Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience Analysis
2. Case Study: Analysing the Resilience of Food Security to Climate Change in Guatemala
- What would you like to get from the small-scale maize production system?
- In this context, what does resilience of food security to climate change mean?
- What are the critical success factors of policies enhancing food security?
- endogenously driven: the observed effects of disturbances affecting the system are the result of the functional links between its different elements. Adaptation emerges from the mechanisms the system has to regulate itself and can only be enhanced by strengthening them . The solution to the problem is within the system boundaries.
- exogenously driven: the disturbance affecting the system comes from outside the system and, to adapt to the new conditions introduced, the system needs of external interventions that “push” it back to its equilibrium state. The solution is outside the system boundaries.
- chaos: the uncertainty about the disturbance affecting the system and complexity of the system itself are perceived so high that it is impossible to identify links between actions (outside or within the system) and their consequences. The solution is unknown.
2.3.1. Strategic Agendas
- Central Government (CG): The purpose of the analysis is to identify how to increase the household’s wealth and particularly the money available to buy food so that households can afford enough food even when droughts reduce the yields of maize in the region.
- Non-Governmental Organization (NGO): The purpose of the analysis is to identify how to enhance crop productivity so that households can produce food and revenues constantly despite the droughts. Note that in the words of the NGO delegates, crop productivity is understood as the amount of crop (not exclusively maize) produced from each Guatemalan Quetzal invested by the farmers.
- Academics (AC): The purpose of the analysis is to identify how to increase maize yields and reserves as a mean to prevent starvation by increasing farmers revenues and food supply to the region.
- Farmers (F): The purpose of the analysis is to identify how to increase food production (not limited to maize or crops in general) and maize reserves to have food year round.
2.3.2. Causal Loop Diagrams
2.3.3. Influence-Interest Grid
3. Complications of the PSP in the Analysis of Resilience
3.1. Constructing an Interpretation of Resilience
“The obvious cause of the problem is the deficiencies the communities face to access water…. This is why that, now that droughts are becoming more common, farmers face more problems.”(Academic delegate 1)
“You see, there are several complications in the situation of these poor people because their culture doesn't let them move forward. They use the same techniques they have been using since pre-colonial times. They have no formal education. You know that most of them cannot read. It is really difficult to teach them and change their minds. We need to make an effort to provide them with the right seeds and the proper instruction to use them well.”(NGO delegate 2)
“The government is committed to provide a sustainable and plausible solution by providing the fertilizers they (farmers) need to increase their productivity and become more competitive…. Once they (farmers) level up with the market, the food affordability should be a natural condition.”(Central government delegate 2)
“The problem is you don’t know if the yield is going to be good or not…. Now you never know…. If the yield goes bad, we lost the money we spent on seeds and fertilizers.”(Farmer delegate 4)
“The weather now cannot be predicted…. You gamble every time you plant.”(Farmer delegate 1)
3.2. Negotiating the Scope of Analysis
3.3. What Are the Potential Implications?
3.4. Potential Avenues for Mitigation
Conflicts of Interest
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2016 The State of Food and Agriculture. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tendall, D.M.; Joerin, J.; Kopainsky, B.; Edwards, P.; Shreck, A.; Le, Q.B.; Kruetli, P.; Grant, M.; Six, J. Food system resilience: De fining the concept Resilience Sustainability. Glob. Food Secur. 2015, 6, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, B.M.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Corner-Dolloff, C.; Girvetz, E.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Rosenstock, T.; Sebastian, L.; Thornton, P.K.; et al. Reducing risks to food security from climate change. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 11, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, B.; Carpenter, S.; Anderies, J.; Abel, N.; Cumming, G.; Janssen, M.; Norberg, J.; Peterson, G.D. Pritchard, R. Resilience Management in Social-ecological Systems: A Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach. Conserv. Ecol. 2002, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holling, C.S.; Gunderson, L.H. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Gallopín, G.C. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maleksaeidi, H.; Karami, E. Social-ecological resilience and sustainable agriculture under water scarcity. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2013, 37, 262–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duit, A. Resilience Thinking: Lessons for Public Administration. Public Adm. 2015, 92, 364–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pizzo, B. Problematizing resilience: Implications for planning theory and practice. Cities 2015, 43, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolley, A.R.N.; Pidd, M. Problem Structuring? A Literature Review. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1981, 32, 197–206. [Google Scholar]
- Shaw, D.; Westcombe, M.; Hodgkin, J.; Montibeller, G. Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2004, 55, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weingart, L.R.; Bennett, R.J.; Brett, J.M. The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 504–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinlan, A.E.; Berbés-Blázquez, M.; Haider, L.J.; Peterson, G.D. Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cote, M.; Nightingale, A.J. Resilience thinking meets social theory, Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 475–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, G. The nature of personal constructs. Psychol. Pers. Constr. 1955, 1, 105–183. [Google Scholar]
- Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J.R. Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1994, 13, 1881–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merriam, S.B. Introduction to qualitative research. In Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- World Food Programme. Countries-Guatemala; World Food Programme: Guatemala, Guateamala, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Guardiola, J.; Cano, V.G.; Pol, J.L.V. La Seguridad Alimentaria: Estimación de Índices de Vulnerabilidad en Guatemala; VIII Reunión de Economía Mundial; Universidad de Alicante: Alicante, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Bouroncle, C.; Imbach, P.; Läderach, P.; Rodirguez, B.; Medellin, C.; Fung, E.; Martinez-Rodriguez, R.; Donatti, C.I. La Agricultura de Guatemala y el Cambio Climático: ¿Dónde Están Lasprioridades Para la Adaptación? CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Copenhague, Dinamarca, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE). Caracterización Estadística República de Guatemala 2012; INE: Guatemala, Guatemala, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Camposeco, M.; Thomas, M.; Kreynmar, W. Huehuetenango en Cifras; Centro de Estudios y Documentación de la Frontera Occidental de Guatemala (CEDFOG): Guatemala, Guatemala, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lane, D.C. The Emergence and Use of Diagramming in System Dynamics: A Critical Account. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2008, 25, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, G.P. Problems with causal-loop diagrams. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1986, 2, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vennix, J.A.M. Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1999, 15, 379–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luna-Reyes, L.F.; Andersen, D.L. Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: Methods and models. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2003, 19, 271–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randers, J. Guidelines for model conceptualization. In Elements of the System Dynamics Method; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980; pp. 117–139. [Google Scholar]
- Ingram, J.; Ericksen, P.; Liverman, D. Food Security and Global Environmental Change; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, G. A Brief Introduction to Personal Construct Theory. In International Handbook of Personal Construct Psychology; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2003; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
- Eden, C. Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1994, 10, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doyle, J.K.; Ford, D.N. Mental models concepts revisited: Some clarifications and a reply to Lane. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1999, 15, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnhofer, I.; Bellon, S.; Dedieu, B.; Milestad, R. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Sustain. Agric. 2011, 2, 45–58. [Google Scholar]
- Mayumi, K.; Giampietro, M. The epistemological challenge of self-modifying systems: Governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 382–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Funtowicz, S.; Ravetz, J.R. Emergent complex systems. Futures 1994, 26, 568–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebel, L.; Anderies, J.M.; Campbell, B.; Folke, C. Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Larsen, R.K.; Calgaro, E.; Thomalla, F. Governing resilience building in Thailand’s tourism-dependent coastal communities: Conceptualising stakeholder agency in social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksen, S.H.; Nightingale, A.J.; Eakin, H. Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 35, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Anderies, M.J.; Abel, N. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 2001, 4, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, N.A.; Marshall, P.A. Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Social Resiliance within Commercial Fisheries in Northern Australia. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nightingale, A.J. “The experts taught us all we know”: Professionalisation and knowledge in Nepalese community forestry. Antipode 2005, 37, 581–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, G. Political ecology and ecological resilience: An integration of human and ecological dynamics. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 35, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adger, W.N.; Arnell, N.W.; Tompkins, E.L. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005, 15, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Größler, A. System Dynamics projects that failed to make an impact. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2007, 23, 437–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ackermann, F. Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 219, 652–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vennix, J.A.M. Group Model Building; John Willey and Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Eden, C.; Ackermann, F. Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making. Gr. Decis. Negot. 2001, 10, 119–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco, L.A.; Montibeller, G. Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 205, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, K.K.; Fisher, K.T.; Dickson, M.E.; Thrush, S.F.; Le Heron, R. Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouwette, E.A.J.A.; Vennix, J.A.M.; Felling, A.J.A. On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: An attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Gr. Decis. Negot. 2009, 18, 567–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akkermans, H.A.; Vennix, J.A.M. Clients’ opinions on group model-building: An exploratory study. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1997, 13, 3–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duit, A.; Galaz, V.; Eckerberg, K.; Ebbesson, J. Governance, complexity, and resilience. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, O.R. Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 378–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, K. Global environmental change and migration: Governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 402–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Stakeholder Group||Number of Delegates Participating||Background|
|Central Government (CG)||4||Agronomists Policymakers|
|Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)||3||Agronomist Project Managers|
|Farmers (F)||6||Maize Farmers|
|Academics (AC)||2||Agronomist Professor Researcher|
|What would you like to get out from the small-scale maize production system?||Increase households’ wealth||X||X||X||X|
|Produce food for locals||X||X||X||X||X||X|
|In this context, what resilience of food security to climate change means?||Being able to afford food even when droughts||X||X||X||X|
|Produce food constantly in despite of the droughts||X||X||X||X||X||X||X||X|
|Don’t starve during the bad years||X|
|Have always enough food||X||X||X||X||X||X|
|What are the critical success factors of policies enhancing food security?||Money available for purchasing food||X||X||X|
© 2017 by the author. 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Herrera, H. Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience Analysis. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071196
Herrera H. Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience Analysis. Sustainability. 2017; 9(7):1196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071196Chicago/Turabian Style
Herrera, Hugo. 2017. "Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience Analysis" Sustainability 9, no. 7: 1196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071196