Next Article in Journal
Individual Recognition of a Group Beef Cattle Based on Improved YOLO v5
Previous Article in Journal
Combination of Vrn Alleles Assists in Optimising the Vernalization Requirement in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/agriculture15131390
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nature-Based Solutions Contribute to Improve the Adaptive Capacity of Coffee Farmers: Evidence from Mexico

by
Patricia Ruiz-García
1,
Alejandro Ismael Monterroso-Rivas
2 and
Ana Cecilia Conde-Álvarez
1,*
1
Instituto de Ciencias de la Atmósfera y Cambio Climático, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Investigación Científica s/n, C.U., Coyoacán, Ciudad de México 04510, Mexico
2
Departamento de Suelos, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Km. 38.5 Carretera México-Texcoco, Chapingo, Texcoco 56230, Estado de México, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(13), 1390; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131390
Submission received: 13 May 2025 / Revised: 24 June 2025 / Accepted: 26 June 2025 / Published: 28 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agriculture and Global Climate Change: Threats, Challenges and Adaptations)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Climate change is affecting farmers’ livelihoods and their ability to adapt. Therefore, solutions for adaptation and resilience are required. The objective of the work was to assess how nature-based solutions contribute to improving the adaptive capacity of farmers, taking coffee production in Mexico as a case study. It followed the theoretical approach of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, which involves identifying the capacities, resources, and activities that a population possesses, considering the following six dimensions: natural, social, human, economic, physical, and political. A rapid systematic review was carried out to identify measurement indicators for each dimension. A semi-structured survey was constructed to collect information on the indicators in the field. The surveys were administered to a sample of 60 randomly selected farmers who utilized various management types incorporating nature-based solutions, including diversified polyculture, simple polyculture, and simplified shade. In addition, farmers who do not use nature-based solutions and who grow coffee in full sun were considered. An index of adaptive capacity was then calculated for each coffee agroecosystem assessed, and finally, actions were proposed to strengthen the livelihood dimensions and increase the adaptive capacity of farmers. It was found that farmers using the management types diverse polyculture and simple polyculture had an average value of the adaptive capacity index classified as high (15.06 and 11.61, respectively). Farmers using the simplified shade management type had an average index value classified as medium (8.59). Whereas, farmers producing coffee in full sun were classified with low adaptive capacity in the average index value (−0.49). The results obtained in this research can contribute to informed government decision making (local, state, or federal) in generating policies to improve or design nature-based solutions in the agricultural sector, thereby increasing the adaptive capacity of producers in the face of climate variability.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Current and future climate variability pose a significant challenge for agricultural producers worldwide, impacting their livelihoods and ability to adapt to these changes [1,2]. Under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) data, the mean annual temperature in Mexico is projected to increase by up to 6 °C in the distant future (2081–2100) [3]. In Central America, precipitation is projected to decrease in all seasons except autumn [4]. These expected changes in climatic characteristics are likely to intensify the regional hydrological cycle [5], exacerbate the risk of plant water stress [6], and increase the population exposed to climate extremes [7].
These climate changes can have profound impacts on the development and phenology of crops, including coffee cultivation, as important effects on flowering and fruiting are predicted [8]. Furthermore, in coffee cultivation, it is estimated that the risks of the incidence of pests and diseases, such as rust (Hemileia vastatrix) and coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei), may increase [8,9]. These impacts will lead to a reduction in the income of small-scale coffee farmers due to a decrease in the quantity and/or quality of coffee, coupled with an increased risk of droughts, fires, and storms, which will increase the costs of growing, harvesting, and processing coffee [10].
These conditions highlight the need for effective solutions to promote adaptation and resilience [11,12]. Nature-based solutions (NbS) emerge as an alternative to address current challenges in food production.
NbS are “actions focused on protecting, conserving, restoring and sustainably managing natural or modified resources, which address social, economic and environmental challenges in an effective and adaptive manner, while providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience, and biodiversity benefits” [13]. NbS are, therefore, able to address the impacts of climate change and promote sustainable agricultural systems. Adopting NbS on agricultural land should be a mandatory approach to address global challenges, such as climate change adaptation and mitigation, as well as biodiversity degradation and loss [14]. NbS are promising adaptation actions in the agricultural sector in developing countries due to their potential cost-effectiveness and multiple benefits [15]. These benefits are fundamental to strengthening farmers’ livelihoods and increasing their adaptive capacity (AC).
This paper defines AC as the “potential ability of people and communities to moderate, take advantage of the opportunities, and cope with the consequences of the adverse effects of climate change” [3]. The AC of people and communities is, therefore, a function of both the potential they have to cope with the negative impacts of climate change and their ability to take advantage of its possible positive effects. AC has gained prominence on the political and scientific agenda over the last two decades, as it is a necessary condition for achieving adaptation in line with the priority needs of people and communities in the face of climate change [16]. By assessing adaptive capacity, the strengths and weaknesses in people’s and communities’ livelihoods can be identified, enabling the generation of adaptation actions that enable farmers to cope with the adverse effects of current and future climate change in Mexico [17].
The link between NbS and response in AC is still being studied. Some efforts have focused on highlighting local and traditional knowledge in NbS [18], while others have emphasized the potential benefits of productive diversification [19], as well as soil improvement [20] and integrated water management [21]. To a lesser extent, community participation in NbS has been studied [22] relating to government support or governance [23]. However, there is a lack of specific research to determine the effectiveness of NbS in improving producers’ AC [24], particularly in the face of climate change.
According to Chausson et al. [25], the effectiveness of NbS can vary according to the level of economic development, the region, and the type of agroecosystem management. Furthermore, evidence-based, measurable targets and actions have not yet been entirely generated with data collected in the field [26]. There is a need to assess the effectiveness of NbS in increasing farmers’ AC, considering the type of management of different agroecosystems and identifying farmers’ strengths and weaknesses [2].
Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess whether NbS contributes to improving the AC of coffee farmers in Mexico by obtaining an index of adaptive capacity to design strategies to increase the AC of farmers who require it. The hypothesis is that establishing NbS in coffee agroecosystems improves farmers’ AC and contributes to their adaptation to a changing climate, while sustainably managing the coffee agroecosystem. The study was conducted in the central zone of Veracruz, renowned in Mexico for its high-quality coffee production. There, producers have been implementing NbS for several years in various types of management, allowing them to gather evidence that will enable them to achieve their objective and test the hypothesis.
To meet the stated objective, the theoretical approach of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework was followed, which consists of identifying the capacities (skills and talents), resources (economic, physical, natural, human, social, and political), and activities (income) that a population has and uses to pursue its well-being and resilience in the face of climate variability [27].
According to Hoang et al. [27], the sustainable livelihoods framework focuses on identifying dimensions, which are measured by indicators to obtain composite indices that provide information on people’s potential to cope with climate change. In this way, a baseline of the adaptive capacity of coffee farmers to cope with climate change can be obtained. The advantage of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework over other methods is that it seeks to understand people’s livelihoods in their context and to decide together with the population on ways to improve their livelihoods and cope with the adverse effects of climate change [28].
After selecting the theoretical framework of sustainable livelihoods, a rapid systematic review was conducted to identify measurement indicators in each livelihood dimension (natural, social, human, economic, physical, and political). A semi-structured interview was constructed to collect indicator information in the field from a sample of 60 farmers with different coffee agroecosystems. Subsequently, the adaptive capacity index was calculated for each coffee agroecosystem assessed. Finally, actions were proposed to strengthen the livelihood dimensions and increase the adaptive capacity of farmers in the face of climate change.
This evaluation aims to fill the information gap on the relevance of NbS for improving farmers’ AC and provide quantitative evidence that will allow decision makers to maintain, improve, and replicate NbS in different farming systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was carried out in the organization “Unión Regional de Pequeños productores de Café S.S.S.” located in the municipality of Huatusco, in the state of Veracruz (Figure 1). This organization was chosen, because they have been producing organic coffee in agroforestry systems with different types of management (diverse polyculture, simple polyculture, and simplified shade) for more than 30 years. These systems are closely related to the community’s culture, traditional knowledge, and collective action [29]. The organization comprises 1800 producers.
It is worth noting that the municipality where the study area is located is considered one of the primary coffee-growing areas in the state of Veracruz, as producers consistently obtain yields above the state and national averages [30]. Nationally, the yield per hectare is 1.1 t/ha; in the state of Veracruz, it is 1.5 t/ha; while in the municipality of Huatusco, the average yield is 1.8 t/ha [30]. This means that Huatusco is one of the most productive coffee regions in Mexico, which is the tenth-largest coffee producer in the world, with an estimated production of 3845 bags in 2022 [30].
This region is also characterized by the production of specialty coffees, mainly organic Coffea arabica [29], which is exported to specialty markets, primarily in Europe, making Mexico the world’s leading supplier of specialty organic coffee [29]. This allows producers in the study area to add greater value to their production, so it is necessary to develop strategies that enable producers to increase their AC and maintain specialty coffee cultivation in the region in the face of current and future climate variability.
The mean annual temperature in the study area is 18 °C, and the total annual precipitation is 1700 mm. The region’s current climatic conditions have become increasingly extreme, characterized by longer-lasting warm periods, more frequent extreme minimum temperatures, and a slight increase in days with rainfall exceeding 10 and 20 mm [31]. To cope with these extreme climatic conditions, coffee producers undertake common (collective) actions, such as using and conserving tree and shrub species in coffee agroecosystems. They also perform individual actions, such as fences and living barriers (Table 1) [31]. These collective and individual actions are considered as NbS [32].

