Crop rotation

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No effect on production	1	24	4.17%
	female	Production increased	23	24	95.83%
	male	No effect on production	2	20	10%
	male	Production increased	18	20	90%
Type 2	female	No effect on production	7	87	8.05%
		Production decreased	1		1.15%
		Production increased	79		90.8%
	male	No effect on production	9	104	8.65%
	male	Production increased	95	104	91.35%
Type 3	female	No effect on production	2	23	8.7%
		Production increased	20		86.96%
		Yes	1		4.35%
	male	No effect on production	3	31	9.68%
	male	Production increased	28	31	90.32%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	17	24	70.83%
Type 1	male	Yes	17	20	85%
Type 2	female	Yes	75	87	86.21%
Type 2	male	Yes	90	104	86.54%
Type 3	female	Yes	17	23	73.91%
Type 3	male	Yes	25	31	80.65%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	21	24	87.5%
Type 1	male	Yes	19	20	95%
Type 2	female	Yes	39	87	44.83%
Type 2	male	Yes	49	104	47.12%
Type 3	female	Yes	11	23	47.83%
Type 3	male	Yes	18	31	58.06%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	20	24	83.33%
Type 1	male	Yes	18	20	90%
Type 2	female	Yes	70	87	80.46%
Type 2	male	Yes	93	104	89.42%
Type 3	female	Yes	20	23	86.96%
Type 3	male	Yes	27	31	87.1%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	23	24	95.83%
Type 1	male	Yes	20	20	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	81	87	93.1%
Type 2	male	Yes	99	104	95.19%
Type 3	female	Yes	20	23	86.96%
Type 3	male	Yes	28	31	90.32%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes, I decided alone	4	24	16.67%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	20	24	83.33%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	15	20	75%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	5	20	25%
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	88	2.27%
		Yes, I decided alone	29		32.95%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	57		64.77%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	2	105	1.9%
		Yes, I decided alone	64		60.95%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	39		37.14%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	6	30	20%
		Yes, I decided alone	6		20%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	18		60%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	18	31	58.06%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	13	31	41.94%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No, I just helped	17	24	70.83%
	female	Yes, I did most	7	24	29.17%
	male	No, I just helped	7	20	35%
	male	Yes, I did most	13	20	65%
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	88	1.14%
		No, I just helped	48		54.55%
		Yes, I did most	39		44.32%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	105	0.95%
		No, I just helped	21		20%
		Yes, I did most	83		79.05%
Type 3	female	No, I did not do anyhing	7	30	23.33%
		No, I just helped	16		53.33%
		Yes, I did most	7		23.33%
	male	No, I just helped	4	31	12.9%
	male	Yes, I did most	27	31	87.1%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent less time	4	24	16.67%
		Spent more time	15		62.5%
		The same amount of time	5		20.83%
	male	Spent less time	5	20	25%
		Spent more time	8		40%
		The same amount of time	7		35%
Type 2	female	Spent less time	13	87	14.94%
		Spent more time	34		39.08%
		The same amount of time	40		45.98%
	male	Spent less time	13	104	12.5%
		Spent more time	29		27.88%
		The same amount of time	62		59.62%
Type 3	female	Spent more time	6	23	26.09%
	female	The same amount of time	17	23	73.91%
	male	Spent less time	3	31	9.68%
		Spent more time	4		12.9%
		The same amount of time	24		77.42%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	15	17	88.24%
Type 1	male	Yes	17	17	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	66	75	88%
Type 2	male	Yes	83	90	92.22%
Type 3	female	Yes	11	17	64.71%
Type 3	male	Yes	24	25	96%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	male	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	7	14.29%

