Leveraging farm heterogeneity to enhance living incomes: A gender-sensitive typology of cocoa farming systems in Côte d’Ivoire

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2025.100245

Abstract

Abstract:

About 44% of the world’s cocoa is produced in one single country, Côte d’Ivoire. Providing this important raw material, most Ivorian cocoa farmers live in severe poverty, which, despite a multitude of sector interventions, is still widespread, affecting social and environmental sustainability in cocoa production. In this context, cocoa farmers are still often treated as a homogeneous group of small-scale producers (mainly males), resulting in interventions being conceptualized as one-size-fits-all approaches and failing to deliver support schemes that take farmers’ specific conditions appropriately into account. Applying a broader typology approach that combines farm characteristics with farmers’ characteristics, this study aims to delineate Ivorian cocoa farmers and their farms into specific types in order to improve advice for targeted sustainability interventions and living income (LI) potentials. Principal component analysis and hierarchical clustering analysis of a household dataset collected in 2022 in five cocoa-growing regions of Côte d’Ivoire were chosen to identify types of male-headed farms. To assure gender sensitive analysis, a female-headed farm type was created artificially. The specific characteristics of the identified types were captured using descriptive analysis. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were then applied to examine the relationships between these farm types and various outcomes. Additionally, a binary logistic model was used to estimate the probability of these links in relation to variables relevant for achieving a LI. Finally, Spearman non-parametric correlation was used to identify eventual differences in the strength of relationships between key variables per farm type. Three different types of male-headed farms are identified: type 1 (the most productive and diversified farms with larger size), type 2 (middle-sized farms with strong focus on cash crops), and type 3 (small-sized farms with a good level of diversification for self-consumption). The artificially created type 4 represents female-headed farms with the smallest size. On average, none of these farm types achieves a LI. However, type 1 shows the smallest LI gap, while type 4 is by far the worst. Our analyses reveal underlying socio-economic factors systematically disadvantaging female-headed cocoa farms, most notably limited access to land and other material assets. The key contribution of this study lies in the empirical identification of the different characteristics of farms in a given farming system, thereby identifying the need for targeted support interventions. Type-specific recommendations are made, showing pathways to provide tailored programs to farmers of different types in order to reduce their LI gaps.

Key words: Living income, Farm type, Cocoa farmers, Cash crops

Franziska OLLENDORF, Claudia CORAL, Constant Yves ADOU YAO, Stefan SIEBER, Katharina LÖHR. Leveraging farm heterogeneity to enhance living incomes: A gender-sensitive typology of cocoa farming systems in Côte d’Ivoire[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2025, 6(4): 100245.

Figures/Tables 13

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 1.

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig. 2.

Table S1

Variables with significant differences between farm types."

Category	Variable	Nature of the variable	Test
Land access and ownership	Number of other plots	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
Land access and ownership	Size of other plots	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
Socio-economic indicator	Household item: radio	Binary	Binary logistic regression
Socio-economic indicator	Household item: smartphone	Binary	Binary logistic regression
Farming practice	Hired labor task: planting	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: input application	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: fertilizer application	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: sanitary harvest	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: harvest	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: pod collection	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: pod breaking	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: fermentation	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: drying	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Hired labor task: transport	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	GAP: pruning	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	GAP: twig removal	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	GAP: sanitary harvest	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	GAP: crop protection	Binary	Binary logistic regression
	Agroforestry	Binary	Binary logistic regression
Economic indicator	Cocoa revenue per year	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Income from crop diversification	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Total household income	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Expenses for materials	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Income from cash crops	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Income from staple food crops	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Income from horticulture crops	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Income from fruit trees	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Income from livestock	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Income from oilpalm	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Cocoa yield during the main harvest season	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Cocoa yield during the minor harvest season	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Cocoa revenue per year	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Total income from on-farm diversification	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Total household on-farm income	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test
	Living income gap	Continuous	Kruskal Wallis test

Table S1

Table S2

Table S3

Table S4

Table S5

Descriptive statistics for economic performance."