2.2. Methodological Description

The method consisted of (1) rapid systematic review of sustainable livelihoods and selection of indicators; (2) collection of indicator data and calculation of the adaptive capacity index; and (3) statistical and results analysis. Each is described in more detail below.

2.2.1. Rapid Systematic Review

The theoretical approach used was the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. This conceptual tool helps understand how people obtain their livelihoods through capabilities, resources, and activities and how these relate to their environment [27]. These capabilities, resources, and activities are identified through the following six dimensions: natural, social, human, economic, physical, and political. They are measured using indicators to obtain an AC index [33]. In this study, the six dimensions were subdivided to facilitate the selection of measurement indicators.
A rapid systematic review was conducted to select indicators for each of the divided dimensions. A rapid systematic review was chosen over a comprehensive systematic review, because NbS has been studied more extensively in the last decade, and there is a need to assess its effectiveness in AC to provide timely guidance to decision makers in responding promptly to the current challenges facing coffee farming.
Scientific articles found in the Scopus and SciELO databases for the 2015–2024 period were considered. This period was chosen, because it is the most representative for including NbS, as it was not possible to find references in an earlier period. The search equation was (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“adaptive capacity”) AND KEY (“sustainable livelihood framework”) AND KEY (“indicators”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“agroforestry systems”) AND KEY (“climate change”) PUBLIC YEAR > 2015 AND PUBLIC YEAR < 2024). Information in English or Spanish from indexed journals was included. We excluded documents related to grey literature, scientific articles that were not in an indexed journal, repeated information, information unrelated to the topic of interest, or that did not clearly show the indicators used to measure the adaptive capacity of producers.
The retrieved articles were systematized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, selecting relevant articles in a transparent manner and minimizing bias. Duplicate studies were identified and removed using the Systematic Review Accelerator (SRA) software (V SRA2). The unduplicated articles were analyzed using Creswell’s framework [34], which consisted of a three-tiered approach, as follows: (1) A quick scan and understanding of each article’s abstracts and official information was conducted to discard those that did not clearly respond to the topic of interest. (2) From the remaining articles and reports, the information was organized to identify the central idea of each article. (3) Finally, with the information organized, the frequency of mention with SRA of the indicators most used by the selected articles was determined.
Finally, indicators were selected for each livelihood dimension considering the study area, that met the following: (1) able to measure the abilities of coffee farmers to moderate, take advantage of opportunities, and/or cope with consequences of climate change; (2) applicable to the types of coffee management analyzed, (3) replicable in similar areas; (4) comparable over different periods, (5) available for free or minimal investment, and (6) any time and mobility constraints.

2.2.2. Indicator Information and Adaptive Capacity Index

Information was collected on field indicators in the following types of coffee agroforestry management systems used in the organization: diverse polyculture (DP), simple polyculture (SP), and simplified shade (SS). Information was also collected from coffee producers who use a full-sun (CS) type of coffee management. This was carried out to have a point of comparison of producers who are not organized and do not use NbS.
The indicators were collected in the field using a semi-structured survey that had been previously constructed in the office (Supplementary Materials Survey S1). The survey consisted of 38 open and closed questions, grouped into sections based on the indicators designed and adjusted to ensure fluidity and coherence during field surveys. The first section focused on gathering information about the personal data of the farmers to gain a deeper understanding of the target population. Section two focused on measuring indicators related to information about the coffee agroecosystem. In Section Three, information was collected on indicators designed to measure the quality, conservation, and good management practices of water, soil, and forest resources in the coffee agroecosystem, as well as integrated pest and disease management. Section four consisted of questions that led to indicators of the economic dimension. Section five grouped questions to collect information on indicators related to the producer’s capacity to respond to extreme hydro-meteorological events. The survey was adjusted by pilot testing 10 randomly selected coffee farmers in the study area. For the management types DP, SP, and SS, the sample size (n = 60) was determined using Equation (1) [35], considering a population of 1800 producers belonging to the organization.
n = N × Z ∝ 2   p × q d 2 × ( N − 1 ) + Z ∝ 2 × p × q
where n = sample size; N = total population (1800); Z = 1.96 (95% confidence level); p = expected proportion (5% = 0.05); q = 1 − p (1 − 0.05 = 0.95) d = precision (5% = 0.05).
Of the total sample size obtained using Equation (1), 33% of the producers were selected for each type of management within the organization (20 producers per type of management). In the case of CS, 20 producers who had this type of management were interviewed in the areas surrounding the organization. In the case of DP, SP, and SS, the monthly meetings held regularly by the producers within the organization were used to select the interviewed producers through simple random sampling. In the management type CS, the selection of producers was carried out using the snowball method [36].
The adaptive capacity index of farmers in each management type (PD, SP, SS, and CS) was calculated by an arithmetic sum of the values of the indicators of each dimension [37]. It is essential to note that this method employs equal weights across dimensions to calculate the adaptive capacity index, ensuring that each dimension contributes equally to the final result. By assigning equal weights to each dimension, the interpretation of the result is facilitated, allowing for a more precise identification of strong and weak areas of farmers’ adaptive capacity in the face of climate change [37]. For this purpose, the values of the indicators that required eliminating their dependency on the units of measurement used were standardized (Z) using Equation (2).
Z =   X i − X S D
where Z = standardized value; Xi = observed value; X = mean value; and SD = standard deviation.
Sub-indices were then obtained for each dimension by arithmetically summing the values of the indicators [37].
A C I S = ( v i x 1 + v i x 2 + v i x 3 + v i x n I . . . . )
where ACIS = adaptive capacity sub-index of dimension Xn; and vixn = value of the indicator.
The arithmetic sum of the sub-indexes of each dimension obtained the overall adaptive capacity index for each management type.
A Q I = S I x 1 + S I x 2 + I . . . .
where AQI = adaptive capacity Index; S I x n = sub-index for each dimension
Once the index was obtained, it was normalized to values between 0 and 1 using Equation (5), where N is the normalized value, Xi is the observed value, Xm is the minimum observed value, and XM is the maximum observed value in the data set i.
N = ( X i − X m ) ( X M − X m )
Finally, the adaptive capacity index was ranked by quintiles as follows: very low adaptive capacity (0.00–0.20); low adaptive capacity (0.21–0.40); medium adaptive capacity (0.41–0.60); high adaptive capacity (0.61–0.80); and very high adaptive capacity (0.81–1.00).

