Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Rural change and multidimensional analysis of farm’s vulnerability: a case study in a protected area of semi-arid northern Nicaragua

  • 448 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

This paper presents an empirical research in a protected area of northern Nicaragua, aimed at: (a) classifying predominant narratives surrounding present and future pathways of the local rural system, drivers of change, features of livelihoods’ vulnerability; (b) understanding current functioning of local metabolic patterns of rural systems by developing a typology of farms and (c) comparing types’ vulnerability to current drivers of change. To achieve these objectives, we integrated qualitative and quantitative analytical approaches. The different visions of rural spaces, which emerge from the analysis of the narratives, and the five types of farms, characterized by specific land-time budget and energy and monetary flows, suggest two emerging dynamics of local restructuration in protected areas: (1) a dominant land re-concentration process which is generating increasing inequality in access to resources and a progressive marginalization of the self-sufficient economy of landless and subsistence households; (2) an emergence of a paradigm of ‘environmentalization’ of rural spaces together with a valorization of small and medium-scale diversified economies. Moreover, the vulnerability assessment focuses on multidimensional features of types’ sensitivity to crisis, i.e. risk unacceptability, production instability, economic inefficiency, food and exosomatic energy dependency, as well as capacity to buffer and adapt to change, i.e. access to assets, including labour for men and women, social safety nets and degrees of economic diversification. The discussion highlights the occurrence of trade-off between the solutions adopted by farms within different development paths, suggesting the relevance of the proposed framework of analysis at the interface between science and policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Milpa is a corn–bean–squash cropping system used throughout Mesoamerica, based on Maya slash and burnt agriculture methods. In Nicaragua, milpa is referred to the field and to corn as staple crop.

  2. 2.

    The latifundio–minifundio land tenure system referred, in Latin America countries, to large estates of lands administered by few families with a patronage system scattered by tiny land plots.

  3. 3.

    An opportunistic management implies the exploitation of natural forestry-pastoral systems and pasture. The stoking rate and duration of pasture depends on economic and climatic conditions.

References

  1. Altieri, M. (2008). Small farms as a planetary ecological asset: Five key reasons why we should support the revitalization of small farms in the global south. Food first report. www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2115.

  2. Arizpe, N., Ramos-Martín, J., & Giampietro, M. (2014). An assessment of the metabolic profile implied by agricultural change in two rural communities in the North of Argentina. Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:10.1007/s10668-014-9532-y.

  3. Barkin, D. (2004). Who are the peasants? Latin American Research Review, 39(3), 270–281.

  4. Barkin, D. (2006). The new rurality: A framework for social struggle in the face of globalization. In Paper presented at the international conference on land, poverty, justice and development, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague (9–14 January).

  5. Baumeister, E. (1999). Las iniciativas campesinas y la sostenibilidad de los resultados de la Reforma Agraria en el Salvador, Nicaragua y Honduras. Discussión paper 105. USAID.

  6. Baumeister, E. (2011). El caso de Nicaragua. In S. Gómez (Ed.) Dinámica del mercado de la tierra en América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago: FAO. http://www.rlc.fao.org/fileadmin/content/events/semtierras/acaparamiento.pdf.

  7. Bernard, H. R. (2005). Research methods in anthropology. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.

  8. Brockett, C. D. (1998). Land, power and poverty: Agrarian transformation and political conflict in Central America. Oxford: Westview Press.

  9. Buttel, F. H. (1992). Environmentalization: Origins, processes, and implications for rural social change. Rural Sociology, 57(1), 1–27.

  10. Campos Palacín, P. (1984). Economía y energía de la dehesa extremeña. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Agrarios, Pesqueros y Alimentarios.

  11. Corral, L., & Reandon, T. (2001). Rural non farm Incomes in Nicaragua. World Development, 29(3), 427–442.

  12. Dufumier, M. (2004). Agricultures et paysanneries des tiers mondes. Paris, France: Karthala.

  13. Eakin, H. (2005). Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: Cases from central Mexico. World Development, 33(11), 1923–1938.

  14. Eakin, H., & Bojórquez-Tapia, L. A. (2008). Insights into the composition of household vulnerability from multicriteria decision analysis. Global Environmental Change, 18, 112–127.

  15. Eakin, H., & Luers, A. L. (2006). Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 365–394.

  16. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2003). Food energyMethods of analysis and conversion factors. Report of a technical workshop, 3–6 December 2002, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/y5022e/y5022e00.htm#Contents.

  17. Food and Agriculture Organization. (FAO). (2004a). Assessment of the world food security situation. Background document prepared for the 30th session of the Committee on World Food Security, 20–23 September 2004, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/unfao/bodies/cfs/cfs30/cfs2004_en.htm.

  18. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2004b). Energy in human nutrition. Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU expert consultation. FAO food and nutrition paper no. 78, Rome, Italy.

