The Market Systems Resilience Index: A Multi-Dimensional Tool for Development Practitioners to Assess Resilience at Multiple Levels
2. Literature Review
2.1. Review of Existing Tools
2.2. The Market Systems Resilience Index
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. The SHARP Tool: Conceptual Framework
Combining MSRI and SHARP Frameworks
3.2. Developing Instruments of the MSRI
3.3. Weighting and Aggregation of Survey Responses and Determinant Scores
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Bahadur, A.V.; Ibrahim, M.; Tanner, T. Characterising resilience: Unpacking the concept for tackling climate change and development. Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, C.B.; Constas, M.A. Toward a theory of resilience for international development applications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 14625–14630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- UNISDR. 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction; United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009; Available online: https://www.undrr.org/publication/2009-unisdr-terminology-disaster-risk-reduction (accessed on 4 June 2021).
- Downing, J.; Field, M.; Ripley, M.; Sebstad, J. Market. Systems Resilience: A Framework for Measurement; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. Available online: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/Market-Systems-Resilience-Measurement-Framework-Report-Final_public-August-2019.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2021).
- Levine, E.; Vaughan, E.; Nicholson, D. Strategic Resilience Assessment Guidelines; Mercy Corps: Portland, OR, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/STRESS-Guidelines-Resilience-Mercy-Corps-2017.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- FAO. Core Indicators for Resilience Analysis: Toward an Integrated Framework to Support Harmonized Metrics; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/paragr.raphs/documents/Core_Indicators_Resilience_Analysis_Publication.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Carpenter, S.; Westley, F.; Turner, M.G. Surrogates for Resilience of Social-Ecological. Systems. Ecosystems 2005, 8, 941–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vroegindewey, R.; O’Planick, K.; Pulido, T.; Cissé, J.; Van Der Merwe, R.; Meissner, L.; Lamm; Griffin, T. Guidance for Assessing Resilience in Market. Systems; USAID Bureau for Food Security: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.marketlinks.org/resources/resource-guidance-assessing-resilience-market-systems (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Jones, L.; Constas, M.A.; Matthews, N.; Verkaart, S. Advancing resilience measurement. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 288–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahadur, A.; Peters, K.; Wilkinson, E.; Pichon, F.; Gray, K.; Tanner, T. The 3As: Tracking Resilience across BRACED; ODI: London, UK, 2015; Available online: www.odi.org/publications/9840-3as-tracking-resilience-across-braced (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- FAO. Comparison of FAO and TANGO Measures of Household Resilience and Resilience Capacity; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/paragraphs/documents/FAO_TANGO_Resilience_Measurement_Comparison_Paper.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2021).
- Choptiany, J.; Graub, B.; Phillips, S.; Colozza, D.; Dixon, J. Self-Evaluation and Holistic Assessment of Climate Resilience of Farmers and Pastoralists; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i4495e/i4495e.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
- Mercy Corps, Pahal Program–Strategic Resilience Assessment (STRESS) Report. Mercy Corps and USAID. 2019. Available online: https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/MC_Nepal_PAHAL_Program_STRESS_Report.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2021).
- GOAL. Resilience for Social Systems: R4S Toolkit, User Guidance Manual. 2019. Available online: http://resiliencenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-R4S-ToolkitD01-1.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Raworth, K. A Safe and just Space for Humanity: Can We Live within the Doughnut? Oxfam: Oxford, UK, 2012. Available online: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/safe-and-just-space-humanity (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Constas, M.; Frankenberger, T.; Hoddinott, J. Resilience Measurement Principles: Toward an Agenda for Measurement Design; Technical Series No. 1; Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group FSIN: Rome, Italy, 2014; Available online: https://www.fsinplatform.org/sites/default/files/paragraphs/documents/FSIN_TechnicalSeries_1.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- d’Errico, M.; Garbero, A.; Constas, M. Quantitative Analyses for Resilience Measurement. Guidance for Constructing Variables and Exploring Relationships among Variables; Technical Series No. 7; Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group FSIN: Rome, Italy, 2016; Available online: http://www.fsincop.net/fileadmin/user_upload/fsin/docs/resources/FSIN_TechnicalSeries_7.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- Resilience Measurement. FSIN. Available online: https://www.fsinplatform.org/index.php/resilience-measurement (accessed on 3 July 2021).
- FAO. Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis: Short Questionnaire; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/cb2348en/CB2348EN.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2021).