2.2.3. Statistical Analysis

Means were compared between dimensions and across the mean value of the AC index for producers in each type of management evaluated. For this, a data normality test was performed, and subsequently, a Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric analysis of variance (H-test) with a Mann–Whitney post-hoc test and Bonferroni p-value correction [38] was performed. This analysis was carried out using RStudio software (V 2022.02.0-443).
Finally, based on the results obtained, actions were proposed to strengthen the dimensions and increase the adaptive capacity of coffee producers in the face of climate change. These capacity-building actions were designed based on a literature review, technical knowledge, and expert judgment.

3. Results

3.1. Rapid Systematic Review and Indicator Selection

The rapid systematic literature review found 366 articles, of which 51 were selected following the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the frequency of mention of the indicators most frequently used by the selected articles. It was found that in the natural dimension, AC studies have focused on measuring access to water and soil fertility in greater depth. In the social dimension, organization was the indicator most commonly used to measure producers’ AC, while in the human dimension, education was the indicator most frequently mentioned in the articles. On the other hand, in the economic dimension, the indicators of diversity of income sources and access to credit were the most frequently mentioned. In the physical dimension, access to strategic infrastructure was the most relevant factor. It is noteworthy that very few studies (n = 5) have explored the measurement of the political dimension, with only the governance indicator being identified.
Based on the findings from the rapid systematic review, 31 representative indicators for each dimension were selected and adjusted to the study region, as presented in Figure 4. Each of the indicators, as well as the division of the dimensions, is better described in Supplementary Materials Table S2.

3.2. Indicator Information in the Field

According to the information collected in the field (Supplementary Materials Table S1), it was found that the DP has a richness of tree and shrub species that varies between 9 to 20, with a density of between 300 to 370 plants/ha. Some tree and shrub species are native to the montane mesophyll forest (e.g., Juglans olanchana Standl and L. O, Quercus spp., Platanus mexicana Moric). In contrast, others are introduced (e.g., Lippia myriocephala Schltdl. and Cham, Inga vera Willd, Persea schiedeana Nees, Citrus limon L., Musa acuminata Colla). The SP is also composed of native and introduced tree and shrub species at a density of 200 to 250 plants/ha. Species richness varies between six and eight (Acrocarpus fraxinifolius Wight et Arn, Cojoba arborea L., Britton and Rose, Lippia myriocephala Schltdl. and Cham, Citrus limon L., Citrus sp.). In this case, introduced species are more predominant. In the SS, one to two introduced species dominate, mainly of the genus Inga (Inga vera Willd, Inga spuria H and B. Ex Willd). The density of trees and shrubs is in the range of 50 to 100 plants/ha.
Among the three types of management (DP, SP, and SS), it is notable that between 80% and 90% of producers consider the quality of their soils and water to be good or excellent. More than 60% of the producers carry out sustainable agricultural practices as a result of technical advice or experience of the producer, which mainly derives in soil conservation, such as one or two fertilizations per year using organic fertilizers, compost waste, green manures; one or two weeding per year with a hoe; pruning and felling of shade trees with a machete, scissors, or saw blades. In addition, 80% to 90% have green infrastructure (living barriers, dead plant material, living wall terraces, windbreaks). Approximately 50% of the producers reported having little technical advice on integrated pest and disease management.
In CS, the density of coffee trees is more than 3000 plants/ha. It was reported that 65% of producers do not practice responsible fertilizer management, primarily using chemical fertilizers with high nitrogen content. Additionally, 70% of producers do not implement integrated pest and disease management. Herbicides and pesticides are mainly used for weed control and phytosanitary control.
In all management types (DP, SP, SS, and CS), between 70% and 80% of farmers have carried out some activity to cope with extreme hydrometeorological events, mainly droughts, by using drought-resistant coffee varieties (San Roman, Costa Rica, and Colombia) and/or hydrogel application. More than 70% of the producers acknowledged not having participated in activities to solve a problem related to extreme hydrometeorological events, and between 80% and 90% of the producers stated that the main access roads to their coffee plots were not in good condition. In addition, approximately 50% of the farmers reported no savings (monetary or in-kind). No participation of farmers in educational and awareness-raising programs on the use, management, and prevalence of traditional coffee systems was reported in any management.

3.3. Adaptive Capacity Index

It was found that farmers using DP and SP management types had an average adaptive capacity index value classified as high (Table 2). In PD, 50% of the total farmers interviewed had very high AC (Figure 5), while in PS, 45% of the farmers had high AC. Producers with SS management type obtained an average AC index value classified as medium, where 40% of the total interviewed producers received this classification. On the other hand, farmers producing coffee in full sun (CS) were classified with low adaptive capacity in the average value of the index (Table 2). In this case, 50% of the interviewed farmers obtained the low AC category (Figure 5).
The natural and social dimensions did not exhibit statistically significant differences in DP and SP; however, differences were observed in SS and CS. Significant differences were observed in DP and CS but not in SP and SS in the human and political dimensions. Regarding the economic dimension, no statistically significant differences were found between the types of management evaluated. In the physical dimension, only CS had significant differences (Table 2). There were no statistically significant differences between DP and SP management types in the final value of the arithmetic sum of the dimensions. On the other hand, SS and CS management types were statistically different from each other and from DP and SP (Table 2).