Improved varieties

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No effect on production	2	17	11.76%
	female	Production increased	15	17	88.24%
	male	No effect on production	1	15	6.67%
	male	Production increased	14	15	93.33%
Type 2	female	I can?t say because it was new	2	75	2.67%
		Production decreased	2		2.67%
		Production increased	71		94.67%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	3	94	3.19%
	male	Production increased	91	94	96.81%
Type 3	female	I can?t say because it was new	1	9	11.11%
		No effect on production	1		11.11%
		Production increased	7		77.78%
	male	No effect on production	1	10	10%
		Production decreased	1		10%
		Production increased	8		80%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	2	17	11.76%
Type 1	male	Yes	2	15	13.33%
Type 2	female	Yes	66	76	86.84%
Type 2	male	Yes	76	94	80.85%
Type 3	female	Yes	6	9	66.67%
Type 3	male	Yes	8	10	80%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	14	17	82.35%
Type 1	male	Yes	14	15	93.33%
Type 2	female	Yes	29	76	38.16%
Type 2	male	Yes	36	94	38.3%
Type 3	female	Yes	3	9	33.33%
Type 3	male	Yes	5	10	50%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	4	17	23.53%
Type 1	male	Yes	7	14	50%
Type 2	female	Yes	61	76	80.26%
Type 2	male	Yes	81	93	87.1%
Type 3	female	Yes	9	9	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	10	10	100%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	14	17	82.35%
Type 1	male	Yes	15	15	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	72	76	94.74%
Type 2	male	Yes	89	92	96.74%
Type 3	female	Yes	9	9	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	9	10	90%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	16	12.5%
		Yes, I decided alone	3		18.75%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	11		68.75%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	9	15	60%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	6	15	40%
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	77	2.6%
		Yes, I decided alone	18		23.38%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	57		74.03%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	2	94	2.13%
		Yes, I decided alone	54		57.45%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	38		40.43%
Type 3	female	Yes, I decided alone	2	9	22.22%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	7	9	77.78%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	2	11	18.18%
		Yes, I decided alone	4		36.36%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	5		45.45%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No, I just helped	13	17	76.47%
	female	Yes, I did most	4	17	23.53%
	male	No, I just helped	6	15	40%
	male	Yes, I did most	9	15	60%
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	77	1.3%
		No, I just helped	48		62.34%
		Yes, I did most	28		36.36%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	95	1.05%
		No, I just helped	19		20%
		Yes, I did most	75		78.95%
Type 3	female	No, I just helped	6	9	66.67%
	female	Yes, I did most	3	9	33.33%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	11	9.09%
	male	Yes, I did most	10	11	90.91%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent less time	7	17	41.18%
		Spent more time	8		47.06%
		The same amount of time	2		11.76%
	male	Spent less time	7	14	50%
		Spent more time	3		21.43%
		The same amount of time	4		28.57%
Type 2	female	Spent less time	15	76	19.74%
		Spent more time	25		32.89%
		The same amount of time	36		47.37%
	male	Spent less time	23	94	24.47%
		Spent more time	27		28.72%
		The same amount of time	44		46.81%
Type 3	female	Spent more time	2	9	22.22%
	female	The same amount of time	7	9	77.78%
	male	Spent more time	4	10	40%
	male	The same amount of time	6	10	60%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	2	50%
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	54	64	84.38%
Type 2	male	Yes	69	74	93.24%
Type 3	female	Yes	5	6	83.33%
Type 3	male	Yes	8	8	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	3	4	75%

Integrated nutrient

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Production increased	1	1	100%
Type 2		I can?t say because it was new	1	45	2.22%
		Production decreased	1		2.22%
		Production increased	43		95.56%
	male	No effect on production	2	56	3.57%
		Production decreased	2		3.57%
		Production increased	52		92.86%
Type 3	female	Production increased	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Production increased	1	1	100%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	41	46	89.13%
Type 2	male	Yes	45	55	81.82%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	1	100%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	27	46	58.7%
Type 2	male	Yes	23	55	41.82%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	41	45	91.11%
Type 2	male	Yes	49	56	87.5%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	1	100%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	46	46	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	51	53	96.23%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	1	100%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes, I decided alone	1	1	100%
Type 2		No I did not participate in the decision	2	47	4.26%
		Yes, I decided alone	13		27.66%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	32		68.09%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	57	1.75%
		Yes, I decided alone	36		63.16%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	20		35.09%
Type 3	female	Yes, I decided alone	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	1	100%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes, I did most	1	1	100%
Type 2		No, I did not do anyhing	2	48	4.17%
		No, I just helped	26		54.17%
		Yes, I did most	20		41.67%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	57	1.75%
		No, I just helped	9		15.79%
		Yes, I did most	47		82.46%
Type 3	female	Yes, I did most	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes, I did most	1	1	100%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent less time	1	1	100%
Type 2		Spent less time	7	46	15.22%
		Spent more time	35		76.09%
		The same amount of time	4		8.7%
	male	Spent less time	3	56	5.36%
		Spent more time	43		76.79%
		The same amount of time	10		17.86%
Type 3	female	Spent more time	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Spent more time	1	1	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	33	41	80.49%
Type 2	male	Yes	40	46	86.96%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	1	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	male	Yes	1	4	25%