- FAO. RIMA-II: Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis—II; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; Available online: www.fao.org/resilience/resources/resources-detail/en/c/416587/ (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Impact in Detail. One Acre Fund. Available online: https://oneacrefund.org/impact/impact-in-detail/ (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Cabell, J.F.; Oelofse, M. An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem resilience. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choptiany, J.M.H.; International Development Enterprises (iDE). Personal Communication, 2018.
- Market Systems Diagnostic: Understanding System Health. ACDI/VOCA. Available online: https://www.acdivoca.org/what-we-do/tools/market-systems-diagnostic/ (accessed on 12 June 2021).
- Kessler, A. Assessing Systemic Change. DCED. 2021. Available online: https://www.enterprise-development.org/wp-content/uploads/4_Implementation_Guidelines_Systemic_Change.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2021).
- Ambrosino, C.; Wellstein, J.M.; Barua, B.K.; Ullah, M.H. Introducing and Operationalizing the Market System Resilience Index. In Proceedings of the Resilience Measurement, Evidence, and Learning Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 12–15 November 2018; Available online: https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.ideglobal.org/files/public/RMEL_Conference-R_MSRI_FINAL.pdf?mtime=20190610215110 (accessed on 2 October 2021).
- Henly-Shepard, S. Planting Seeds of Resilience in Humanitarian Settings: Rapid Strategic Resilience Assessment Report for the Rohingya Crisis, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. MercyCorps and IOM. 2018. Available online: https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/Mercy_Corps-IOM_Rapid_Strategic_Resilience_Assessment_Report.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013; Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 22 September 2021).
|MSRI Principle||MSRI Determinant||MSRI Description|
|1. Structure of the market||1.1 Redundancy||Surplus of market actors performing the same functions in the market system|
|1.2 Diversity||Diversity in the market system value chains, and in the available market channels|
|1.3 Functionality||Flow of goods and services in, out, and through market spaces|
|2. Connectivity of the market||2.1 Inclusion||Participation of women and other systemically excluded groups in the market system|
|2.2 Integration||Different groups’ involvement in relevant processes|
|2.3 Collaboration||Collaboration among actors across the value chain|
|3. Support of the market||3.1 Feedback loops||Ability to learn from experience through control mechanisms|
|3.2 Enabling environment||Transparent market governance is in place|
|3.3 Preparedness||Ability of the system to promptly react to disturbances|
|1. Socially self-organized|
Farmers and consumers are able to organize into grassroots networks and institutions such as co-ops, farmer’s markets, community sustainability associations, community gardens, and advisory networks
|2. Ecologically self-regulated|
Farms maintain plant cover and incorporate more perennials, provide habitat for predators and parasitoids, use ecosystem engineers, and align production with local ecological parameters
|3. Appropriately connected|
Farmers collaborate with multiple suppliers, outlets, and fellow farmers; crops planted in polycultures that encourage symbiosis and mutualism
|4. Functional and response diversity|
Heterogeneity of features within the landscape and on the farm; diversity of inputs, outputs, income sources, markets, pest controls, etc.