3.4. Strengthening Adaptive Capacity

Table 3 presents the results of the proposed actions to strengthen farmers’ adaptive capacity, as assessed by the NbS and livelihood dimensions, across the different management types. Due to the current climate urgency that is impacting coffee cultivation, some of the strategies recommended in this study are considered a priority. For example, in the natural dimension of SS and CS management types, it is a priority to increase agrobiodiversity by using multiple-use species to protect crops from extreme hydrometeorological events [39,40]. In the social dimension, all types of management require fostering a horizontal mechanism of information transfer and exchange between producers to solve problems related to extreme hydrometeorological events affecting the coffee crop (e.g., seminars between producers) [41].
In the human dimension, it is of utmost importance that in SP, SS, and CS management types, information on successful sustainable practices that increase the resilience of coffee agroforestry systems to extreme weather events is disseminated and exchanged among farmers (e.g., short courses, visits to demonstration plots, workshops, etc.) [41]. In the economic dimension, it is necessary to encourage the creation of a monetary savings association in the organization or community that favors all types of management [42].
In the physical dimension, across all management types, rainwater harvesting practices, such as individual terraces, should be established to cope with droughts [43,44]. In the policy dimension, it is essential to promote the incorporation of local knowledge into government plans and programs to address climate variability in agroforestry systems [45].
Table 3. Strategies for strengthening adaptive capacity according to NbS, dimension, and type of management in coffee production.
Table 3. Strategies for strengthening adaptive capacity according to NbS, dimension, and type of management in coffee production.
Strategies for Strengthening AC by Management Type
DimensionExisting NbS in the OrganizationSubdimensionDiversified PolycultureSimple PolycultureSingle ShadowFull-Sun Cultivation
NaturalUse of multi-purpose trees and shrubs for shade in the coffee plantationAgro-biodiversityMaintain the current tree and shrub diversity in the NbS at a density of approximately 350 to 500/plant/ha.Increase tree and shrub diversity by using multiple-use species at a density of around 350 to 500 plants/ha [39,40].
The use of species such as frijolillo (Cojoba arborea L. Britton and Rose), jonote (Heliocarpus tomentosus Turcz), chinene (Persea schiedeana Nees), aguacatillo (Persea sp.), jinicuil, chalahuíte, or vainillo (Inga sp.), pink cedar (Acrocarpus fraxinifolius Wight et Arn), wormwood (Lippia myriocephala Schltdl. and Cham), zempalehua (Ulmus mexicana), lemon (Citrus latifolia Tan.), guava (Psidium guajava L.), or orange (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) *.		Establish proposed tree and shrub species in SS *.
Use of tree and shrub species that do not compete with coffee cultivation for water resourcesQuality and availability of water sourcesContinue to use tree and shrub species that do not compete with the coffee crop for water resources.Do not use tree and shrub species that compete for water resources with the coffee crop (e.g., Eriobotrya japonica, Trema micrantha) [46] *.Do not use tree and shrub species that compete for water resources with the coffee crop (e.g., Eriobotrya japonica, Trema micrantha) [46] *.
Avoid excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers to reduce potential nitrate leaching to groundwater [43].
Soil qualityContinuing organic soil management in the NbSIncrease soil organic matter [44] *.Organic soil management. Maintain soil organic matter [44] *.
Use of cover crops such as cacahuatillo (Arachis pintoi) [47] *.
Social OrganizationStaying organizedConsider joining an organization [48].
Collective actionFoster a horizontal mechanism of information transfer and exchange between producers to solve problems related to extreme hydrometeorological events affecting coffee cultivation (e.g., producer-to-producer seminars) [41] *.
Access to climate informationSharing local climate information in real time through groups created in instant messaging applications on mobile phones (WhatsApp, Facebook, etc.) [49] *.
HumanUse of barriers and live fencesCapacity buildingMaintain sustainable practices that increase the climate resilience of the NbS *.Disseminate and exchange information among farmers on successful sustainable practices that increase the resilience of coffee agroforestry systems to extreme weather events (e.g., short courses, visits to demonstration plots, workshops, others) [41] *.
Economic Sources of incomeConsider the sale of fruits, firewood, and timber they currently obtain in the NbS they use.Increase income diversity within the coffee agroforestry system through the use of multiple-use species (consider the species proposed in the natural dimension) [50].Establish multi-purpose tree and shrub species (consider the species proposed in the natural dimension) for the sale of products other than coffee cultivation [50].
Access to credit and/or insuranceIncreased dissemination on access to credit and insurance (talks, brochures, posters) [51].
SavingsEncourage the creation of a money-saving association in the organization or community [42] *.
Physics Access to strategic infrastructure for productionImplement individual crescent terraces at the base of each coffee plant at a depth of 5 cm [43,44].
Use of barriers and live fencesMaintain the sediment retention works in the NbS.Maintain and increase the sediment retention works in the NbS.Encourage the use of sediment retention works on steep slope plots (living barriers) [47] *.
Access to strategic infrastructure for protectionNegotiate with community authorities for the maintenance of unpaved roads through the application of gravel [52].
Innovation, technology, and good management and production practicesPromote integrated management and monitoring of the main pests and diseases affecting coffee:
Nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita and Fusarium oxysporum): prophylaxis in nurseries. In the field, biological control with Paecilomyces sp. Strain and use of earthworms. Rust: Keep trees in shade to avoid wind dispersal of spores. Keep relative humidity high in the months with less rainfall. CBB: Trapping with attractants based on essential oils and alcohols (methanol-ethanol 3:1). Army ants (Atta mexicana and Acromyrmex octospinosus): Biological control using mycoparasitic fungi (Escovopsis weberi) and entomopathogens such as Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana [53] *.
Maintain the soil conservation practices carried out in the NbS.Maintain and increase soil conservation practices in the NbS.Increase soil conservation practices:
Zero tillage, application of biofertilizers (e.g., humic acids), leaving pruning residues on the ground, machete cutting of weeds, avoiding cutting at ground level. Avoid leaving the soil bare [47].
Increase technical advice on responsible organic fertilizer management [43].Promote responsible organic fertilizer management by raising producer awareness on what fertilizer to use, when to use it, how much to use and how to apply it [43].
Increased technical advice to farmers on how to produce their own biofertilizers [54].
Politics Participatory planning toolsIncorporate participatory monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that allow producers to assess the progress and adjustment of adaptation strategies implemented in the field [45].
Promote collective decision making, through participatory mechanisms that enable producers to influence decisions that affect them [55] *.
Adaptive governanceImplement training programs that address the specific needs of producers, taking into account their prior knowledge and local realities [45] *.
* Priority strategies to increase the adaptive capacity of producers to cope with current and future climate variability in coffee agro-ecosystems.