  19. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2005). Strengthening agribusiness linkages with small-scale farmers: Case studies in Latin America and the Caribbean (Vol. 4). AGSF occasional paper. Rome, Italy: FAO.

  20. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

  21. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energy and economic myths. Southern Economic Journal, 41, 347–381.

  22. Giampietro, M. (1994). Using hierarchy theory to explore the concept of sustainable development. Futures, 26(6), 616–625.

  23. Giampietro, M (2003). Energy Use in Agriculture. In: eLS. Wiley, Chichester. http://www.els.net.

  24. Giampietro, M. (2004). Multi-scale integrated analysis of agroecoystem: Complex system approach. Boca Raton, London: CRC Press.

  25. Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., & Ramos-Martin, J. (2009). Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism (MuSIASEM): Theoretical concepts and basic rationale. Energy, 34(3), 313–322.

  26. Giampietro, M., & Pastore, G. (1999). Multidimensional reading of the dynamics of rural intensification in china: The AMOEBA approach. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 18(3), 299–329.

  27. Giampietro, M., Pimentel, D., & Cerretelli, G. (1992). Assessing technological changes in agricultural production. Ambio, 21(7), 451–459.

  28. Gomiero, T., & Giampietro, M. (2001). Multiple-scale integrated analysis of farming systems: The Thuong Lo Commune (Vietnamese Uplands) case study. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(3), 315–352.

  29. Gomiero, T., & Giampietro, M. (2005). Graphic tools for data representation in integrated analysis of farming system: Attempting an overview. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 5(3–4), 264–301.

  30. Gomiero, T., Giampietro, M., Bukkens, S. M., & Paoletti, G. M. (1997). Biodiversity use and technical performance of freshwater fish culture in different socio-economic context: China and Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 62(2, 3), 169–185.

  31. Gomiero, T., Giampietro, M., Bukkens, S. M., & Paoletti, G. M. (1999). Freshwater fish aquaculture in China: Environmental and socio-economic constraints to development. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 18(3), 359–371.

  32. Grünbühel, C. M., & Schandl, H. (2005). Using land-time-budgets to analyze farming systems and poverty alleviation policies in Lao PDR. International Journal of Environmental Issues, 5(3–4), 142–180.

  33. Hecht, S. (2010). The new rurality: Globalization, peasants and the paradoxes of landscapes. Land Use Policy, 27, 161–169.

  34. IAASTD. (2008). Food security in a volatile world. Issues in brief. www.agassessment.org/docs/10505_FoodSecurity.pdf.

  35. Instituto Nacional e Estadísticas y Censos (INEC). (2006). VIII censo de población y IV de vivienda: Cifras oficiales censos nacionales, 2005. Managua, Nicaragua: INEC Reporte Técnico.

  36. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  37. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (1994). Guidelines for protected areas management categories. Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

  38. Kaimowitz, D. (1997). Policies affecting deforestation for cattle in Central America. In J. P. De Groot & R. Ruben (Eds.), Sustainable agriculture in Central America. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  39. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

  40. Kay, C. (2008). Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization period: A new rurality? Development and Change, 39(6), 915–943.

  41. Kay, C. (2011). Rural poverty reduction policies in Honduras, Nicaragua and Bolivia: Lessons from a comparative analysis. European Journal of Development Research, 23(2), 249–265.

  42. Köbrich, C., Rehman, T., & Khanc, M. (2003). Typification of farming systems for constructing representative farm models: Two illustration of the application of multivariate analyses in Chile and Pakistan. Agricultural Systems, 76, 141–157.

  43. Magrin, G., Gay García, C., Cruz Choque, D., Giménez, J. C., Moreno, A. R., & Nagy, G. J. (2007). Latin America. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, C. E. Hanson, et al. (Eds.), Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  44. Martí i Puig, S. (2004). Tiranías, Rebeliones y Democracia: Itinerarios políticos comparados en Centroámerica. Barcelona: Edicions Bellaterra.

  45. Merlet, M., & Pommier, D. (2000). Estudios sobre tenencia de la tierra. Managua: IRAM-Institut de Recherches et d’Applications des Methodes de Developpement.

  46. Muhr, T., & Friese, S. (2004). User’s manual for Atlas.ti 5.0 (2nd ed.). Berlin: Scientific Software Development.

  47. Mingorría, S., Gamboa, G., Martín-López, B., & Corbera A. (2014). The oil palm boom: Human wellbeing implications for Q’eqchi’ communities in the Polochic valley, Guatemala. Environment, Development and Sustainability.

  48. Muñoz de Chávez, M., & Ledesma Solano, J. A. (2002). Tablas de valor nutritivo de alimentos. México, DF: McGraw Hill.

