ABSTRACT

PEREZ, JANELLE, SANTOS. Climate Change, Risk, & Resiliency in Benguet Province,
Philippines. (Under the direction of Dr. Sarah Bowen).

Globally, the number of natural disasters attributed to climate change has increased. In

particular, the number of typhoons in the Philippines has doubled. This increase in frequency of

natural disasters has significant effects on rural agricultural households. Along with an increased

number of natural disasters, the Philippines has experienced rapid economic growth. However,

this economic growth has not included agricultural households. The simultaneous vulnerability

to both economic inequality and climate-related natural disasters is an example of “double-

W
exposure” (Leichenko & O’Brien 2008). Specifically, double-exposure refers to situations in

which a particular region, sector, or social group contemporaneously encounters both global
IE
environmental change and economic changes that make them vulnerable. Farmers and rural areas

are particularly assailable to due to their susceptibility to natural disasters. However, some
EV

populations are more resilient to the negative effects of double-exposure than others. Past

research on resiliency has focused on structural factors, such as markets or government

PR

institutions, but has not focused on relational or social factors. Scholars argue that more research

is needed that focuses on the relational aspects of risk, resilience, and responses to climate

change. My study uses a relational, sociological approach to understanding resilience and

integrates participatory asset-mapping workshops in two communities in the region of Benguet

in the Philippines. Along with semi-structured interviews with farmers, I also conducted asset

mapping workshops in order to identify resiliency based on strengths and assets of the

community as well as semi-structured interviews in order to analyze the nature of social relations

between community members, organizations, and institutions. By looking at how resiliency is

connected to social relations, trust, and underlying inequalities and power relations, this study
contributes to the growing body of work on risk, resiliency, agriculture, and economic and

environmental changes in the field of rural sociology. This research aids stakeholders to

empower and develop the capabilities of local communities to actively participate in their own

sustainable development.

W
IE
EV
PR
 W
IE
© Copyright 2020 by Janelle S. Perez
EV
All Rights Reserved
PR
PR
EV
IE
W
 Climate Change, Risk, and Resiliency in Benguet Province, Philippines

by
Janelle Santos Perez

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

North Carolina State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

W
IE Sociology

Raleigh, North Carolina

EV
2020

APPROVED BY:
PR

_______________________________ _______________________________
Dr. Sarah Bowen Dr. Thomas Shriver
Committee Chair

_______________________________ _______________________________
Dr. Steve McDonald Dr. Michaela DeSoucey
 ProQuest Number: 28276157

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
EV
ProQuest 28276157

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2020 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All Rights Reserved.

PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 BIOGRAPHY

Janelle Perez is a native of Otay Mesa in San Diego, California. She graduated with a

Bachelor’s Degree in English from California State University Long Beach and a Master’s

Degree in Liberal Studies with an emphasis in Women’s Studies from DePaul University. She

wrote her master’s thesis on the Filipina diaspora of domestic workers in Taiwan, Singapore, and

Malaysia. It was at DePaul that she became interested in pursuing further graduate studies in the

field of sociology. Several years after graduating from DePaul, she attended San Diego State

University (SDSU) for a Master’s Degree in Sociology where she studied race and gender in the

caregiver (for the elderly) industry in San Diego. During her graduate studies at SDSU, she was

W
part of a research team at the Center of Policy Initiatives studying taxicab drivers and working
IE
conditions in San Diego. After graduating, she went on to pursue a doctorate degree in sociology

at North Carolina State University. During her graduate studies, she spent a summer working for
EV
the U.S. State Department at the U.S. Embassy in Manila in the Public Affairs Section. At the

end of her doctorate program, Janelle was awarded a post-doctoral position at the University of

North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC) School of Nursing. She is one of the researchers in the
PR

Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) study, a pan Canadian and international longitudinal

health services and knowledge translation program of applied, multi-disciplinary research with

post-docs from UNC, the University of Alberta Edmonton, and the University of Toronto.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am indebted to the people of La Trinidad and Atok in Benguet Province. The farmers,

community leaders, academics, and government officials were generous with their time and

telling me their stories. I would not have a dissertation without them. I received generous

financial support from the Rural Sociological Society with a Dissertation Research Grant and a

travel grant. I also received two small grants from the Sociology Graduate Student Association at

North Carolina State University.

