = many families. Then, the question that guides our study is: Do small-scale producers in = the province of Los Rios keep finance methods or accounting records that could support their production activity?

Extension services are= important to create knowledge in rural areas. According to Menconi et = al. (2017), a participatory rural planning process = (PRPP) is imperative where “it is an inclusive path that aims to compare and integ= rate the expert knowledge with the local knowledge for the taking over of responsibility and shared commitments”. Therefore, Baloch &= amp; Thapa (2018) proposed strategies with a bottom-up appr= oach that have been designed through the use of participatory tools to support the generation of <= span class=3DSpellE>knowledge by voice and opinion of farmers. Menconi = et al. (2017) highlight the use = of participatory strategies, which support the improvement of the empowerment level, empirical knowledge, and = existing relationships between actors and interest groups in the territory <= span class=3DSpellE>inside the PRPP, where these agents are mainly the farmers and other participants involved in these production activities.

The article <= span class=3DSpellE>is presented according to this structure: i) introduction including<= /span> main theories that support our study, ii) methods introducing tools <= span class=3DSpellE>to collect information, iii) main results and analysis of data, and iv) discussion and conclusion= based on the hypothesis presented.

DEVELOPMENT

This study is based on a des= criptive analysis using qualitative and quantitative methods to gather and analyze d= ata.

A semi-structured questionna= ire was used to gather information about the investigation of farmer entrepreneurial types. These data were obtained from a survey conducted across the agricult= ure producers in Los Rios, which included items based on qualitative interviews. The sample was a simple random probability sampling (with confidence: 90% a= nd error: 7%), where the primary purpose of the survey was to investigate attitudes towards the production activity (farm size and products) and farm= er characteristics (demographics).

For statistical analysis, af= ter tabulating the information, the aim is to present the results of the main survey information using descriptive statistics. As the study is qualitative and quantitative-based, different types of variables are studied, such as quantitative: (number of hectares, production), dichotomous (demographics, accounting-related), scalar (agrees with… decision making, participation), = and binomials (gender, association). It was planned to carry out a structured analysis of the information obtained, to generate an explanatory model appropriate to the reality of small-scale producers in the province.

Figure 1: Sampled communities in Los Ríos=

A quantitative and qualitati= ve analysis was developed where descriptive statistics was the main tool to explain the obtained results. Mainly, the aim was to support the hypothesis with the data collected in a synthesized method. This study managed to coll= ect data in 10 different cities of the province, reaching 78 communities, where small-scale agricultural producers are concentrated, as can be seen in Figu= re 1:

The province of Los Ríos is = located in the coastal region of the country. The capital city is Babahoyo and the most populated city is Quevedo. In the province, water is an import= ant resource because it bathes its lands and makes it the most fertile area in Ecuador and from there it gets its name (Naranjo= , 2004).

According to David Sa= lazar et al. (2017), Los Ríos stands out for its agricultural activity being the main source of production, it occupies the first place in the republic in the production of cocoa and is second in the coast in the production of coffee, having also the rice production and fish= ing as important activities.

Initially, we presented some demographic information, in Table 1 are detailed the main products gathered from surveys. It should be noted they are small-scale producers because they possess approximately 1 to 15 hectares, with 6.02 hectares on average that = they use for their production. The top 10 products are mentioned as follows:

Table 1: Productive analysis of Los = Rios

Product	Percentag= e	Sale dest= ination	Household consumption
Rice	32,74%	79,6%	20,4%
Cocoa	24,66%	97,2%	2,8%=
Maize	14,80%	70,0%	30,0%
Plantain	9,42%	50,0%	50,0%
Soy	6,28%	100,0%	0,0%=
Orange	4,48%	75,0%	25,0%
Banana	3,14%	80,0%	20,0%
Tangerine	1,79%	50,0%	50,0%
Corn	1,35%	100,0%	0,0%=
Sugar cane	1,35%	33,3%	66,7%

In Table 1, producers explai= n their top ten products destined for sale and consumption, where rice, cocoa, maiz= e, plantain, and soy are the greater commodities. However, it is important to highlight = they cultivate 79 products into their production, which supports food security. According to Kennedy = et al. (2011), Species diversification su= pports adequate consumption and contributes to the nutrition of farmers, in turn improving the well-being of the community and the health and safety of its inhabitants.