4. Discussion

Using the sustainable livelihoods framework is an effective tool that enables the assessment of the adaptive capacity (AC) of farmers with different management types. Coffee farmers with management types DP, SP, and SS, considered NbS [32], have higher AC than those using full sun (CS). These results were similar to those reported by Ruiz-Meza [56], who found that farmers with full-sun coffee cultivation, coupled with poverty, negligible diversification of income sources, and emigration, limited the adaptive capacity of coffee farmers compared to those using trees and shrubs to shade their coffee plantations.
On the other hand, Quiroga et al. [51] found that the perception of the adaptive capacity of coffee farmers in Nicaragua is low concerning the effect of expectations of water scarcity due to climate change. Likewise, Quiroga et al. [57] found that although coffee farmers use shade trees for crop protection, their perception of their adaptive capacity to climate change is low, mainly due to poverty. Ferrás et al. [58] found that the adaptive capacity of coffee farmers in Cuba is limited due to the lack of fertilization and nutrient supply in the plot. The natural dimension had the most significant influence on farmers’ AC, mainly due to improved agrobiodiversity (Table 2). As observed in DP and SP management types, high agrobiodiversity increases farmers’ AC [59,60]. It can also generate a range of co-benefits with positive cascading effects, both for the different components of the natural dimension and for other livelihood dimensions [50]. Higher tree and shrub diversity has been reported to increase soil organic matter and living biomass [39]. It improves soil fertility by maintaining microorganisms and their physicochemical characteristics, which are fundamental for mineralizing organic carbon [61]. This, in turn, increases the water filtration capacity of the soil, and water loss is minimized by reducing soil evaporation and transpiration of the coffee crop [46]. Additionally, trees and shrubs enhance microclimatic conditions and mitigate temperature extremes [32].
It has been observed that agrobiodiversity can generate co-benefits in the economic dimension by increasing product diversification [62]. Product diversification can increase monetary savings, which can be used to face the adverse effects of an extreme hydrometeorological event that impacts the crop [63]. However, in this study, it was found that the components of the economic dimension did not behave in this way, because producers reported not having sufficient product diversification for sale; thus, the products derived from the agroforestry system are mainly for self-consumption. A lack of financial resources could limit the producer’s capacity to save and invest in technology and innovation to cope with climate change [55]. Something similar was found by Anderzén et al. [50], where producers reported having only one source of income, derived from some other product they obtain from their agroforestry system, where their economy is complemented by another source of employment and government support, as was recorded in this study.
In the social dimension, the organization of producers using NbS has promoted the conservation and organic management of soil, as well as the dissemination of technical knowledge through educational and awareness programs on the use, management, and prevalence of agroforestry systems. For Lyon [64], coffee producer organizations help strengthen the AC of their members; however, he points out that they need to be improved. According to Hernández et al. [65], coffee organizations in the region have focused on sustainable soil management and biodiversity conservation, which generates long-term co-benefits. However, in some cases, they have neglected other relevant aspects of livelihoods to maintain the adaptive capacity of producers in the face of current and future climate variability. This was not the exception in the farmers’ organization in this study. These organizational deficiencies have influenced the AC of producers, mainly those using the SS management type, where low values were found in the human, physical, and political dimensions. Some livelihood determinants combine to increase or limit the flexibility and stability of coffee farmers’ adaptive capacity [56]. The combination of determinants in the livelihood dimensions may influence the differences found in the AC index among farmers using DP and SP management types compared to those using SS.
The producers who require more significant support to strengthen their adaptive capacity to climate change mainly do not integrate agroforestry management into their crops (CS) or use little shade (SS). Although some farmers already incorporate actions recognized as NbS into their management, it is necessary to maintain them or promote others. The AC strengthening actions proposed in this study (Table 3) can also provide a guideline for the generation of anticipatory adaptation strategies (proactive or ex ante), capable of complementing the adaptation actions already being carried out in the area, either reactively (responsive or ex post) or concurrently (during) [65], in response to the extreme hydro-meteorological events that affect coffee cultivation (Table 1).
The proposed action to maintain and make an adequate selection of tree and shrub species for shade in the coffee plantation, giving priority to native and introduced multipurpose species, is a priority [66], not only for their capacity to generate multiple co-benefits that increase the livelihoods of producers [32,39,46] but also for their potential to protect the coffee crop from heavy rains, prolonged droughts, frosts, and hailstorms that have increased in recent years in the study region [31].
Given that climate change already affects coffee cultivation in the study area, this research proposes to strengthen access to climate information at the local level (social dimension). According to Ventocilla et al. [49], climate information is the most crucial determinant for coffee producers to increase their capacities and take adaptation measures. Likewise, climate services must be responsive to users’ needs, relevant, and understandable actually to improve farmers’ livelihoods [49]. At the same time, it is essential to foster collective action among farmers to cope with extreme hydrometeorological events [41] and to build capacity (human dimension) through the dissemination and exchange of information on successful, sustainable practices that increase the resilience of agroforestry systems to climate hazards [41].
It is essential to promote adaptive governance, which is considered an indispensable point for agroecosystem resilience, as it fosters reflexive actions that allow for feedback from the environment and generate knowledge for the farmer to prepare for uncertainty and increase their capacity to transition or transform in case of a change such as climate variability [45]. Designing policies that incorporate local knowledge into government plans and programs to address climate variability in agroforestry systems can help farmers produce climate-resilient coffee [67].
The information obtained in this research can contribute to filling the existing information gap in Mexico on the potential of NbS to increase the AC of coffee farmers. However, these results can be improved by obtaining quantitative information collected directly from coffee plots, such as indicators of agrobiodiversity, soil quality, and water quality, which in this case were obtained from information provided by the farmer. It would also be ideal to measure the performance of soil and water conservation works currently underway in the study area.
It is necessary to analyze the trade-offs and feedback with both positive and negative effects that can be generated by the strategies proposed in this study, which can be exacerbated by the emergence of driving forces and their associated effects (e.g., climate change, lack of government support, market uncertainty) [68].
Further related research is needed to compare the results obtained in this research, as well as to monitor farmers’ AC over time, taking into account climate variability and other driving forces affecting coffee cultivation.

5. Conclusions

The theoretical framework for sustainable livelihoods enabled the development of an indicator-based index to assess whether NbS contributes to enhancing coffee producers’ adaptive capacity to climate variability in the study region. The rapid systematic review helped inform how livelihood dimensions have been studied and the indicators selected to measure producers’ adaptive capacity. It was found that most producers using NbS have a greater adaptive capacity than those using full-sun management. The findings of this study showed that the type of NbS management can influence producers’ adaptive capacity. The actions proposed in this study aim to strengthen producers’ livelihood capacities, enabling them to adapt to changing circumstances and respond effectively to climate variability. This approach also takes into account the conservation of native biodiversity and sustainable crop management, which are essential criteria for an action to be considered a NbS. However, an analysis of the trade-offs and feedback, both positive and negative, that the strategies proposed in this study can generate is required. Further research is needed to compare the results obtained in this study and to monitor producers’ AC over time, taking into account climate variability and other driving forces that affect coffee cultivation. This will enable decision makers to monitor the performance of NbS, replicate them in other agricultural regions, or adjust and improve them, as needed.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture15131390/s1. Semi-structured Survey S1: Instruments to obtain information on whether NbS contributes to improving the adaptive capacity of producers in coffee cultivation; Table S1: Information on indicators by dimension and type of management; Table S2 [69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]: Description of dimensions and sub-dimensions of livelihoods, as well as indicators for their measurement in different types of coffee management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.R.-G., A.I.M.-R. and A.C.C.-Á.; methodology, P.R.-G. and A.I.M.-R.; validation, A.I.M.-R. and A.C.C.-Á.; investigation, P.R.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.R.-G.; writing—review and editing, A.I.M.-R.; supervision, A.C.C.-Á. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. P. Ruiz-García received a grant from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its Supplementary Materials files].

Acknowledgments

All authors thanks Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (ICAyCC) and Universidad Autónoma Chapingo (CIRENAM, DGIP, Departamento de Suelos). We gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewers’ comments and suggestions, which have substantially improved the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
NbSNature-based solutions
ACAdaptive capacity
DPDiverse polyculture
SPSimple polyculture
SSSimplified shade
CSFull-sun cultivation