|5. Optimally redundant|
Planting multiple varieties of crops rather than one, keeping equipment for various crops, getting nutrients from multiple sources, capturing water from multiple sources
|6. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity|
Patchiness on the farm and across the landscape, mosaic pattern of managed and unmanaged land, diverse cultivation practices, crop rotations
|7. Exposed to disturbance|
Pest management that allows a certain controlled amount of invasion followed by selection of plants that fared well and exhibit signs of resistance
|8. Coupled with local natural capital|
Builds (does not deplete) soil organic matter, recharges water, little need to import nutrients or export waste
|9. Reflective and shared learning|
Extension and advisory services for farmers; collaboration between universities, research lefts, and farmers; cooperation and knowledge sharing between farmers; record keeping; baseline knowledge about the state of the agro-ecosystem
|10. Globally autonomous and locally interdependent|
Less reliance on commodity markets and reduced external inputs; more sales to local markets, reliance on local resources; existence of farmer co-ops, close relationships between producer and consumer, and shared resources such as equipment
|11. Honors legacy|
Maintenance of heirloom seeds and engagement of elders, incorporation of traditional cultivation techniques with modern knowledge
|12. Builds human capital|
Investment in infrastructure and institutions for the education of children and adults, support for social events in farming communities, programs for preservation of local knowledge
|13. Reasonably profitable|
Farmers and farm workers earn a livable wage; agriculture sector does not rely on distortionary subsidies
|MSRI Principle||MSRI Determinant||MSRI Description||13 Agroecosystem Indicators from SHARP at the Household Level 1|
|1. Structure of the market||1.1 Redundancy||Surplus of market actors performing the same functions in the market system||3: Appropriately connected||5: Optimally redundant|
|1.2 Diversity||Diversity in the market system value chains, and in the available market channels||6. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity||3: Appropriately connected|
|1.3 Functionality||Flow of goods and services in, out, and through market spaces||4. Functional and response diversity|
|2. Connectivity of the market||2.1 Inclusion||Participation of women and other systemically excluded groups in the market system||9. Reflective and shared learning||11. Honors legacy|
|2.2 Integration||Different groups’ involvement in relevant processes||11. Honors legacy||3: Appropriately connected|
|2.3 Collaboration||Collaboration among actors of the chain||10. Globally autonomous and locally interdependent||3: Appropriately connected|
|3. Support of the market||3.1 Feedback loops||Ability to learn from experience through control mechanisms||9. Reflective and shared learning||7. Exposed to disturbance|
|3.2 Enabling environment||Transparent market governance is in place||12. Builds human capital||1. Socially self-organized|
|3.3 Preparedness||Ability of the system to promptly react to disturbances||9. Reflective and shared learning||2. Ecologically self-regulated|
|4. Environment||4.1 Physical environment||Environmental condition of the market area||8. Coupled with local natural capital||2. Ecologically self-regulated|
|5. Financial||5.1 Financial viability of market actors||Financial sustainability of market actors’ activities||13. Reasonably profitable|
|Description||Indicator||Mandatory||Interview Questions||Response Options|
|Surplus of market actors performing the same functions in the market system||1.1.1 Multiple market actors providing inputs services||x||Do you have multiple options from your main source to buy inputs from (e.g., multiple agro-dealers)?||Yes/No|
|If your primary seller is sick, closed, or unavailable, do you have somewhere else you can go to obtain the necessary inputs?||Yes/No|
|1.1.2 Multiple market actors providing output services||x||Do you have multiple options (sources) to sell outputs from (e.g., multiple agro-dealers)?||Yes/No|
|If your primary buyer is sick, closed, or unavailable, do you have somewhere else you can go to sell?||Yes/No|
|Availability of water sources for production, cleaning, processing, etc.||1.1.3 Availability of water sources||x||What sources of water (for irrigation, drinking, and animals) do you have in a typical year?||# of types: Borehole, Cistern, Dam, Reservoir, River, Lake, Pipe/Tap, Other|
|Membership of different groups to help with agricultural production, marketing, etc.||1.1.4 Group membership||x||Select all of the activities or groups that you participate in||Farmer/Agro-pastoral field school, Agricultural producers, Livestock producers, Fisheries producers, Village savings, Safe space|
|Resilience Contributing Score||Description|
|5||The market shows these elements frequently|
|4||The market shows these elements often|
|3||The market shows these elements sometimes|
|2||The market shows these elements rarely|
|1||The market shows these elements never|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Choptiany, J.M.H.; Nicoletti, C.K.; Van Beck, L.; Seekman, V.; Henao, L.; Buchholz, N.; Parker, T.; Kothari, R.; Ullah, M.H.; O’Hara, C. The Market Systems Resilience Index: A Multi-Dimensional Tool for Development Practitioners to Assess Resilience at Multiple Levels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011210
Choptiany JMH, Nicoletti CK, Van Beck L, Seekman V, Henao L, Buchholz N, Parker T, Kothari R, Ullah MH, O’Hara C. The Market Systems Resilience Index: A Multi-Dimensional Tool for Development Practitioners to Assess Resilience at Multiple Levels. Sustainability. 2021; 13(20):11210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011210Chicago/Turabian Style
Choptiany, John Michael Humphries, Christopher Kevin Nicoletti, Lindsay Van Beck, Victoria Seekman, Lina Henao, Natasha Buchholz, Tejovan Parker, Rakesh Kothari, Md. Hedyiet Ullah, and Corey O’Hara. 2021. "The Market Systems Resilience Index: A Multi-Dimensional Tool for Development Practitioners to Assess Resilience at Multiple Levels" Sustainability 13, no. 20: 11210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011210