Table 2: Species diversification

Mainly sa= le destined	Mainly self-consumption destined	Harvested= in family gardens	Minor har= vested crops
Rice=	58%<= /o:p>	Orange	18%<= /p>	Peppermint<= /span>	6%	Oregano	4%
Cocoa	35%<= /o:p>	Watermelo= n	17%<= /p>	Pumpkin	5%	Passionfruit	4%
Maize	25%<= /o:p>	Lemon	14%<= /p>	Yucca	5%	Soursop	3%
Banana	19%<= /o:p>	Mango	13%<= /p>	Lemongrass<= /span>	5%	Coconut	3%
Plantain	12%<= /o:p>	Melon	8%	Beans	4%	Tangerine	3%
Soy<= /p>	8%	Papaya	8%	Coriander	4%	Cherry	3%
Sugar cane	4%	Guava	8%	Aloe	3%	Tomato	3%

Instead, Table 3, collected information about the producers’ income, analyzing different categories that represent: i) poverty line, ii) minimum wage, i= ii) basic basket of goods, iv) medium income, and v) higher incomes. Also, it analyzes its family income, if they keep off-farm income, and/or agricultur= al insurance according to each construct.

Table 3: Producers’ finance accordin= g to family income

Income Interval	Family in= come	Off-farm income (Yes=3D 30.83%)	Agricultural Insurance (Yes =3D 23,31%)
$1.00 – $85	12,78%	5,88%	23,53%
$85.00 - $400.00=	48,12%	35,94%	20,31%
$400.00 - $714.00	21,80%	24,14%	27,59%
$714.00 - $1000.00	12,03%	50,00%	18,75%
Higher than $1000.00<= /span>	5,26%	28,57%	42,86%

Approximately 48.12% of prod= ucers are located on the poverty line, in which some manage to reach the basic salary, in terms of family income, however, 35.94% of these producers gener= ate off-farm income mainly in agro-industrial activities, for other large farme= rs or companies. On the other hand, the high-income ranges also show off-farm income, mostly in commercial activities or small ventures. In terms of agricultural and livestock insurance, between 18% and 28% of farmers have insurance, except for the producers who have the highest profit (greater th= an $ 1,000.00) in which 42.86% have insured their crops against adverse risks.

Table 4: Relatedness among Accounting management and family income

Income Interval	Extension Services	Technology Training	Accounting Records
Extreme poverty line = ($1.00 – $85)	28,31%	12,66%	59,72%
Poverty line ($85.00 - $400.00)	32,15%	25,66%	74,10%
Minimum wage ($400.00 - $714.00)	21,99%	30,23%	71,31%
Basic food basket ($714.00 - $1000.00)<= o:p>	19,55%	26,10%	51,50%
Higher than $1000.00<= o:p>	43,96%	86,10%	86,50%

Table 4 presents the produce= rs who could access extension services, technology training, and take accounting records to manage their production activities. The greater percentage is for producers which have income superior to $1000, where they can access extens= ion services in 43.96%, technology training in 86.10%, and carry accounting rec= ords in 86.50%, when, the intervals of extreme poverty and poverty, have minor percentages in those areas.

Table 5: Producers’ finance accordin= g to education

Education Level	Family income > min wage<= /i>	Off-farm income	Agricultural Insurance<= /p>
Incomplete School	21,4%	27,8%	33,3%
Incomplete High School	23,8%	19,4%	23,8%
Incomplete College	44,4%	50,0%	14,3%
Complete School	30,6%	22,9%	19,4%
Complete High School	48,4%	40,0%	25,8%
Complete College	75,0%	50,0%	25,0%
Post-graduate Program	100,0%	100,0%	0,0%

In Table 5, we evaluated the relationship between income and education level, where only 38.1% of survey= ed farmers report an income superior to the minimum wage, 30.8% have off-farm, income, and 23.3% keep agricultural insurance. As it was predicted, the family income increased according to the level of education, and 2= 1.4% of the surveyed producer with incomplete schools= exceed the minimum wage, while it starts to increase in percentage. <= span class=3DSpellE>However, even when the producer has completed= high school or incomplete college, no more than 50% could reach a <= span class=3DSpellE>minimum wage. The producers with complete college<= /span> and post-graduate programs= are above this percentage.

Furthermore, it is evidenced that having an off-farm income could improve income, and= it is also related to the level of education. The <= span class=3DSpellE>producers with no complete high<= /span> school are above 27.8%, <= span class=3DSpellE>while the producers with = complete high school and sup= erior levels exceed 40%. Regarding agricultural insurance is not directly related to the level of education, only 33.33% of<= /span> the surveyed producers keep insurance, whereas less than 33.33% of each educ= ation construct has included this service into their expenses.

Table 6 analyze the manageme= nt criteria according to the producers’ education level, small scales producers consider that 27.8% could access extension services, 28.8% have proper trai= ning in technology services, but, 71% of them, keep records of their activities = to use them in managerial and decision-making activities.