References

  1. Ferreira, F.C.S.; Alves, F.; Loureiro, J.J. Sustainable futures: From causes of environmental degradation to solutions. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Harvey, C.A.; Saborio-Rodríguez, M.; Martinez-Rodríguez, M.R.; Viguera, B.; Chain-Guadarrama, A.; Vignola, R.; Alpizar, F. Climate change impacts and adaptation among smallholder farmers in Central America. Agric. Food Secur. 2018, 7, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 1st ed.; Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 67–83. [Google Scholar]
  4. Almazroui, M.; Islam, M.N.; Saeed, F. Projected Changes in Temperature and Precipitation Over the United States, Central America, and the Caribbean in CMIP6 GCMs. Earth Syst. Environ. 2021, 5, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Naz, B.S.; Kao, S.C.; Ashfaq, M.; Gao, H.; Rastogi, D.; Gangrade, S. Effects of climate change on streamflow extremes and implications for reservoir inflow in the United States. J. Hydrol. 2018, 556, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pagan, B.R.; Ashfaq, M.; Rastogi, D.; Kendall, D.R.; Kao, S.C.; Naz, B.; Pal, J. Extreme hydrological events drive reduction in water supply in the southwestern United Sates. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 094026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Batibeniz, F.; Ashfaq, M.; Diffenbaugh, N.S.; Key, K.; Evans, K.J.; Turuncoglu, U.U.; Önol, B. Doubling of U.S. population exposure to climate extremes by 2050. Earth’s Future 2020, 8, e2019EF001421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Parada-Molina, P.C.; Cerdán, C.R.; Ceballos, G.O.; Cervantes-Pérez, J. Hemileia vastatrix: Una prospección ante el cambio climático. Ecosistemas Recur. Agropecu. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Libert, A.A.; Ituarte-Lima, C.; Elmqvist, T. Learning from social-ecological crisis for legal resilience building: Multi-scale dynamics in the coffee rust epidemic. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 485–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Granados-Ramírez, R.; Medina-Barrios, M.D.; Peña-Manjarrez, V. Variación y cambio climático en la vertiente del Golfo de México. Impactos en la cafeticultura. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 2018, 5, 473–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Anderson, R.; Bayer, P.E.; Edwards, D. Climate change and the need for agricultural adaptation. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2020, 56, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shahzad, A.; Ullah, S.; Dar, A.A.; Sardar, M.F.; Mehmood, T.; Tufail, M.A.; Shakoor, A.; Haris, M. Nexus on climate change: Agriculture and possible solution to tackle future climate change. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 14211–14232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. United Nations Environment Programme. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-environment-assembly-concludes-14-resolutions-curb-pollution (accessed on 12 February 2025).
  14. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Guidance for Using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-Based Solutions. A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling up of Nature-Based Solutions, 1st ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 21–45. [Google Scholar]
  15. Villamayor-Tomas, S.; Bisaro, A.; Moull, K.; Moull, K.; Albizua, A.; Mank, I.; Hinkel, J.; Leppert, G.; Noltze, M. Developing countries can adapt to climate change effectively using nature-based solutions. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Williams, C.; Fenton, A.; Huq, S. Knowledge and Adaptive Capacity. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 82–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales; Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático. Contribución Determinada a Nivel Nacional. Actualización 2022, 1st ed.; SEMARNAT-INECC: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2022; p. 140. [Google Scholar]
  18. Telwala, Y.; Sharma, R. Unlocking the potential of agroforestry as a nature-based solution for localizing sustainable development goals: A case study from a drought-prone region in rural India. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 3, 100045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA); Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). Soluciones Basadas en la Naturaleza: Experiencias y Oportunidades en los Paisajes Agrícolas de América Latina y el Caribe, 1st ed.; IICA-CATIE: San José, Costa Rica, 2019; pp. 2–4. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sillero-Medina, J.A.; Ruiz-Sinoga, J.D. Adaptación a la dinámica de cambio climático mediante soluciones basadas en la naturaleza (NBS). El caso del área SIPAM de la Axarquía (Málaga). In Proceedings of the XVIII Congreso de la Asociación Española de Geografía, Logroño, Spain, 14 September 2023. [Google Scholar]
  21. Muthee, K.; Duguma, L.; Nzyoka, J.; Minang, P. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Practices as a Nature-Based Solution to Promote Water-Energy-Food Nexus Balance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ibrahim, A.; Marshall, K.; Carmen, E.; Blackstock, K.L.; Waylen, K.A. Raising standards for stakeholder engagement in Nature-based Solutions: Navigating the why, when, who and how. Environ. Sci. Policy 2025, 163, 1462–9011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Malekpour, S.; Tawfik, S.; Chesterfield, C. Designing collaborative governance for nature-based solutions. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 1618–8667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Palomo, I.; Locatelli, B.; Otero, I.; Colloff, M.; Crouzat, E.; Cuni-Sanchez, A.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; González-García, A.; Grêt-Regamey, A.; Jiménez-Aceituno, A.; et al. Assessing nature-based solutions for transformative change. One Earth 2021, 4, 730–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chausson, A.; Turner, B.; Seddon, D.; Chabaneix, N.; Girardin, C.A.J.; Kapos, V.; Key, I.; Roe, D.; Smith, A.; Woroniecki, S.; et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 6134–6155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nelson, D.R.; Bledsoe, B.P.; Ferreira, S.; Nibbelink, N.P. Challenges to realizing the potential of nature-based solutions. ScienceDirect 2020, 45, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hoang, L.P.; Pot, M.; Tran, D.D.; Ho, L.H.; Park, E. Adaptive capacity of high- and low dyke farmers to hydrological changes in the Vietnamese Mekong delta. Environ. Res. 2023, 224, 115423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. González, A.N.; Flores, S.M.; González, F.M.C. Capacidad adaptativa en ejidos costeros del Pacífico mexicano: Una aproximación desde los medios de vida sustentables (MVS). Soc. Amb. 2022, 25, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Escamilla-Prado, E.; Tinoco-Rueda, J.Á.; Pérez-Villatoro, H.A.; Aguilar-Calvo, J.Á.; Sánchez-Hernández, R.; Ayala-Montejo, D. Socio-ecological transformation in the coffee agroecosystem affected by rust in Chiapas, México. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2021, 44, 643–653. [Google Scholar]
  30. Martínez-López, A.; Cruz-León, A.; Sangerman-Jarquín, D.M.; Cárdenas, S.D.; Herrera, J.C.; Ramírez-Valverde, B. Prevalencia de los saberes tradicionales en las unidades de producción de café de la región Huatusco, Veracruz, México/Prevalência do conhecimento tradicional nas unidades de produção de café da região de Huatusco, Veracruz, México. Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res. 2022, 5, 1172–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ruiz-García, P.; Conde-Álvarez, C.; Gómez-Díaz, J.D.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I. Projections of local knowledge-based adaptation strategiexicanexican coffee farmers. Climate 2021, 9, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Koutouleas, A.; Sarzynski, T.; Bordeaux, M.; Bosselmann, A.S.; Campa, C.; Etienne, H.; Turreira-García, N.; Rigal, C.; Vaast, P.; Ramalho, J.C.; et al. Shaded-Coffee: A Nature-Based Strategy for Coffee Production Under Climate Change? A Review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 877476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Douglass-Gallagher, E.; Stuart, D. Crop Growers’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: A Situated Study of Agriculture in Arizona’s Verde Valley. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 94–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 1st ed.; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 35–45. [Google Scholar]
  35. Aguilar-Barojas, S. Fórmulas para el cálculo de la muestra en investigaciones de salud. Salud Tabasco 2005, 11, 333–338. [Google Scholar]
  36. Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; 79p. [Google Scholar]