Intercropping

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	No effect on production	16	69	23.19%
		Production decreased	1		1.45%
		Production increased	52		75.36%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	1	79	1.27%
		No effect on production	18		22.78%
		Production decreased	2		2.53%
		Production increased	58		73.42%
Type 3	female	No effect on production	8	30	26.67%
		Production decreased	1		3.33%
		Production increased	21		70%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	1	34	2.94%
		No effect on production	13		38.24%
		Production increased	20		58.82%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	52	70	74.29%
Type 2	male	Yes	56	79	70.89%
Type 3	female	Yes	20	30	66.67%
Type 3	male	Yes	21	34	61.76%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	26	71	36.62%
Type 2	male	Yes	25	79	31.65%
Type 3	female	Yes	14	30	46.67%
Type 3	male	Yes	19	33	57.58%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	70	71	98.59%
Type 2	male	Yes	77	79	97.47%
Type 3	female	Yes	30	30	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	31	33	93.94%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	68	69	98.55%
Type 2	male	Yes	77	79	97.47%
Type 3	female	Yes	28	29	96.55%
Type 3	male	Yes	29	33	87.88%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	4	74	5.41%
		Yes, I decided alone	24		32.43%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	46		62.16%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	3	81	3.7%
		Yes, I decided alone	43		53.09%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	35		43.21%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	8	34	23.53%
		Yes, I decided alone	9		26.47%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	17		50%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	35	2.86%
		Yes, I decided alone	21		60%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	13		37.14%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	3	73	4.11%
		No, I just helped	40		54.79%
		Yes, I did most	30		41.1%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	2	80	2.5%
		No, I just helped	16		20%
		Yes, I did most	62		77.5%
Type 3	female	No, I did not do anyhing	4	33	12.12%
		No, I just helped	18		54.55%
		Yes, I did most	11		33.33%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	35	2.86%
		No, I just helped	10		28.57%
		Yes, I did most	24		68.57%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Spent less time	11	71	15.49%
		Spent more time	32		45.07%
		The same amount of time	28		39.44%
	male	Spent less time	9	77	11.69%
		Spent more time	35		45.45%
		The same amount of time	33		42.86%
Type 3	female	Spent less time	4	30	13.33%
		Spent more time	12		40%
		The same amount of time	14		46.67%
	male	Spent less time	4	34	11.76%
		Spent more time	15		44.12%
		The same amount of time	15		44.12%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	40	53	75.47%
Type 2	male	Yes	49	53	92.45%
Type 3	female	Yes	13	19	68.42%
Type 3	male	Yes	21	21	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	2	3	66.67%
Type 2	male	Yes	3	5	60%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	1	100%