  49. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service (NOAA). (2010). http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml.

  50. O’Brien, K., Eriksen, E., Nygaard, L. P., & Schojolden, A. (2007). Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate Policy, 7(1), 73–88.

  51. Pagiola, S., Ramirez, E., Gobbi, J., De Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., et al. (2007). Paying for the environmental services of silvo-pastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 64, 374–385.

  52. Pastore, G., Giampietro, M., & Li, J. (1999). Conventional and land-time budget analysis of rural villages in Hubei Province, China. Critical Review in Plant Sciences, 18(3), 331–357.

  53. Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (1996). Food, energy and society. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, Niwot.

  54. Ravera, F., Tarrasón, D., Andrés, P., & Grasa, R. (2009). Evaluación participativa de sostenibilidad en sistemas agrosilvopastoriles semi-áridos. Un caso de estudio en Nicaragua (Vol. 13, pp. 79–99). REVIBEC. http://www.redibec.org/IVO/rev13_06.pdf.

  55. Ravera, F., Tarrasón, D., & Simelton, E. (2011). Envisioning adaptive strategies to change: Participatory scenarios for agro-pastoral semiarid systems in Nicaragua. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art20/.

  56. Ravnborg, H. M. (2008). Organizing to protect: Protecting landscapes and livelihoods in the Nicaraguan hillsides. Conservation and Society, 6(4), 283–292. http://www.conservationandsociety.org/temp/ConservatSoc64283-2916698_080606.pdf.

  57. Reynolds, J. F., Maestre, F. T., Sannwald, H. E., Herrick, J., & Kemp, P. R. (2005). Aspectos socioeconómicos y biofísicos de la desertificación. Ecosistemas, 3. http://www.revistaecosistemas.net/articulo.asp?Id=131.

  58. Rosset, P. (2008). Food sovereignty and the contemporary food crisis. Development, 51(4), 460–463.

  59. Scheidel, A., Giampietro, M., & Ramos-Martin, J. (2013). Self-sufficiency or surplus: Conflicting local and national rural development goals in Cambodia. Land use policy, 34, 342–352.

  60. Segnestam L. 2009. Division of capitals—what role does it play for gender-differentiated vulnerability to drought in Nicaragua? Community Development , 40(2), 154–176.

  61. Sen, A. (1991). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  62. Siciliano, G. (2012). Urbanization strategies, rural development and land use changes in China: A multiple-level integrated assessment. Land Use Policy, 29, 165–178.

  63. Spoor, M. (1994). Issues of “State and Markets”: From interventionism to deregulation of food markets in Nicaragua. World Development, 22, 517–533.

  64. Tarrasón, D., Urrutia, J. T., Ravera, F., Herrera, E., Andres, P., & Espelta, J. M. (2010). Conservation status of tropical dry forest remnants in Nicaragua: Do ecological indicators and social perception tally? Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 813–827.

  65. United State Agency International Development (USAID). (2011) Country profile. Property rights and resource governance. Nicaragua. http://usaidlandtenure.net/sites/default/files/country-profile/fullreports/USAID_Land_Tenure_Nicaragua_Profile.pdf.

  66. World Bank (WB). (2008). Agriculture for development. World Development Report. http://www.worldbank.org/reference.

  67. World Food Program (WFP). (2002). Standardized food and livelihood assessment in support of the Central American. PRRO. DRAFT. WFP. Rome, Italy. http://ocha-gwapps1.unog.ch/rw/RWFiles2002.nsf/FilesByRWDocUNIDFileName/ACOS-64BME8-wfp-cenam-19sep.pdf/$File/wfp-cenam-19sep.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the farmers from the studied area who participated actively in the research. We are grateful to colleagues from FAREM-Estelí (Nicaragua) for their support in field work. We would specially acknowledge to Jampel Dell’Angelo and Gonzalo Gamboa for their comments. Funding for this research was provided by Catalan Agency for Development Cooperation (ACCD). The writing of this paper was enabled through funds from the Alliance for 4 Universities.

Author information

Correspondence to Federica Ravera.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 One-way ANOVA to compare performances between the five types of farms identified (N = 37) for the set of indicators selected within the two dimensions of vulnerability (i.e. sensitivity and capacity). We assigned a value (from very high to very low) with reference to a set of defined thresholds. (Note: The direction of the indicator means: ↑= increasing of value as better performance; ↓= decreasing of value as better performance; ↓↑= a better performance obtained when the value is balanced)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ravera, F., Tarrasón, D. & Siciliano, G. Rural change and multidimensional analysis of farm’s vulnerability: a case study in a protected area of semi-arid northern Nicaragua. Environ Dev Sustain 16, 873–901 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9531-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Central America dry corridor
  • Metabolic pattern analysis
  • Multicriteria assessment
  • Rural system
  • Vulnerability