Typology WARD variable		Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Standard deviation
Type 1	Cocoa yield during the main harvest season (kg)	140	12,000	1944	2201
	Cocoa yield during the minor harvest season (kg)	0	9000	686	1041
	Cocoa productivity (kg/hm²)	100	2750	581	444
	Total expenditure on cocoa farm (USD/a)	15	11,467	808	1593
	Cocoa gross margin (USD/a)	0	18,801	3004	3393
	Total income from cash crops (USD/a)	0	13,753	918	2406
	Total income from staple food crops (USD/a)	0	5055	478	831
	Total income from horticulture crops (USD/a)	0	7245	203	807
	Total income from fruit trees (USD/a)	0	320	28	59
	Total income from livestock (USD/a)	0	12,680	567	1612
	Total income from diversification (USD/a)	0	18,552	2196	3615
	Total on-farm income (USD/a)	255	26,396	5204	5235
	Living income gap (USD/a)	-20,350	5789	840	5235
Type 2	Cocoa yield during the main harvest season (kg)	70	7000	1512	1383
	Cocoa yield during the minor harvest season (kg)	0	2100	427	441
	Cocoa productivity (kg/hm²)	85	1625	478	390
	Total expenditure on cocoa farm (USD/a)	32	10,910	659	1380
	Cocoa gross margin (USD/a)	0	9941	2113	2432
	Total income from cash crops (USD/a)	0	13,143	833	1974
	Total income from staple food crops (USD/a)	0	2017	209	393
	Total income from horticulture crops (USD/a)	0	7582	154	872
	Total income from fruit trees (USD/a)	0	320	23	56
	Total income from livestock (USD/a)	0	4212	386	908
	Total income from diversification (USD/a)	0	13,143	1622	2647
	Total on-farm income (USD/a)	1095	17,906	3976	3782
	Living income gap (USD/a)	-11,860	7140	2068	3782
Type 3	Cocoa yield during the main harvest season (kg)	300	6000	1510	1105
	Cocoa yield during the minor harvest season (kg)	40	2500	499	464
	Cocoa productivity (kg/hm²)	140	1600	607	344
	Total expenditure on cocoa farm (USD/a)	3	3800	581	819
	Cocoa gross margin (USD/a)	343	9785	2393	1856
	Total income from cash crops (USD/a)	0	2022	143	394
	Total income from staple food crops (USD/a)	0	1676	238	356
	Total income from horticulture crops (USD/a)	0	876	75	152
	Total income from fruit trees (USD/a)	0	337	23	59
	Total income from livestock (USD/a)	0	3989	251	743
	Total income from diversification (USD/a)	0	4825	730	1101
	Total on-farm income (USD/a)	4474	11,655	3187	2373
	Living income gap (USD/a)	-5609	5610	2857	2373
Type 4	Cocoa yield during the main harvest season (kg)	0	3500	924	884
	Cocoa yield during the minor harvest season (kg)	0	2000	356	413
	Cocoa productivity (kg/hm²)	70	1015	426	273
	Total expenditure on cocoa farm (USD/a)	4	1530	469	380
	Cocoa gross margin (USD/a)	-122	7583	1420	1685
	Total income from cash crops (USD/a)	0	185	8	32
	Total income from staple food crops (USD/a)	0	1685	204	336
	Total income from horticulture crops (USD/a)	0	1482	90	255
	Total income from fruit trees (USD/a)	0	67	4	12
	Total income from livestock (USD/a)	0	2199	110	357
	Total income from diversification (USD/a)	0	3194	416	670
	Total on-farm income (USD/a)	56	8727	1898	1913
	Living income gap (USD/a)	-2681	5990	4147	1900

Table S5

References 54

[1]	Abdulai I., Jassogne L., Graefe S., et al., 2018. Characterization of cocoa production, income diversification and shade tree management along a climate gradient in Ghana. PLoS One. 13(4), e0195777, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195777.
[2]	Alvarez S., Paas W., Descheemaeker K., et al., 2014. Typology Construction, A Way of Dealin with Farm Diversity: General Guidelines for Humidtropics. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
[3]	Alvarez S., Timler C.J., Michalscheck M., et al., 2018. Capturing farm diversity with hypothesis-based typologies: An innovative methodological framework for farming system typology development. PLoS One. 13(5), e0194757, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194757.
[4]	Andersen E., Elbersen B., Godeschalk F., et al., 2007. Farm management indicators and farm typologies as a basis for assessments in a changing policy environment. J. Environ. Manage. 82(3), 353-362. pmid: 17126987
[5]	Asumang-Yeboah D., Ameyaw J.A.S., Acheampong E., et al., 2025. Access or exclusion to land: An overview of evolving trends in cocoa landscapes in Ghana. World Dev. Perspect. 37, 100651, doi: 10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100651.
[6]	Bah A., Laven A., 2019. Closing the income gap of cocoa households in Côte d’Ivoire - taking a gender-sensitive household approach. [2024-07-25]. https://www.kakaoforum.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Studien/2019_KIT_Closing_the_income_gap_of_cocoa_households_in_Cote_d_Ivoire_-_taking_a_gender-sensitive_household_approac.pdf.
[7]	Bahrun A., Fahimuddin M.Y., Rakian T.C., et al., 2018. Cocoa pod husk biochar reduce watering frequency and increase cocoa seedlings growth. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology. 3(5), 1635-1639.
[8]	Bartkowski B., Schüßler C., Müller B., 2022. Typologies of European farmers: approaches, methods and research gaps. Reg. Envir. Chang. 22(2), 43, doi: 10.1007/s10113-022-01899-y.
[9]	Bisseleua D.H.D., Idrissou L., Ogunniyi A., et al., 2018. Diversification and livelihood strategies in the cocoa belt of West Africa: The need for fundamental change. World Dev. Perspect. 10-12, 73-79.
[10]	Busquet M., Bosma N., Hummels H., 2021. A multidimensional perspective on child labor in the value chain: The case of the cocoa value chain in West Africa. World Dev. 146, 105601, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105601.
[11]	Bymolt R., Laven A., Tyszler M., 2018. Demystifying the cocoa sector in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. In: KIT Royal Tropical Institute. Amsterdam, Nerherlands.
[12]	Carr E.R., 2008. Men’s crops and women’s crops: The importance of gender to the understanding of agricultural and development outcomes in Ghana’s central region. World Dev. 36(5), 900-915.
[13]	Danso-Abbeam G., Baiyegunhi L.J.S., Ojo T.O., 2020. Gender differentials in technical efficiency of Ghanaian cocoa farms. Heliyon. 6(5), e04012, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04012.
[14]	Dixon J., Gulliver A., Gibbon D., et al., 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World. Rome and Washington: FAO and World Bank.
[15]	Djokoto J.G., Afari-Sefa V., Addo-Quaye A., 2017. Vegetable diversification in cocoa-based farming systems Ghana. Agric. Food Secur. 6(1), 6, doi: 10.1186/s40066-016-0082-4.
[16]	Duguma B., Gockowski J., Bakala J., 2001. Smallholder Cacao (Theobroma cacao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of West and Central Africa: challenges and opportunities. Agrofor. Syst. 51(3), 177-188.
[17]	Ferry Y., Herman M., Tarigan E.B., et al., 2022. Improvements of soil quality and cocoa productivity with agricultural waste biochar. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 974(1), 12045, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/974/1/012045.
[18]	Fontaine A., Hütz-Adams F., 2022. Cocoa Barometer. [2024-07-05]. https://voicenetwork.cc/cocoa-barometer/.
[19]	Fountain A.C., 2023. Good Purchasing Practices in Cocoa, a Barometer Consultation Paper. [2024-07-05]. https://voicenetwork.cc/resources/?_categorie_resources=sustainability-research-database.
[20]	Friedman R., Hirons M.A., Boyd E., 2019. Vulnerability of Ghanaian women cocoa farmers to climate change: a typology. Clim. Dev. 11(5), 446-458. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2018.1442806
[21]	GEFAK(Gesellschaft Für Angewandte Kommunalforschung) , 2015. Study on the state of farmer cooperatives in the cocoa sector of Côte d’Ivoire. [2024-07-25]. https://www.readkong.com/page/study-on-the-state-of-farmer-cooperatives-in-the-cocoa-7563626.
[22]	Huber R., Bartkowski B., Brown C., et al., 2024. Farm typologies for understanding farm systems and improving agricultural policy. Agric. Syst. 213, 103800, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103800.
[23]	Ingram V., Van Rijn F., Waarts Y., et al., 2018. The impacts of cocoa sustainability initiatives in West Africa. Sustainability. 10(11), 4249, doi: 10.3390/su10114249.
[24]	International Cocoa Organization, 2023. November 2023 Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics. [2024-06-30]. https://www.icco.org/november-2023-quarterly-bulletin-of-cocoa-statistics/.
[25]	Kasim N., Mustari K., Iswari I., et al., 2021. Effect of the application of chicken manure compost tea on the growth of certified cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) seedlings. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 807(4), 42050, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/807/4/042050.
[26]	Knudsen M.H., Agergaard J., 2015. Ghana’s cocoa frontier in transition: the role of migration and livelihood diversification. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B-Human Geogr. 97(4), 325-342.
[27]	Koné M., 2011. Teaching Guide to Understand, Ask the Right Questions, and Take Action on Land Issues in West Africa. [2024-06-30]. http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_fiche-document-510_fr.html (in French).
[28]	Kruskal W.H., Wallis W.A., 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47(260), 583-621.
[29]	Kuhn M., Tennhardt L., Lazzarini G.A., 2023. Gender inequality in the cocoa supply chain: Evidence from smallholder production in Ecuador and Uganda. World Development Sustainability. 2, 100034, doi: 10.1016/j.wds.2022.100034.
[30]	LeBaron G., Gore E., 2020. Gender and forced labour: Understanding the links in global cocoa supply chains. The Journal of Development Studies. 56(6), 1095-1117.
[31]	Löhr K., Aruqaj B., Baumert D., et al., 2021. Social cohesion as the missing link between natural resource management and peacebuilding: Lessons from cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire and Colombia. Sustainability. 13(23), 13002, doi: 10.3390/su132313002.
[32]	Merem E.C., Twumasi Y.A., Wesley J., et al., 2020. Exploring cocoa farm land use in the West African region. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 10(1), 19-39.
[33]	Molenaar J.W., Hütz-Adams F., Kessler J.J., et al., 2022. Price in Global Commodity Value Chains: Key to Achieving LI and Living Wage. [2024-07-10]. https://www.suedwind-institut.de/fileadmin/Suedwind/Publikationen/2023/2023_06_Price_in_Global_Commodity_Value_Chains_Key_to_Achieving_Living_Income_and_Living_Wage.pdf.
[34]	Najafabadi H.A., Ozalp N., Davis R.A., 2021. Biochar from cocoa shell pyrolysis: Potential sorbent for CO₂ capture. Journal of Energy Resources Technology. 143(2), 022302, doi: 10.1115/1.4047765.
[35]	Njuki J., Eissler S., Malapit H., et al., 2022. A review of evidence on gender equality, women’s empowerment, and food systems. Global Food Security. 33, 100622, doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100622.
[36]	Ollendorf F., Coral C., Adou Y., et al., 2023. Different households-different challenges? Understanding the impacts of cocoa producers’ household characteristics on needs and ability to apply sustainable production techniques. In: International Symposium on Cocoa Research-ISCR 2022. Montpellier: International Symposium on Cocoa Research.
[37]	Ollendorf F., 2024. The Transformative Potential of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Global Cocoa-Chocolate Chain: Insights from Sustainability Certification in Ghana. Wiesbaden: Springer.
[38]	Osorio M., Gallina A., Jaskiewicz K., et al., 2019. Changing the terms of Women’s Engagement in Cocoa and Coffee Supply Chains. Rome and Amsterdam: FAO and KIT Royal Tropical Institute.
[39]	Pierotti R.S., Friedson-Ridenour S., Olayiwola O., 2022. Women farm what they can manage: How time constraints affect the quantity and quality of labor for married women’s agricultural production in southwestern Nigeria. World Dev. 152, 105800, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105800.
[40]	ProForest, 2022. EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products: Operational Guidance for Cocoa Producers and Importers. [2024-07-22]. https://www.proforest.net/resources/publications/deforestation-due-diligence-reference-document-for-cocoa-producers-and-importers/.
[41]	Ruf F., Galo Kla A.G., Dja K., et al., 2015. Chicken Manure in the Cocoa Plantations of Côte d’Ivoire. An Agro-ecological and Social Revolution. [2024-07-22]. https://www.inter-reseaux.org/wp-content/uploads/ruf_chicken_manure_in_the_cocoa_plantations_of_cote_d_ivoire.pdf/.
[42]	Ruf F., Schroth G., 2015. Economics and Ecology of Diversification. Netherlands: Springer.
[43]	Ruf F., 2022. Covid-19, living income differential and decline in cocoa producers’ incomes in Côte d’Ivoire. Cah. Agric. 31, 25, doi: 10.1051/cagri/2022022(in French).
[44]	Sennuga S.O., Isola E.O., Dahunsi O.M., et al., 2024. Assessing the socio-economic implication of fragmented land holdings on smallholder farming communities in Ile-Oluji/Okeigbo local government area, Ondo State, Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Development and Society, Faculty of Social Science. 6(1), 50-67.
[45]	Shukla R., Agarwal A., Gornott C., et al., 2019. Farmer typology to understand differentiated climate change adaptation in Himalaya. Sci Rep. 9(1), 20375, doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56931-9. pmid: 31889158
[46]	Tham-Agyekum E.K., Boansi D., Wongnaa C.A., et al., 2023. A gender differential analysis of determinants of pesticide application in cocoa system farming of Ghana. Cogent Soc. Sci. 9(2), 2256512, doi: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2256512.
[47]	The Living Income Community of Practice, 2024. The Concept. [2024-07-05]. https://www.living-income.com/.
[48]	Tittonell P., Muriuki A., Shepherd K.D., et al., 2010. The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa - A typology of smallholder farms. Agric. Syst. 103(2), 83-97.
[49]	Tyszler M., Laven A., Bymolt R., 2019. Analysis of the income gap of cocoa producing households in Côte d’Ivoire. In: KIT Royal Tropical Institute. Amsterdam, Nerherlands.
[50]	van de Ven, G.W.J., Marinus W., et al., 2021. Living income benchmarking of rural households in low-income countries. Food Secur. 13(3), 729-749.
[51]	van Vliet J.A., Slingerland M.A., Waarts Y.R., et al., 2021. A living income for cocoa producers in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 732831, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.732831.
[52]	Voora V., Bermúdez S., Larrea C., 2019. Global Market Report:Cocoa. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
[53]	Waarts Y., Janssen V., Koster T., et al., 2024. Unlocking Targeted Approaches to Improve Household Resilience of Cocoa Farmers. The Hague: Wageningen Economic Research.
[54]	Waarts Y.R., Janssen V., Aryeetey R., et al., 2021. Multiple pathways towards achieving a living income for different types of smallholder tree-crop commodity farmers. Food Secur. 13(6), 1467-1496.