Mulching

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Production increased	3	3	100%
Type 2	female	Production increased	5	5	100%
	male	Production decreased	1	10	10%
		Production increased	9	10	90%
Type 3		Production increased	3	3	100%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	5	5	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	9	11	81.82%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	3	3	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	2	5	40%
Type 2	male	Yes	5	11	45.45%
Type 3	male	Yes	2	3	66.67%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	4	5	80%
Type 2	male	Yes	11	11	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	5	5	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	11	11	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes, I decided alone	3	3	100%
Type 2		No I did not participate in the decision	3	8	37.5%
		Yes, I decided alone	1		12.5%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	4		50%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	9	11	81.82%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	2	11	18.18%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	1	1	100%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	4	25%
		Yes, I decided alone	1		25%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	2		50%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes, I did most	3	3	100%
Type 2		No, I did not do anyhing	3	8	37.5%
		No, I just helped	4		50%
		Yes, I did most	1		12.5%
	male	Yes, I did most	10	10	100%
Type 3	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	1	100%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	4	25%
	male	Yes, I did most	3	4	75%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent more time	3	3	100%
Type 2		Spent more time	4	5	80%
		The same amount of time	1	5	20%
	male	Spent less time	1	11	9.09%
		Spent more time	10	11	90.91%
Type 3		Spent more time	3	3	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	3	5	60%
Type 2	male	Yes	8	9	88.89%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	3	4	75%
Type 1	male	Yes	3	8	37.5%
Type 2	female	Yes	8	13	61.54%
Type 2	male	Yes	2	11	18.18%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	6	16.67%

No/reduced tillage

{r} valueBox("CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)", caption = " ", icon=" ")

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Production increased	2	2	100%
Type 1	male	Production increased	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	I can?t say because it was new	2	54	3.7%
		No effect on production	12		22.22%
		Production decreased	1		1.85%
		Production increased	39		72.22%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	4	68	5.88%
		No effect on production	9		13.24%
		Production decreased	1		1.47%
		Production increased	54		79.41%
Type 3	female	I can?t say because it was new	1	2	50%
	female	No effect on production	1		50%
	male	Production increased	2		100%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	39	51	76.47%
Type 2	male	Yes	51	67	76.12%
Type 3	female	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	2	50%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	28	54	51.85%
Type 2	male	Yes	33	68	48.53%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	2	50%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	2	50%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	41	54	75.93%
Type 2	male	Yes	57	65	87.69%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	2	50%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	2	50%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	50	53	94.34%
Type 2	male	Yes	63	68	92.65%
Type 3	female	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	2	50%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	3	66.67%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	1	3	33.33%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	1	53	1.89%
		Yes, I decided alone	20		37.74%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	32		60.38%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	2	68	2.94%
		Yes, I decided alone	42		61.76%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	24		35.29%
Type 3	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	2	2	100%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1		50%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	1		50%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	3	33.33%
	female	No, I just helped	2	3	66.67%
	male	Yes, I did most	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	54	1.85%
		No, I just helped	29		53.7%
		Yes, I did most	24		44.44%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	69	1.45%
		No, I just helped	7		10.14%
		Yes, I did most	61		88.41%
Type 3	female	No, I just helped	1	2	50%
	female	Yes, I did most	1		50%
	male	Yes, I did most	2		100%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent less time	2	2	100%
Type 1	male	Spent less time	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Spent less time	31	52	59.62%
		Spent more time	15		28.85%
		The same amount of time	6		11.54%
	male	Spent less time	48	68	70.59%
		Spent more time	16		23.53%
		The same amount of time	4		5.88%
Type 3	female	Spent more time	1	2	50%
	female	The same amount of time	1		50%
	male	Spent less time	1		50%
	male	Spent more time	1		50%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	32	41	78.05%
Type 2	male	Yes	44	52	84.62%
Type 3	female	Yes	2	2	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	male	Yes	5	7	71.43%
Type 2	female	Yes	2	7	28.57%
Type 2	male	Yes	5	6	83.33%
Type 3	male	Yes	2	5	40%

Home gardens

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Production increased	5	5	100%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	2	19	10.53%
		No effect on production	1		5.26%
		Production decreased	3		15.79%
		Production increased	13		68.42%
Type 3	female	Production increased	1	1	100%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	4	4	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	14	19	73.68%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	4	5	80%
Type 2	male	Yes	12	19	63.16%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	4	4	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	15	19	78.95%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	5	5	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	14	19	73.68%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes, I decided alone	3	5	60%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	2	5	40%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	21	4.76%
		Yes, I decided alone	13		61.9%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	7		33.33%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	1	2	50%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	1	2	50%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	1	100%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes, I did most	5	5	100%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	2	21	9.52%
		No, I just helped	5		23.81%
		Yes, I did most	14		66.67%
Type 3	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	2	50%
	female	No, I just helped	1	2	50%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	1	100%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Spent less time	2	5	40%
	female	The same amount of time	3	5	60%
	male	Spent less time	3	19	15.79%
		Spent more time	7		36.84%
		The same amount of time	9		47.37%
Type 3	female	The same amount of time	1	1	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	3	4	75%
Type 2	male	Yes	10	14	71.43%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	2	50%