  37. Monterroso, A.; Conde, C.; Gay, C.; Gómez, D.; López, J. Two methods to assess vulnerability to climate change in the Mexican agricultural sector. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 2014, 19, 445–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Negash, M.; Kanninen, M. Modeling biomass and soil carbon sequestration of indigenous agroforestry systems using CO2FIX approach. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 203, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ruiz-García, P.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I.; Valdés-Velarde, E.; Escamilla-Prado, E.; Gómez-Díaz, J.D. Carbon stocks in coffee agroforestry systems in the face of climate change: Case México. Agron. Mesoam. 2022, 33, 48671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Soto-Pinto, L.; Colmenares, S.E.; Kanter, M.B.; Cruz, A.L.; Lugo, E.E.; Hernández, B.H.; Jiménez-Soto, E. Contributions of Agroforestry Systems to Food Provisioning of Peasant Households: Conflicts and Synergies in Chiapas, Mexico. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 5, 756611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Eise, J.; Lambert, N.J.; Wiemer, E.C. Aprovechar las fortalezas de las redes comunitarias para apoyar el intercambio de información sobre adaptación al cambio climático: Un estudio con productores de café en Risaralda, Colombia. Clim. Change 2021, 168, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Simelton, E.; Mulia, R.; Nguyen, T.T.; Duong, T.M.; Le, H.X.; Tran, L.H.; Halbherr, L. Women’s Involvement in Coffee Agroforestry Value-Chains: Financial Training, Village Savings and Loans Associations, and Decision Power in Northwest Vietnam, 1st ed.; CCAFS Working Paper no. 340; CGIAR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 3–40. [Google Scholar]
  43. Srivastav, A.L.; Patel, N.; Rani, L.; Kumar, P.; Dutt, I.; Maddodi, B.S.; Kumar, V.C. Sustainable options for fertilizer management in agriculture to prevent water contamination: A review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 8303–8327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rodríguez, M.J.; Pimienta, T.D.; Marroquín, A.F.J.; Fuentes, P.M.A. Estrategias de conservación—Restauración de suelos y captación de agua en cafetales del Soconusco, Chiapas. In Biodiversidad, Servicios Ecosistémicos y los Objetivos del Desarrollo Sostenible en México, 1st ed.; Ávila, A.V., González, M.T., Eds.; UAEMex: Toluca, Mexico, 2019; pp. 307–327. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cooper, S.J.; Wheeler, T. Adaptive governance: Livelihood innovation for climate resilience in Uganda. Geoforum 2015, 65, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Muñoz-Villers, L.E.; Holwerda, F.; Alvarado-Barrientos, M.S.; Geris, J.; Dawson, T.E. Examining the complementarity in belowground water use between different varieties and ages of Arabica coffee plants and dominant shade tree species in an organic agroecosystem. Agric. Water Manag. 2025, 307, 109248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kobusinge, J.; Gabiri, G.; Kagezi, G.H.; Sseremba, G.; Nakitende, A.; Arinaitwe, G.; Twesigye, C.K. Potential of Moisture Conservation Practices to Improve Soil Properties and Nutrient Status of Robusta Coffee Plant. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Shapiro, E.; King, D.; Rivera, A.; Wang, S.; Finley, J. A participatory framework for feasibility assessments of climate change resilience strategies for smallholders: Lessons from coffee cooperatives in Latin America. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020, 18, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ventocilla, M.C.; Grossi, A.; Hernández, A.N.; Dinku, T.; Recha, J. Brewing Resilience for Ethiopia’s Smallholder Coffee Farmers, 1st ed.; CGIAR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 2–6. [Google Scholar]
  50. Anderzén, J.; Guzman, L.A.; Luna, G.D.; Merrill, S.C.; Caswell, M.; Méndez, E.; Hernández, R.J.; Mier, M.; Giménez, C.T. Effects of on-farm diversification strategies on smallholder coffee farmer food security and income sufficiency in Chiapas, Mexico. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 77, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C.; Solís, J.D. Exploring coffee farmers’ awareness about climate change and water needs: Smallholders’ perceptions of adaptive capacity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 45, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ramos-Scharrón, C.E.; Figueroa-Sánchez, Y. Plot-, farm-, and watershed-scale effects of coffee cultivation in runoff and sediment production in western Puerto Rico. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 202, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Carrión, V.G.L.; Williams, T.; Vidal, L.G.M.; Valenzuela, J.E.; Villain, G.L. Implemento de un manejo integrado de plagas y enfermedades en cafetales de la Zona Centro del Estado de Veracruz. In Diagnóstico, Productividad y Ambiente en Cafetales: Estudios Regionales y de Caso, 1st ed.; López, M.R., Díaz, P.G., Eds.; INIFAP: Veracruz, Mexico, 2020; pp. 333–357. [Google Scholar]
  54. Silvera-Pablo, C.C.; Julca-Otiniano, A.; Rivera-Ashqui, T.A.; Silva-Paz, R.J. Impacto of humic acids and biofertilizers on yield and sensory quality of organic coffe varieties in peruviam plantations. Int. J. Agric. Biosci. 2024, 13, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Morales, L.V.; Robiglio, V.; Baca, M.; Bunn, C.; Reyes, M. Planning for adaptation: A system approach to understand the value chain’s role in supporting smallholder coffee farmers’ adaptative capacity in Peru. Front. Clim. 2022, 4, 788369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ruiz-Meza, L.E. Adaptive capacity of small-scale coffee farmers to climate change impacts in the Soconusco region of Chiapas, Mexico. Clim. Dev. 2015, 7, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C.; Solís, J.D.; Martinez-Juarez, P. Framing vulnerability and coffee farmers’ behaviour in the context of climate change adaptation in Nicaragua. World Dev. 2020, 126, 104733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ferrás, Y.N.; Bustamante, G.C.A.; Pérez, S.V.; Sánchez, E.C.; Rivera, E.R. Vulnerabilidad y capacidad adaptativa al cambio climático en fincas cafetaleras de Jibacoa, Cuba. Rev. Fac. Agron. 2024, 44, 92–101. [Google Scholar]
  59. Agnoletti, M.; Santoro, A. Agricultural heritage systems and agrobiodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2022, 31, 2231–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zimmerer, K.S. Understanding agrobiodiversity and the rise of resilience: Analytic category, conceptual boundary object or meta-level transition? Resilience 2015, 3, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Carrasco-Espinosa, K.; Avitia, M.; Barrón-Sandoval, A.; Abbruzzini, T.F.; Cabrera, U.I.S.; Arroyo-Lambaer, D.; Uscanga, A.; Campo, J.; Benítez, M.; Wegier, A.; et al. Land-Use Change and Management Intensification Is Associated with Shifts in Composition of Soil Microbial Communities and Their Functional Diversity in Coffee Agroecosystems. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Poncet, V.; Asten, P.v.; Millet, C.P.; Vaast, P.; Allinne, C. Which diversification trajectories make coffee farming more sustainable? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2024, 68, 101432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Núñez, A.P.; Gutiérrez-Montes, I.; Hernández-Núñez, H.E. Diverse farmer livelihoods increase resilience to climate variability in southern Colombia. Land Use Policy 2023, 131, 106731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lyon, S. Coping with Coffee Rust in Oaxaca, Mexico: Vulnerability and the Impact of Fair Trade on Smallholders’ Adaptive Capacity. Individual and Social Adaptations to Human Vulnerability. Econ. Anthropol. 2018, 38, 79–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Smit, B.; Burton, I.; Klein, R.J.; Wandel, J. An Anatomy of Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability. Clim. Change 2000, 45, 223–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ruiz-García, P.; Gómez-Díaz, J.D.; Valdes-Velarde, E.; Tinoco-Rueda, J.A.; Flores-Ordoñez, M.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I. Caracterización biofísica y de composición estructural en sistemas agroforestales de café orgánico de Veracruz. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyt. 2020, 23, 37. Available online: https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/3102/1415 (accessed on 8 April 2025). [CrossRef]
  67. Jawo, T.O.; Kyereh, D.; Lojka, B. The impact of climate change on coffee production of small farmers and their adaptation strategies: A review. Clim. Dev. 2022, 15, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ramírez-León, A.; Avila-Foucat, V.S.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D. The historical trajectory of a coffee agri-food system: A case study in Oaxaca, Mexico. Ambio 2024, 53, 1847–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Agrobiodiversidad. Available online: https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/diversidad/que-es/agrobiodiversidad (accessed on 25 January 2025).
  70. Key, I.B.; Smith, A.C.; Turner, B.; Chausson, A.; Girardin, C.A.J.; Macgillivray, M.; Seddon, N. Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 905767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Informe de la Situación del Medio Ambiente en México. Compendio de Estadísticas Ambientales. Indicadores Clave y de Desempeño Ambiental, 1st ed.; SEMARNAT: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2016; p. 76. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kumari, G.; Sharma, Y.; Sajjad, H. Assessing livelihood vulnerability of rural communities in Dimapur district of Nagaland state, India: Policy implications. GeoJournal 2023, 88, 3143–3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Swami, D.; Parthasarathy, D. Dynamics of exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity and agricultural vulnerability at district scale for Maharashtra, India. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Food and Agriculture Organization. Hacia una Definición de la Salud del Suelo, 1st ed.; FAO: Roma, Italia, 2020; p. 10. [Google Scholar]