Category	Variable	Description
Farm characteristic	Total farm size
	Number of cash crops	Four cash crops (including coffee, rubber, oil palm, and cashew) were coded using a binomial code: 0.00=absence and 1.00=presence, and the results are then summed.
	Number of staple food crops	Four staple food crops (including corn, rice, manioc, and banana) were coded using a binomial code: 0.00=absence and 1.00=presence, and the results are then summed.
	Number of horticulture crops	Five horticulture crops (including okra, eggplant, pepper, cabbage, and carrot) were coded using a binomial code: 0.00=absence and 1.00=presence, and the results are then summed.
	Number of fruit trees	Five fruit tree species (including orange, avocado, mango, papaya, and grapefruit) were coded using a binomial code: 0.00=absence and 1.00=presence, and the results are then summed.
Farmer characteristic	Age of household head	The age of household head was classified into 4 options: 1.00=20-40 years, 2.00=41-60 years, 3.00=61-80 years, and 4.00=more than 81 years.
	Years of cocoa experience
	Share of cocoa income in household income	The share of cocoa income in household income was classified into 5 options: 0.00=household income does not come from cocoa income at all, 0.25=25% of household income comes from cocoa income, 0.50=50% of household income comes from cocoa income, 0.75=75% of household income comes from cocoa income, and 1.00=all household income comes from cocoa income.