Organic fertilizer

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No effect on production	1	18	5.56%
	female	Production increased	17	18	94.44%
	male	Production increased	16	16	100%
Type 2	female	No effect on production	1	85	1.18%
	female	Production increased	84	85	98.82%
	male	No effect on production	2	98	2.04%
		Production decreased	2		2.04%
		Production increased	94		95.92%
Type 3	female	I can?t say because it was new	1	18	5.56%
		No effect on production	2		11.11%
		Production increased	15		83.33%
	male	No effect on production	4	19	21.05%
	male	Production increased	15	19	78.95%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	6	18	33.33%
Type 1	male	Yes	7	17	41.18%
Type 2	female	Yes	76	85	89.41%
Type 2	male	Yes	84	97	86.6%
Type 3	female	Yes	14	19	73.68%
Type 3	male	Yes	16	19	84.21%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	16	18	88.89%
Type 1	male	Yes	12	16	75%
Type 2	female	Yes	34	84	40.48%
Type 2	male	Yes	38	97	39.18%
Type 3	female	Yes	9	18	50%
Type 3	male	Yes	6	19	31.58%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	4	18	22.22%
Type 1	male	Yes	7	17	41.18%
Type 2	female	Yes	62	84	73.81%
Type 2	male	Yes	77	99	77.78%
Type 3	female	Yes	13	19	68.42%
Type 3	male	Yes	10	19	52.63%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	17	18	94.44%
Type 1	male	Yes	17	17	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	79	85	92.94%
Type 2	male	Yes	90	99	90.91%
Type 3	female	Yes	18	19	94.74%
Type 3	male	Yes	16	19	84.21%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes, I decided alone	3	18	16.67%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	15	18	83.33%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	11	17	64.71%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	6	17	35.29%
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	1	87	1.15%
		Yes, I decided alone	28		32.18%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	58		66.67%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	100	1%
		Yes, I decided alone	58		58%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	41		41%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	18	11.11%
		Yes, I decided alone	5		27.78%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	11		61.11%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	7	19	36.84%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	12	19	63.16%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No, I just helped	8	18	44.44%
	female	Yes, I did most	10	18	55.56%
	male	No, I just helped	8	17	47.06%
	male	Yes, I did most	9	17	52.94%
Type 2	female	No, I just helped	48	85	56.47%
	female	Yes, I did most	37	85	43.53%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	97	1.03%
		No, I just helped	16		16.49%
		Yes, I did most	80		82.47%
Type 3	female	No, I just helped	11	18	61.11%
	female	Yes, I did most	7		38.89%
	male	No, I just helped	8		44.44%
	male	Yes, I did most	10		55.56%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent less time	1	18	5.56%
		Spent more time	15		83.33%
		The same amount of time	2		11.11%
	male	Spent less time	2	16	12.5%
		Spent more time	11		68.75%
		The same amount of time	3		18.75%
Type 2	female	Spent less time	11	87	12.64%
		Spent more time	68		78.16%
		The same amount of time	8		9.2%
	male	Spent less time	10	99	10.1%
		Spent more time	71		71.72%
		The same amount of time	18		18.18%
Type 3	female	Spent more time	11	19	57.89%
	female	The same amount of time	8	19	42.11%
	male	Spent less time	1	18	5.56%
		Spent more time	12		66.67%
		The same amount of time	5		27.78%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	6	6	100%
Type 1	male	Yes	7	7	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	70	78	89.74%
Type 2	male	Yes	77	87	88.51%
Type 3	female	Yes	12	14	85.71%
Type 3	male	Yes	14	16	87.5%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	6	16.67%
Type 1	male	Yes	5	5	100%
Type 2		Yes	2	3	66.67%
Type 3		Yes	1	9	11.11%