I also benefited from the great support of Benguet State University (BSU). I am very

grateful to Dr. Ruth Batani at BSU’s Institute for Social Research and Development who served

W
as my mentor and advisor while in the field. Her knowledge and advice were so helpful - I could
IE
not have asked for a better person to work with me. I had two very helpful research assistants,

Emma Dacquigan and Jo Ann Guillao. Dr. Darlyn Tagarino and Sir Thaikong Daniwes Daniwes
EV
welcomed me, made room for me in their offices so that I had a workspace, and provided me

with great logistical support. I am also grateful to Dr. Sonny Maddul who helped me connect

with BSU, as well as President Feliciano Calora for allowing me to have the university as my
PR

academic home while I conducted my research.

A special thanks to my pinsan, Ellen Gacutan, who has always been very generous

whenever I go home to the Philippines. She has always supported my love of home ever since I

was a kid. While I was conducting fieldwork, this was no exception. I am so fortunate to have

such a supportive cousin and travel partner. Also, thank you to Alex Gacutan and the Gacutan

family in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Although I do not always get to visit them, I think of my family

in Angono, Rizal and Borongan, Eastern Samar.

iii
 I am so fortunate to have life-long friends/family in California. All of us have grown up

together and are still friends after more than 20 years. A special thank you to the Torres Family -

Jennifer and Rob Torres, Coco, and Quinn - for always hosting me whenever I get to visit. Thank

you to Jen Torres for her friendship and weekly calls. Also, thank you to Fernand Macam,

Merriam Tantay, Joanne Rosario (& Ernesto Halim), Jennifer Ricafort, Jennifer Dabu, Jennifer

Hubilla (& Neil Quinn), Richella Gayden, and Joeslyn Rescober.

A special thanks to the Ramirez-Strange Family - Casey, Camilo, and Sebastian. Special

thanks to Casey Strange for being my writing partner, providing her kitchen table for us to meet

and write, and for being a great friend especially during my last few months at State. I am

W
fortunate to have Dr. Tyler Flockhart, Dr. Danny “Dayne” Hamrick, and Dr. Jennifer Lutz as
IE
solid friends and supportive colleagues. Thank you also to the NCSU Sociology Department staff

who have supported all the graduate students – Linda Orlandi, Carletta Smith, Michael
EV
Chapman, and John Craig.

I am grateful for my mentor and friend in California, Dr. Kyra Greene, who gives me

spot-on advice and makes me think critically. Our conversations always leave me invigorated.
PR

Thank you to Gina Spidel who is a great friend and sociologist – the LGBTQIA community in

San Diego is so lucky to have her. Also, thank you to Dr. Ada Cheng whose research sparked my

intellectual curiosity and Dr. Jung Choi who inspired me to go as far as I could in sociology.

I would not have survived or completed graduate school without the help of Dr. Yuka

Kato and Dr. Susan Garrett. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Michael Bachmann who worked

with me for five years. I am especially thankful to Dr. Jeffrey Parks and Sharifa Ahrendsen who

sustained me during my last two years of graduate school. As Dr. Monica Cox stated,

iv
“Dear Academia, Stop recruiting WOC and leaving them to fend for themselves in environments

that are toxic. This is a form of abuse, and it needs to stop.”

Thank you to Costco #645 which is my working refuge from academia and keeps me

grounded to my working-class roots.

Lastly, the biggest thank you to my family. My parents, Bernie and Lydia Perez, who let

me stay in my old room and feed me when I go home to California. My sisters and brothers, Judi

and Ben, and Jay and Dana. My niece and nephews, Jayla, Jayden, and Bodhi. Our dogs Winnie,

King, and Bosco. May we stay connected to each other as well as to our roots. For the memory

of my grandparents.

W
IE
EV
PR

v
 ACRONYMS

AFC Philippine Council for Agriculture & Fisheries

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ATI Agricultural Training Institute at BSU
BIGS Benguet State University Internal Guarantee System
BOFA Balili Organic Farmers Association (LGU/Supported by MAO)
BPI Bank of the Philippine Islands
BSU Benguet State University
BSUMPC Benguet State University Multipurpose Cooperative
CAR Cordillera Administrative Region
CARD Inc. Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, Inc. (CARD, Inc.)
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform (GOV)
DA or DOA Department of Agriculture (GOV)
DOLE Department of Labor & Employment (GOV)
DOST Department of Science & Technology (GOV)
DRRMC Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (GOV)

W
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development (GOV)
DTI Department of Trade & Industry (GOV)
JVO Jaime V. Ongpin Foundation, Inc. (NGO)
IE
LaTACPA La Trinidad Arabic Coffee Producers Association
LaTOP La Trinidad Organic Practitioners
LaTCOGA La Trinidad Cut Flower & Ornamental Growers Association
LGU Local Government Unit
EV
MAFC Municipal Agricultural and Fisheries Council (GOV)
MAO Municipal Agricultural Office
NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (GOV)
NGO Non-governmental Organization(s)
OMAG Office of Municipal Agriculturalist (GOV)
PR

OPAG Office of the Provincial Agriculturalist - Benguet (GOV)

PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration (GOV)
P4MP Pambansang, Mannalon, Magbabaul, Mag-uuma, Magsasakang, Pilipinas –
La Trinidad
RCEP Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
SPA Strawberry Processors Association

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Literature Review........................................................................................................................... 4
Disaster, Risk, and “Double Exposure” ............................................................................. 4
Resiliency ........................................................................................................................... 8
Case Description .............................................................................................................. 12
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 2: Methods ................................................................................................................... 16
Phase 1: Interviews with key informants ......................................................................... 17
Phase 2: Asset mapping workshops ................................................................................. 18
Phase 3: Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................ 22
Analysis of Asset Mapping Workshops ........................................................................... 23
Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews .......................................................................... 24
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 3: Risk .......................................................................................................................... 27
Research Question ........................................................................................................... 29

W
Findings............................................................................................................................ 30
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 4: Resiliency ................................................................................................................. 44
IE
Research Question ........................................................................................................... 45
Findings & Analysis ........................................................................................................ 46
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 5: Community Assets .................................................................................................. 63
EV
Findings............................................................................................................................ 66
Description of Key Assets ............................................................................................... 73
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 79
Chapter 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 83
Key Findings .................................................................................................................... 83
PR

Policy Implications .......................................................................................................... 90

Directions for future research .......................................................................................... 92
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................ 95

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Asset Mapping Workshop Demographics ..................................................................... 67

Table 2. Exemplary organizations as stated by La Trinidad farmers .......................................... 72

Table 3. Exemplary organizations as stated by Atok farmers ..................................................... 73

W
IE
EV
PR

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Who Do La Trinidad Farmers Rely Upon .................................................................... 46

Figure 2. Who Do Atok Farmers Rely Upon ............................................................................... 46

Figure 3. La Trinidad Farmers’ Asset Map ................................................................................. 69

Figure 4. Atok Farmers’ Asset Map ............................................................................................ 70

W
IE
EV
PR

ix
 CHAPTER 1: Introduction

“While climate change affects us all, it is the most vulnerable countries, and the most
vulnerable within these countries, who suffer the most. We must prioritize building their
resilience before it is too late.” – Elhadj As Sy, Secretary General of The International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies at the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit
– ‘Catalyzing Action’

The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, with an average

of 20-22 typhoons per year (Hiwasaki et al. 2014). For the past three decades, both the number of

tropical storms, specifically typhoons and floods, and the intensity of the storms (windspeed),

has increased (Jha, Martinez, Quising, Ardaniel, & Wang 2018). Scientists largely attribute the

increase in the number of typhoons to climate change (Thomas & Lopez 2015; Mendelsohn et al.