Typology WARD variable (WARD_ALL)		Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Standard deviation
Type 1	Total farm size (hm²)	1.00	40.00	8.14	6.65
	Number of cash crops	0.00	4.00	1.17	0.91
	Number of staple food crops	1.00	4.00	2.83	0.83
	Number of horticulture crops	0.00	4.00	2.72	0.70
	Number of fruit trees	0.00	5.00	3.54	1.13
	Age of household head	2.00	4.00	2.88	0.53
	Years of cocoa farming experience (a)	5.00	50.00	19.55	8.84
	Share of cocoa in household income	0.25	1.00	0.63	0.20
Type 2	Total farm size (hm²)	1.00	21.00	6.73	4.10
	Number of cash crops	0.00	3.00	0.80	0.81
	Number of staple food crops	0.00	4.00	1.49	1.15
	Number of horticulture crops	0.00	3.00	0.40	0.87
	Number of fruit trees	0.00	5.00	1.67	1.46
	Age of household head	2.00	4.00	2.98	0.67
	Years of cocoa farming experience (a)	0.00	47.00	18.40	8.71
	Share of cocoa in household income	0.25	1.00	0.62	0.25
Type 3	Total farm size (hm²)	1.00	9.40	5.12	2.49
	Number of cash crops	0.00	2.00	0.43	0.58
	Number of staple food crops	0.00	4.00	2.35	1.06
	Number of horticulture crops	0.00	3.00	2.54	0.91
	Number of fruit trees	0.00	5.00	1.87	1.41
	Age of household head	2.00	4.00	3.33	0.52
	Years of cocoa farming experience (a)	9.00	52.00	29.04	11.82
	Share of cocoa in household income	0.50	1.00	0.82	0.14
Type 4	Total farm size (hm²)	1.00	15.00	5.02	2.85
	Number of cash crops	0.00	2.00	0.48	0.66
	Number of staple food crops	0.00	4.00	2.26	1.27
	Number of horticulture crops	0.00	4.00	1.85	1.41
	Number of fruit trees	0.00	5.00	1.98	1.86
	Age of household head	2.00	4.00	3.20	0.73
	Years of cocoa farming experience (a)	3.00	47.00	21.02	10.37
	Share of cocoa in household income	0.25	1.00	0.68	0.22