Table 6: Accounting management accor= ding to education level

Education Level	Extension Services	Technology Training	Accounting Records
Incomplete School	33,3%	11,1%	88,9%
Incomplete High School	23,8%	23,8%	55,0%
Incomplete College	14,3%	64,3%	78,6%
Complete School	25,0%	13,9%	65,7%
Complete High School	29,0%	36,7%	80,6%
Complete College	50,0%	61,7%	66,7%
Post-graduate Program	0,0%	100,0%	100,0%

Results show that the higher percentage is presented in producers who finished college, where 50% of producers received extension services, 61.7% have access to technological services, and 66.7% keep accountant records. For producers with post-gradua= te records, don’t have access to extension services, but are present 100% in technological training and keeping records of their activities. The minor percentages are presented for producers who haven’t completed the secondary education, they reach no more than 33% in extension services, 23.8% in technology training, however, they consider they carry records to control t= heir activities.

Conclusions

Based on local development a= nd the well-being of the community and producers, new strategies are imperative, s= uch as extension efforts by public institutions or academia focused on learning paths on issues of PC utilities, internet, and social media, implementation= of new technologies, associativity, and better innovation mechanisms for having more action within the value chain (Bada et= al., 2017).

When the farmers have a bett= er knowledge of accounting and finance management, they could improve in: i) better skills development for controlling their cu= rrent production activity, ii) boost the saving capacity of the farmers, as the ability to access to credit and, iii) contribute to higher levels of associativity, where farmers are more consolidated to work in groups and ac= cess to new benefits (Santos-= Ordońez et al., 2016). Thus, public policies must be focused on the intervention on training and other support programs for increasing the level of knowledge of farmers in the <= span class=3DSpellE>order they could generate better methods of control and accounting.

According to the farmers' perception some limitations are important to highlight, i) age and gender a= re also important for learning, they consider higher ages are not willing to learn new methods, ii) they experiment difficult barriers for accessing credit, investment,= and innovation packages, iii) they consider public and financial institution consider them risk agents, and it is difficult to manage any transaction, then, they usually hold back to try (Hoff &a= mp; Stiglitz, 1990).

We motivate further research in this area, initially, with a greater sample in every community to validate the results are = maintained. Then, extension service and education, we propose participatory rural appraisal methods based on bottom-up strategies (Solano = et al., 2018), thus, we know what the str= engths and weaknesses are and look up to solve them. <= span style=3D'mso-ansi-language:ES-EC'>Finally, methods to= keep biodiversity in their crops (Rose et= al., 2019), and better ways to get into the value chain, to promote the products, not focusing just on main products but on the additional products they present.

As reflected in these result= s, the main hypothesis of this study could be approved. Farmers keep accounting records independently from their level of education and income, in formal or informal ways. For farmers, its economy is = based and sustained on productive processes, where the availability of resources = is used to develop and elaborate products that allow them their subsistence (Parragu= ez et al., 2018).

In conclusion= , most farmers in Los Ríos = province keep a record of their economic activities= regarding their production in formal or i= nformal methods. Furthermore, their resources as capita= l and knowledge have not allowed them to properly manage their financial accounts, however, = they are trying to control them. Thus, the lack of incentives and programs that support farmers is necessary for their local development.

Additional benefits were found in this study when analyzing economic activity. The producers <= span class=3DSpellE>mention harvesting approximately 79 different plant species, among vegetables, fruits,= and herbs. This biodiversity could support food security because most products are <= span class=3DSpellE>self-consumption destined= and also, improving local (an= d even rural) development, = affecting both, farmers and the community level<= /span>.

Besides validating t= he research hypothesis, we consider it is a replicable and extrap= olated element that contributes to the generation of knowledge and innovation, by = obtaining useful and reliable qualitative results, which also improve the collective situations of the farmers and communities.

REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS

Abate, G. T., Rashid, S., Borzaga, C., & Get= net, K. (2016). Rural Finance and Agricultural Technology Adoption in Ethiopia: = Does the Institutional Design of Lending Organizations Matter? World Developm= ent, 84, 235–253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.003

Bada Carbajal, L. M., Rivas Tovar, L. = A., & Littlewood Zimmerman, H. F. (2017). Model of associativity in the production chain in Agroindustrial SMEs. Contaduría y Administración= , 62(4), 1118–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CYA.2017.06.010

Baloch, M. A., & Thapa, G. B. (201= 8). The effect of agricultural extension services: Date farmers’ case in Balochista= n, Pakistan. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, = 17(3), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSSAS.2016.05.007

Carrión, D., & Herrera, S. (= 2012). Ecuador rural del siglo XXI : soberanía alimentaria, inversión pública y política agraria.

David Salazar, Cuichán, M., Ballestero= s, C., Márquez, J., & Orbe, D. (2017). Encuesta de Superficie y Producción Agropecuaria Continua. https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web-inec/Estadisticas_agropec= uarias/espac/espac_2017/Informe_Ejecutivo_ESPAC_2017.pdf<= /p>

Davidova, S., & Thomson, K. (2014)= . Family farming in Europe: Challenges and prospects.