  75. Zanmassou, Y.C.; Al-Hassan, R.M.; Mensah-Bonsu, A.; Osei-Asare, Y.B.; Igue, C.B. Assessment of smallholder farmers’ adaptive capacity to climate change: Use of a mixed weighting scheme. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 276, 111275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Comisión Nacional Forestal. Estado que Guarda el Sector Forestal en México 2021, 1st ed.; CONAFOR: Zapopan, Mexico, 2022; p. 459. [Google Scholar]
  77. Monterroso, A.I.; Conde, C. Adaptive Capacity: Identifying the Challenges Faced by Municipalities Addressing Climate Change in Mexico. Clim. Dev. 2018, 10, 729–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Fatima, N.; Alamgir, A.; Khan, M.A.; Owais, M. Evaluating dual exposure by using climate-conflict vulnerability index on the coastal districts of Sindh, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Maldonado-Méndez, M.D.L.; Romo-Lozano, J.L.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I. Determinant Indicators for Assessing the Adaptive Capacity of Agricultural Producers to Climate Change. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lutz, B. De la acción colectiva en el campo a la sociedad civil rural. Acta Sociol. 2017, 74, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Desarrollo de Capacidades: Texto Básico del PNUD, 1st ed.; PNUD: New York, NY, USA, 2009; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  82. Khan, N.A.; Gao, Q.; Abid, M.; Shah, A.A. Mapping farmers’ vulnerability to climate change and its induced hazards: Evidence from the rice-growing zones of Punjab, Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Contam. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 4229–4244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gupta, K.; Negi, M.; Nandy, S.; Alatalo, J.M.; Singh, V.; Pandey, R. Assessing the vulnerability of socio-environmental systems to climate change along an altitude gradient in the Indian Himalayas. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 106, 105512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ahmad, M.I.; Ma, H. Climate change and livelihood vulnerability in mixed crop-livestock areas: The case of Province Punjab, Pakistan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Laureta, R.P.; Regalado, R.R.H.; De La Cruz, E.B. Climate vulnerability scenario of the agricultural sector in the Bicol River Basin, Philippines. Clim. Change 2021, 168, 4–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mekonen, A.A.; Berlie, A.B. Rural households’ livelihood vulnerability to climate variability and extremes: A livelihood zone-based approach in the Northeastern Highlands of Ethiopia. Ecol. Process. 2021, 10, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mahfoud, C.; Adjizian-Gerard, J. Local adaptive capacity to climate change in mountainous agricultural areas in the eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon). Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 33, 100345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Al Mamun, A.; Uddin, M.S.; Siyu, L.; Yang, Q. Modelling the sustainable agriculture management adaptation practices: Using adaptive capacity as a mediator. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 963465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tessema, I.; Simane, B. Vulnerability analysis of smallholder farmers to climate variability and change: An agro-ecological system-based approach in the Fincha’a sub-basin of the upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Ecol. Process. 2019, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 15 01390 g001
Figure 1. Geographical location of the organization “Unión Regional de Pequeños productores de Café S.S.S.”.
Figure 1. Geographical location of the organization “Unión Regional de Pequeños productores de Café S.S.S.”.
Agriculture 15 01390 g001
Agriculture 15 01390 g002
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram of selected studies.
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram of selected studies.
Agriculture 15 01390 g002
Agriculture 15 01390 g003
Figure 3. Frequency of mention (n) of indicators found in the studies selected in the rapid systematic review.
Figure 3. Frequency of mention (n) of indicators found in the studies selected in the rapid systematic review.
Agriculture 15 01390 g003
Agriculture 15 01390 g004
Figure 4. Livelihood dimensions and sub-dimensions, as well as the number of indicators selected in each of them.
Figure 4. Livelihood dimensions and sub-dimensions, as well as the number of indicators selected in each of them.
Agriculture 15 01390 g004
Agriculture 15 01390 g005
Figure 5. Ranking of the adaptive capacity index of the total interviewed farmers (%) in each management type (DP, SP, SS, and CS). Note: DP = diverse polyculture; SP = simple polyculture; SS = simplified shade; CS = full-sun cultivation.
Figure 5. Ranking of the adaptive capacity index of the total interviewed farmers (%) in each management type (DP, SP, SS, and CS). Note: DP = diverse polyculture; SP = simple polyculture; SS = simplified shade; CS = full-sun cultivation.
Agriculture 15 01390 g005
Table 1. Actions taken by coffee producers of the organization “Unión Regional de Pequeños productores de Café S.S.S.” in the face of extreme weather conditions.
Table 1. Actions taken by coffee producers of the organization “Unión Regional de Pequeños productores de Café S.S.S.” in the face of extreme weather conditions.
Extreme Weather ConditionActions Taken
Collectives
Torrential rain
Frosts
Hailstorms		Protection of coffee cultivation through tree and shrub species for multiple uses (fruit trees, timber, firewood). *
Prolonged droughts during the mid-summer heatwave seasonUse tree species that do not compete with coffee for water resources (e.g., Trema micrantha).
Shade management to maintain 40 to 60% shade cover.
Water from the coffee processing stage (washing and pulping) is recycled to irrigation coffee seedlings produced in the organization’s nursery.
Individuals
Strong winds (average speed between 41 and 70 K m/h)
Thunderstorms 		Live fences with multi-purpose tree species. *
Torrential rainsLive barriers with multi-purpose shrub species. *
Note: * actions considered as NbS. Source: adapted from Ruiz-García et al. [31].
Table 2. Comparison of means by livelihood dimension, total arithmetic sum, and AC index classified in each management type assessed.
Table 2. Comparison of means by livelihood dimension, total arithmetic sum, and AC index classified in each management type assessed.
DimensionSubdimensionTypes of Management
DPSPSSCS
NaturalAgrobiodiversity1.500.31−0.26−1.30
Quality and availability of water sources0.270.50−0.31−0.11
Soil quality0.840.390.31−1.42
Forest resource conservation0.900.951.050.7
Arithmetic sum3.51 a2.15 a0.79 b−2.14 c
SocialOrganization1.001.001.000.00
Collective action0.350.300.150.30
Access to climate information0.650.750.50.50
Arithmetic sum2.00 a2.05 a1.65 b0.80 c
HumanCapacity development3.20 a2.23 b1.43 b−0.36 c
EconomicSources of income0.040.180.200.67
Land tenure and ownership−0.090.150.120.15
Access to credit and/or insurance0.550.650.620.00
Savings0.450.450.360.4
Arithmetic sum0.95 a1.43 a1.30 a1.22 a
PhysicalAccess to strategic infrastructure for production0.560.260.23−0.72
Access to strategic infrastructure for protection1.911.831.931.01
Innovation, technology, and good management and production practices0.850.20−0.04−0.94
Arithmetic sum3.31 a2.30 a2.12 a−0.66 b
PoliticalRegional planning instruments1.100.650.600.65
Adaptive governance1.000.800.700.00
Arithmetic sum2.10 a1.45 b1.30 b0.65 c
Total arithmetic sum15.06 a11.61 a8.59 b−0.49 c
Rated CA indexHighHighMediumLow
Note: Means followed by different letters indicate significant differences between management types (p < 0.05). Note: DP = diversified polyculture; SP = simple polyculture; SS = simplified shade; CS = full-sun cultivation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruiz-García, P.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I.; Conde-Álvarez, A.C. Nature-Based Solutions Contribute to Improve the Adaptive Capacity of Coffee Farmers: Evidence from Mexico. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1390. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131390

AMA Style

Ruiz-García P, Monterroso-Rivas AI, Conde-Álvarez AC. Nature-Based Solutions Contribute to Improve the Adaptive Capacity of Coffee Farmers: Evidence from Mexico. Agriculture. 2025; 15(13):1390. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131390

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruiz-García, Patricia, Alejandro Ismael Monterroso-Rivas, and Ana Cecilia Conde-Álvarez. 2025. "Nature-Based Solutions Contribute to Improve the Adaptive Capacity of Coffee Farmers: Evidence from Mexico" Agriculture 15, no. 13: 1390. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131390

APA Style

Ruiz-García, P., Monterroso-Rivas, A. I., & Conde-Álvarez, A. C. (2025). Nature-Based Solutions Contribute to Improve the Adaptive Capacity of Coffee Farmers: Evidence from Mexico. Agriculture, 15(13), 1390. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131390

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop