IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2491-d755357.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potato Farming Systems from a Social-Ecological Perspective: Identifying Key Points to Increase Resilience in a High Andean Productive Landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Eliana Martinez

    (Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria AGROSAVIA, Pasto 520038, Colombia)

  • Lizeth Tatiana Luna-Mancilla

    (Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria AGROSAVIA, Pasto 520038, Colombia)

  • Housseman Steven Ramos-Zambrano

    (Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria AGROSAVIA, Pasto 520038, Colombia)

  • Ulianova Vidal-Gomez

    (Integrated Pest Management Group, Agronomy College, Campus Bogotá, National University of Colombia, Bogotá 111331, Colombia)

Abstract

Social-ecological resilience (SER), understood as the capacity to prevent, react to, and mitigate crises that affect social-ecological systems, provides an integrative framework to analyze agricultural challenges. Based on this approach, key points that affect the sustainability of productive landscapes are addressed and evaluated, providing a baseline from which to improve farming systems at different scales. Hence, the aim of this work is to assess SER in potato crops in the Nariño area in southwestern Colombia, a region where strategies to increase resilience must be implemented. Following the methodology proposed by the UNU-IAS (2014), potato producers’ thoughts and perceptions were evaluated by implementing eleven workshops in seven municipalities. Five main integrative factors (twenty indicators of resilience) were examined and scored during the assessment: (1) governance and social equity, (2) livelihood and well-being, (3) knowledge and innovation, (4) landscape diversity and ecosystem protection, and (5) agrobiodiversity and sustainable natural resource management. Participants evaluated each indicator from 1 to 5 (1 being low performance and 5 extremely good performance). The results were calculated and averaged. Prior to the assessment, participatory techniques to generate collective reflection on resilience and landscape management were performed. The results showed that farmers rated SER resilience from low to moderate (from 2.5 to 3.2), with “well-being” (2.5) and “knowledge and innovation” (2.7) being the worst-rated factors. The data evidence deficiencies in all the indicators examined. Issues that constrain SER are related to the lack of capacity to create bio-industries, small livelihood portfolios, pollution, loss of natural areas (which impacts biodiversity and ecosystem services), and the loss of ancestral knowledge. The producers requested, as short-term actions, increases in technical assistance (to promote innovation and business initiatives) and farm diversification programs (to take advantage of their native potatoes diversity). They also agreed on the need for associative figures to enhance capacity-building among producers. These findings confirm deficiencies that minimize the sustainability of this system. Actions that impact positively almost all indicators are required to improve not only productivity but also the population’s well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Eliana Martinez & Lizeth Tatiana Luna-Mancilla & Housseman Steven Ramos-Zambrano & Ulianova Vidal-Gomez, 2022. "Potato Farming Systems from a Social-Ecological Perspective: Identifying Key Points to Increase Resilience in a High Andean Productive Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2491-:d:755357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2491/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2491/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emilie Beauchamp & Nigel C. Sainsbury & Sam Greene & Tomas Chaigneau, 2021. "Aligning Resilience and Wellbeing Outcomes for Locally-Led Adaptation in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Fikret Berkes, 2017. "Environmental Governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological Systems, Resilience, and Collaborative Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Erin C. Pischke & M. Azahara Mesa-Jurado & Amarella Eastmond & Jesse Abrams & Kathleen E. Halvorsen, 2018. "Community perceptions of socioecological stressors and risk-reducing strategies in Tabasco, Mexico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(4), pages 441-451, December.
    4. Bhattarai, Basundhara & Beilin, Ruth & Ford, Rebecca, 2015. "Gender, Agrobiodiversity, and Climate Change: A Study of Adaptation Practices in the Nepal Himalayas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 122-132.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. A. T. Shruthi Gopirajan & Praveen Kumar & P. K. Joshi, 2022. "Unraveling the complex and dynamic Himalayan socio-ecological systems: a systematic review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1532-1559, February.
    2. Mikko Kurenlahti & Arto O. Salonen, 2018. "Rethinking Consumerism from the Perspective of Religion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Rao, Nitya & Singh, Chandni & Solomon, Divya & Camfield, Laura & Sidiki, Rahina & Angula, Margaret & Poonacha, Prathigna & Sidibé, Amadou & Lawson, Elaine T., 2020. "Managing risk, changing aspirations and household dynamics: Implications for wellbeing and adaptation in semi-arid Africa and India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. Anne Jerneck, 2018. "What about Gender in Climate Change? Twelve Feminist Lessons from Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Jeetendra Prakash Aryal & Tek Bahadur Sapkota & Dil Bahadur Rahut & Hom Nath Gartaula & Clare Stirling, 2022. "Gender and climate change adaptation: A case of Ethiopian farmers," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(3), pages 263-288, August.
    6. Ming Lu & Zhuolin Tan & Chao Yuan & Yu Dong & Wei Dong, 2023. "Resilience Measurements and Dynamics of Resource-Based Cities in Heilongjiang Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Xi Zhao & Yuming Liu & Wenchao Jiang & Dongri Wei, 2023. "Study on the Factors Influencing and Mechanisms Shaping the Institutional Resilience of Mega Railway Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Egamberdiev, Bekhzod, 2024. "Social capital effects on resilience to food insecurity: Evidence from Kyrgyzstan," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 36(1), pages 435-450.
    9. Targetti, Stefano & Schaller, Lena L. & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2021. "A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Federica Ravera & Victoria Reyes-García & Unai Pascual & Adam G. Drucker & David Tarrasón & Mauricio R. Bellon, 2019. "Gendered agrobiodiversity management and adaptation to climate change: differentiated strategies in two marginal rural areas of India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 455-474, September.
    11. Taraz, Vis, 2018. "Can farmers adapt to higher temperatures? Evidence from India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 205-219.
    12. Tasos Hovardas, 2021. "Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm & Fernando Schramm, 2023. "Problem Structuring Methods in Social-Ecological Systems," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 461-478, June.
    14. Melanie Zurba & Dominic Stucker & Grace Mwaura & Catie Burlando & Archi Rastogi & Shalini Dhyani & Rebecca Koss, 2020. "Intergenerational Dialogue, Collaboration, Learning, and Decision-Making in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the IUCN Intergenerational Partnership for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, January.
    15. Okura, Fumi & Budiasa, I Wayan & Kato, Tasuku, 2022. "Exploring a Balinese irrigation water management system using agent-based modeling and game theory," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    16. Per Angelstam & Terrence Bush & Michael Manton, 2023. "Challenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequences," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-58, May.
    17. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Jessica P. R. Thorn, 2022. "Environmental Policy Design and Implementation: Toward a Sustainable Society," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-10, March.
    18. Ethmadalage Dineth Perera & Magnus Moglia & Stephen Glackin, 2023. "Beyond “Community-Washing”: Effective and Sustained Community Collaboration in Urban Waterways Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    20. Marco Casazza & Francesco Gonella & Gengyuan Liu & Antonio Proto & Renato Passaro, 2021. "Physical Constraints on Global Social-Ecological Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-25, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2491-:d:755357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.