FAO. (2014). World Agriculture Watc= h. FAO’s Definitions of Family Farming. https://www.fao.org/world-agriculture-watch/metodologias/definiciones-y-per= spectivas-operativas/granjas-familiares/es/

Fletschner, D., & Kenney, L. (2014= ). Rural Women’s Access to Financial Services: Credit, Savings, and Insurance. In In: Quisumbing A., Meinzen-Dick R., Raney T., Croppenstedt A., Behrman J., Pete= rman A. (eds) Gender in Agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht.<= /p>

Grossman, J., Tarazi, M., Internaciona= l, F., Agr, D., Mundial, C. A., Unidas, N., Econ, A., & Unidas, N. (2014). La prestación de servicios a los pequeńos agricultores: Últimas novedades en materia de finanzas digitales. Enfoques, 94, 1–16.=

Hoff, K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1990). Imperfect information and rural credit markets: Puzzles and policy perspectives. World Bank Economic Review, 4(3), 235-250. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3989876.

Juárez, V. (2011). Agricultura Familiar Agroecológica Campesina en la Comunidad Andina. Revista Agroecología. http://www.comunidadandina.org/Upload/2011610181827revista_agroecologia.pdf=

Kennedy, G., Ballard, T., & Dop, M. (2011). Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual Dietary Divers= ity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.<= /p>

Lindao, M. F. A., Lindao, C. A. A., Ho= lguin, J. R., & Carpio, F. L. P. (2016). Modelo de sistema contable y de contr= ol para los agricultores de la comuna Loma Alta. Santa Elena, Ecuador. Obse= rvatorio de La Economía Latinoamericana, 226. https://www.eumed.net/cursecon/ecolat/ec/2016/agricultores.html<= /span>

Menconi, M. E., Grohmann, D., & Mancinelli, C. (2017). European farmers and participatory rural appraisal : A systematic literature review on experiences to optimize rural development. Land Use Policy, 60, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.007

Motsoari, C., Cloete, P. C., & van Schalkwyk, H. D. (2015). An analysis of factors affecting access to credit = in Lesotho’s smallholder agricultural sector. Development Southern Africa, 32(5), 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2015.1044077

Naranjo, M. (2004). La cultura popu= lar en el Ecuador tomo XI Los Ríos.

Obo, D. D. (2009). Microfinance in Ethiopia: elixir or poison?

Parraguez-Vergara, E., Contreras, B., = Clavijo, N., Villegas, V., Paucar, N., & Ther, F. (2018). Does indigenous and campesino traditional agriculture have anything to contribute to food sovereignty in Latin America? Evidence from Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia,= Guatemala and Mexico. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16(4–5), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1489361

Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Barnes= , A. P., Borthwick, F., Ffoulkes, C., Hall, C., Moorby, J. M., Nicholas-Davies, P., Twining, S., & Dicks, L. V. (2019). Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture: Lessons for knowledge exchange and policy. Land= Use Policy, 81, 834–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.11.001

Santos-Ordońez, A., Párraga-Lema, C., Galarza-Villamar, J., & Torres-Naranjo, M. (2016). University Extension= in Service of Rural Communities: The Case of “United we are more" communi= ty bank. Engineering Innovations for Global Sustainability: Proceedings of = the 14th Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology= , 119, 20–22. http://www.laccei.org/LACCEI2016-SanJose/meta/RP119.html=

Santos Ordońez, A., Párraga Lema, C., = Torres Naranjo, M., Galarza Villamar, J., & Calderón Vega, F. (2017). Implementación de métodos participativos para la identificación de problemáticas socioeconómicas de los agricultores: el caso de la asociación “Dios con nosotros.” Yura: Relaciones Internacionales, 115–125.=

Solano Lara, C., Fernández Crispín, A.= , & López Téllez, M. C. (2018). Participatory rural appraisal as an educational tool to empower sustainable community processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4254–4262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.20= 17.08.072

Toader, M., & Roman, G. V. (2015).= Family Farming – Examples for Rural Communities Development. Italian Oral Surge= ry, 6, 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.08.043

&= nbsp;

3D"Creative

PARA CITAR EL ARTÍCULO INDEXADO.

3D"Cuadro

&nbs= p;

Dav= id Gortaire Díaz 1

Mig= dalia Díaz Chong 2

Tania Bastidas Arbeláez 3=

Julio Mora Aristega<= /span> 4

Dav= id Gortaire Díaz ¹

Mig= dalia Díaz Chong ²

Tania Bastidas Arbeláez ³=

Julio Mora Aristega<= /span> ⁴