Tree planting

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	I can?t say because it was new	1	7	14.29%
		No effect on production	3		42.86%
		Production increased	3		42.86%
	male	No effect on production	4	9	44.44%
	male	Production increased	5	9	55.56%
Type 2	female	I can?t say because it was new	5	48	10.42%
		No effect on production	7		14.58%
		Production decreased	1		2.08%
		Production increased	35		72.92%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	9	63	14.29%
		No effect on production	10		15.87%
		Production decreased	1		1.59%
		Production increased	43		68.25%
Type 3	female	I can?t say because it was new	5	13	38.46%
		No effect on production	2		15.38%
		Production increased	6		46.15%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	4	12	33.33%
		No effect on production	1		8.33%
		Production increased	7		58.33%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	2	7	28.57%
Type 1	male	Yes	2	9	22.22%
Type 2	female	Yes	35	46	76.09%
Type 2	male	Yes	41	62	66.13%
Type 3	female	Yes	7	13	53.85%
Type 3	male	Yes	8	12	66.67%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	2	7	28.57%
Type 1	male	Yes	4	9	44.44%
Type 2	female	Yes	16	48	33.33%
Type 2	male	Yes	25	62	40.32%
Type 3	female	Yes	5	13	38.46%
Type 3	male	Yes	4	12	33.33%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	3	7	42.86%
Type 1	male	Yes	5	9	55.56%
Type 2	female	Yes	36	45	80%
Type 2	male	Yes	53	61	86.89%
Type 3	female	Yes	10	13	76.92%
Type 3	male	Yes	10	12	83.33%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	4	7	57.14%
Type 1	male	Yes	8	9	88.89%
Type 2	female	Yes	43	48	89.58%
Type 2	male	Yes	56	62	90.32%
Type 3	female	Yes	12	13	92.31%
Type 3	male	Yes	12	12	100%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	8	25%
		Yes, I decided alone	3		37.5%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	3		37.5%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	9	9	100%
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	3	50	6%
		Yes, I decided alone	18		36%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	29		58%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	2	63	3.17%
		Yes, I decided alone	42		66.67%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	19		30.16%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	14	14.29%
		Yes, I decided alone	3		21.43%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	9		64.29%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	9	11	81.82%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	2	11	18.18%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No, I did not do anyhing	2	9	22.22%
		No, I just helped	4		44.44%
		Yes, I did most	3		33.33%
	male	No, I just helped	2		22.22%
	male	Yes, I did most	7		77.78%
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	3	51	5.88%
		No, I just helped	28		54.9%
		Yes, I did most	20		39.22%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	2	63	3.17%
		No, I just helped	6		9.52%
		Yes, I did most	55		87.3%
Type 3	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	14	7.14%
		No, I just helped	11		78.57%
		Yes, I did most	2		14.29%
	male	No, I just helped	1	12	8.33%
	male	Yes, I did most	11	12	91.67%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent less time	2	7	28.57%
	female	Spent more time	5	7	71.43%
	male	Spent more time	8	9	88.89%
	male	The same amount of time	1	9	11.11%
Type 2	female	Spent less time	6	47	12.77%
		Spent more time	36		76.6%
		The same amount of time	5		10.64%
	male	Spent less time	5	60	8.33%
		Spent more time	47		78.33%
		The same amount of time	8		13.33%
Type 3	female	Spent less time	4	12	33.33%
		Spent more time	7		58.33%
		The same amount of time	1		8.33%
	male	Spent more time	12		100%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	2	50%
Type 1	male	Yes	2	2	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	27	36	75%
Type 2	male	Yes	33	39	84.62%
Type 3	female	Yes	4	7	57.14%
Type 3	male	Yes	8	8	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	2	14	14.29%
Type 1	male	Yes	8	8	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	3	10	30%
Type 2	male	Yes	9	13	69.23%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	12	8.33%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	11	27.27%

Water (earth bund)