Farm type	Household items: radio	Household items: smartphone	GAP: pruning	GAP: twig removal	GAP: sanitary harvest	GAP: crop protection
Type 1	3.498^*** (0.396)	11.422^*** (0.626)	3.067^*** (0.360)	1.742 (0.386)	2.661^*** (0.376)	1.880 (0.440)
Type 2	2.296^** (0.403)	10.674^*** (0.638)	3.059^*** (0.380)	2.172^* (0.402)	3.181^*** (0.394)	2.263^* (0.455)
Type 3	1.582 (0.444)	2.573 (0.725)	2.508^** (0.426)	2.917^** (0.446)	2.397^** (0.440)	2.359^* (0.500)
Constant	1.444 (0.307)	0.070 (0.597)	0.567 (0.304)	0.343 (0.335)	0.382 (0.326)	0.205 (0.388)
	Hired labor task: planting	Hired labor task: input application	Hired labor task: input fertilizer	Hired labor task: sanitary harvest	Hired labor task: harvest	Hired labor task: pod collection
Type 1	0.580 (0.398)	0.366^** (0.454)	0.574 (0.406)	0.203^*** (0.455)	0.462^* (0.456)	0.237^*** (0.441)
Type 2	0.482^* (0.430)	0.374^** (0.478)	0.536 (0.438)	0.218^*** (0.478)	0.349^** (0.478)	0.407^* (0.465)
Type 3	0.215^*** (0.564)	0.117^*** (0.563)	0.300^** (0.565)	0.136^*** (0.555)	0.347^* (0.539)	0.241^*** (0.530)
Constant	1.118 (0.334)	3.500 (0.401)	0.800 (0.335)	3.500 (0.401)	3.500 (0.401)	3.000 (0.385)
	Hired labor task: pod breaking	Hired labor task: fermentation	Hired labor task: drying	Hired labor task: transport	Agroforestry
Type 1	0.329^*** (0.429)	0.185^*** (0.456)	0.249^*** (0.431)	0.442^* (0.402)	0.249^*** (0.431)
Type 2	0.360^** (0.453)	0.204^*** (0.479)	0.294^*** (0.454)	0.510 (0.428)	0.294^*** (0.454)
Type 3	0.212^*** (0.529)	0.157^*** (0.549)	0.212^*** (0.529)	0.248^*** (0.532)	0.212^*** (0.529)
Constant	2.600 (0.372)	3.500 (0.401)	2.600 (0.372)	1.400 (0.338)	2.560 (0.372)

Farm type	Mean annual income from cash crop (USD)				Mean annual income from livestock (USD)
Farm type	Coffee	Rubber	Oil	Cashew	Mean annual income from livestock (USD)
Type 1	109±280	506±1904	256±1144	23±97	552±1570
Type 2	91±245	523±1758	157±495	40±309	375±884
Type 3	80±288	13±51	35±188	12±72	244±723
Type 4	1±5	0±0	19±13	53±28	109±352
Total	83±250	353±1539	153±778	23±179	321±882

Farm type	Number of cocoa plots	Size of cocoa plots	Number of other plots	Size of other plots	Cocoa yield during the main harvest season	Cocoa yield during the minor harvest season	Cocoa productivity	Total expenditure on cocoa farms
Type 1	-0.40^**	-0.46^**	-0.27^**	-0.29^**	-0.75^**	-0.59^**	-0.36^**	-0.47^**
Type 2	-0.13	-0.31^**	0.00	-0.08	-0.62^**	-0.54^**	-0.41^*	-0.21
Type 3	-0.27	-0.36^*	-0.29	-0.34^*	-0.83^**	-0.65^**	-0.41	-0.33^*
Type 4	-0.15	-0.73^**	0.07	0.14	-0.88^**	-0.76^**	-0.34	-0.15
	Income from cash crops	Income from staple food crops	Income from horticulture crops	Income from fruit trees	Income from livestock	Household items: television	Number of household items
Type 1	-0.25^**	-0.21^*	-0.02	0.06	-0.35^**	-0.33^**	-0.28^**
Type 2	-0.43^**	-0.26^*	0.04	0.02	-0.41^**	-0.30^*	-0.18
Type 3	-0.44^**	-0.29	-0.18	0.19	-0.39^*	-0.12	-0.03
Type 4	0.03	-0.43^**	-0.38^*	-0.07	-0.41^*	-0.36^*	-0.41^*