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Production increased	2	2	100%
Type 1	male	Production increased	6	6	100%
Type 2	female	Production increased	9	9	100%
	male	Production decreased	1	17	5.88%
	male	Production increased	16	17	94.12%
Type 3	female	Production increased	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Production increased	3	3	100%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	3	33.33%
Type 1	male	Yes	1	6	16.67%
Type 2	female	Yes	7	10	70%
Type 2	male	Yes	9	16	56.25%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	3	3	100%
Type 1	male	Yes	6	6	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	6	10	60%
Type 2	male	Yes	11	15	73.33%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	7	10	70%
Type 2	male	Yes	10	17	58.82%
Type 3	male	Yes	2	3	66.67%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	3	3	100%
Type 1	male	Yes	6	6	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	10	10	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	16	17	94.12%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No I did not participate in the decision	2	4	50%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	2	4	50%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	6	6	100%
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	1	10	10%
		Yes, I decided alone	5		50%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	4		40%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	17	5.88%
		Yes, I decided alone	12		70.59%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	4		23.53%
Type 3	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	1	1	100%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	4	25%
		Yes, I decided alone	2		50%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	1		25%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	4	25%
	female	No, I just helped	3	4	75%
	male	No, I just helped	3	6	50%
	male	Yes, I did most	3	6	50%
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	11	9.09%
		No, I just helped	6		54.55%
		Yes, I did most	4		36.36%
	male	No, I just helped	3	17	17.65%
	male	Yes, I did most	14	17	82.35%
Type 3	female	No, I just helped	1	1	100%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	1	4	25%
	male	Yes, I did most	3	4	75%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent more time	3	3	100%
Type 1	male	Spent more time	6	6	100%
Type 2	female	Spent less time	2	10	20%
		Spent more time	5		50%
		The same amount of time	3		30%
	male	Spent less time	2	17	11.76%
		Spent more time	13		76.47%
		The same amount of time	2		11.76%
Type 3	female	Spent more time	1	1	100%
Type 3	male	Spent more time	2	2	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 1	male	Yes	1	1	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	7	7	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	6	9	66.67%
Type 3	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	1	11	9.09%
Type 1	male	Yes	8	8	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	1	8	12.5%
Type 2	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Water (planting pits)

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	No effect on production	1	3	33.33%
	female	Production increased	2		66.67%
	male	Production increased	3		100%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	3	3	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	1	3	33.33%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	male	Yes	1	3	33.33%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	3	3	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	2	3	66.67%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	3	3	100%
Type 2	male	Yes	3	3	100%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes, I decided alone	1	4	25%
	female	Yes, it was a joint decision	3	4	75%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	3	3	100%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	1	1	100%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	4	25%
	female	No, I just helped	3	4	75%
	male	Yes, I did most	3	3	100%
Type 3	female	No, I did not do anyhing	1	1	100%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Spent less time	1	3	33.33%
	female	Spent more time	2	3	66.67%
	male	Spent more time	2	2	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	2	3	66.67%
Type 2	male	Yes	1	1	100%

Row

Participatin in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	1	2	50%
Type 2	male	Yes	2	2	100%

Water (ties ridges)

Row

CSA perceived effects (gender dissagregated not HH level)

Row

Effect on production

Type	gender	Effect on production	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No effect on production	1	23	4.35%
	female	Production increased	22	23	95.65%
	male	No effect on production	2	22	9.09%
	male	Production increased	20	22	90.91%
Type 2	female	I can?t say because it was new	3	75	4%
		No effect on production	9		12%
		Production decreased	2		2.67%
		Production increased	61		81.33%
	male	I can?t say because it was new	1	89	1.12%
		No effect on production	9		10.11%
		Production decreased	2		2.25%
		Production increased	77		86.52%
Type 3	female	I can?t say because it was new	1	23	4.35%
		No effect on production	4		17.39%
		Production increased	18		78.26%
	male	No effect on production	7	24	29.17%
	male	Production increased	17	24	70.83%

Row

Effect on Aditional income generation

Type	gender	Aditional income generation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	5	23	21.74%
Type 1	male	Yes	8	22	36.36%
Type 2	female	Yes	58	74	78.38%
Type 2	male	Yes	72	96	75%
Type 3	female	Yes	16	23	69.57%
Type 3	male	Yes	17	25	68%

Row

Effect on Food security

Type	gender	Effect on Food security	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	21	23	91.3%
Type 1	male	Yes	18	22	81.82%
Type 2	female	Yes	34	74	45.95%
Type 2	male	Yes	44	96	45.83%
Type 3	female	Yes	13	23	56.52%
Type 3	male	Yes	16	25	64%

Row

Effect on Food diversity

Type	gender	Effect on Food diversity	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	11	23	47.83%
Type 1	male	Yes	9	21	42.86%
Type 2	female	Yes	65	75	86.67%
Type 2	male	Yes	85	95	89.47%
Type 3	female	Yes	23	23	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	23	25	92%

Row

Effect on climate resilience

Type	gender	Effect on climate resilience	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	21	22	95.45%
Type 1	male	Yes	22	22	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	69	75	92%
Type 2	male	Yes	85	94	90.43%
Type 3	female	Yes	23	23	100%
Type 3	male	Yes	23	25	92%

Row

Gender

Row

who participates in the decision to implement?

Type	gender	who participates in the decision to implement?	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No I did not participate in the decision	4	25	16%
		Yes, I decided alone	3		12%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	18		72%
	male	Yes, I decided alone	19	22	86.36%
	male	Yes, it was a joint decision	3	22	13.64%
Type 2	female	No I did not participate in the decision	4	81	4.94%
		Yes, I decided alone	31		38.27%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	46		56.79%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	3	97	3.09%
		Yes, I decided alone	68		70.1%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	26		26.8%
Type 3	female	No I did not participate in the decision	8	26	30.77%
		Yes, I decided alone	6		23.08%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	12		46.15%
	male	No I did not participate in the decision	1	25	4%
		Yes, I decided alone	15		60%
		Yes, it was a joint decision	9		36%

Row

Level of participation in practice implementation

Type	gender	Level of participation in practice implementation	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	No, I did not do anyhing	2	24	8.33%
		No, I just helped	18		75%
		Yes, I did most	4		16.67%
	male	No, I just helped	6	22	27.27%
	male	Yes, I did most	16	22	72.73%
Type 2	female	No, I did not do anyhing	6	81	7.41%
		No, I just helped	40		49.38%
		Yes, I did most	35		43.21%
	male	No, I did not do anyhing	2	96	2.08%
		No, I just helped	15		15.62%
		Yes, I did most	79		82.29%
Type 3	female	No, I did not do anyhing	4	27	14.81%
		No, I just helped	18		66.67%
		Yes, I did most	5		18.52%
	male	No, I just helped	4	25	16%
	male	Yes, I did most	21	25	84%

Row

Impact on labour

Type	gender	Impact on labour	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Spent less time	1	23	4.35%
		Spent more time	20		86.96%
		The same amount of time	2		8.7%
	male	Spent less time	1	22	4.55%
		Spent more time	15		68.18%
		The same amount of time	6		27.27%
Type 2	female	Spent less time	21	76	27.63%
		Spent more time	38		50%
		The same amount of time	17		22.37%
	male	Spent less time	28	95	29.47%
		Spent more time	46		48.42%
		The same amount of time	21		22.11%
Type 3	female	Spent less time	4	23	17.39%
		Spent more time	13		56.52%
		The same amount of time	6		26.09%
	male	Spent less time	7	25	28%
		Spent more time	15		60%
		The same amount of time	3		12%

Row

Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income

Type	gender	Participation in decision making on the use of additional CSA income	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 1	female	Yes	4	5	80%
Type 1	male	Yes	7	7	100%
Type 2	female	Yes	49	59	83.05%
Type 2	male	Yes	67	70	95.71%
Type 3	female	Yes	11	16	68.75%
Type 3	male	Yes	17	17	100%

Row

Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption

Type	gender	Participation in decision making relating to dis-adoption	n	N	Porcentaje
Type 2	female	Yes	4	7	57.14%
Type 2	male	Yes	2	3	66.67%
Type 3	female	Yes	1	5	20%
Type 3	male	Yes	1	2	50%