W
2012). The increased frequency of such natural disasters has significant consequences for local
IE
populations, particularly poor and agricultural communities (Davies et al. 2013; Adger 2006). In

addition, the Philippines has experienced rapid globalization and economic growth in recent
EV
years (World Bank 2020), but this growth has been unevenly distributed. The Philippines’ GINI

index (a measure of economic inequality) has risen every year since 2009 (World Bank 2016a).

Global agricultural sectors are also changing as a result of climate change. The global
PR

agriculture industry is both one of the farmers are the most vulnerable to the negative effects of

climate change. In particular, agricultural households and farm communities have largely been

excluded from the country’s economic growth (Mendoza et al. 2017). In 2019, the Philippines’

National Economic and Development Authority Undersecretary Navarro stated that “widening

disparities” in economic outcomes, particularly in agricultural regions of the country, continue to

grow.

Rural communities in the Philippines are experiencing what some scholars call “double-

exposure” (Leichenko & O’Brien 2008), defined as situations in which a particular region,

1
sector, or social group contemporaneously faces environmental and economic risks. In the case

of the Philippines, rural communities are vulnerable to both economic inequality and climate

change-related natural disasters. However, researchers find that some people and communities

are more resilient to the negative effects of double-exposure than others (Adger et al. 2003).

Although ecologists were the first group of scholars to study resiliency (Holling 1973), the

concept is increasingly used in the social sciences. Economists and geographers have mostly

examined how resiliency is linked to market factors (Lennox 2015; Burton & Peoples 2014).

Double-exposure is indicative of the interconnectedness of global processes. Environmental

change is understood as linking biophysical changes to human actions (Kotchen & Young 2007;

W
Steffen et al. 2004; Crutzen & Stoermer 2000; Vitousek et al. 1997; Turner et al. 1990), while
IE
globalization is viewed as a historical project that connects nation-states to one another through

economic and political policies (Bonnano & Constance 2008; Harvey 2005; McMichael 2012;
EV
Chase-Dunn 1998). In this context, the actions in one area of the world have effects on events

taking place in other parts of the world. Scholars argue that the interaction of economic and

environmental processes subverts the ability of humans and ecological systems to adapt and
PR

hinders long-term sustainability (Leichenko & O’Brien 2008; Sklair 2002; Beck 2000 & 1992).

Leichenko and O’Brien (2008)’s concept of “double-exposure” describes the increased risk and

uncertainty associated with the interactions between environmental change and globalization.

Rural communities are particularly susceptible to double-exposure (Burton & Peoples 2014;

Silva et al. 2010; Leichenko & O’Brien 2008; Eakin 2005). Scholars assert that the benefits of

neoliberal economic policies, including increasing productivity, resource availability, and

economic growth have largely excluded agricultural households. Because of their reliance on

natural resources and the natural environment for their livelihoods, rural communities are also

2
particularly susceptible to natural disasters and extreme weather patterns. Some studies suggest

that natural disasters are the key factor driving poverty in rural communities, causing losses of

physical capital and infrastructure, and both human and financial capital (Sun et al. 2010).

My research contributes to a better understanding of how local communities can become

more resilient in the face of increasing economic and environmental risk. This study contributes

to the literature on farmers and climate change by analyzing their perceptions, the adaptations

they make, and the way perceptions and strategies vary between households and households. In

particular, I study how social ties reduce or exacerbate the risk of double- exposure. Previous

research has looked at community responses to double-exposure including changes to

W
agricultural production such as crop diversification or shelter production. However, these studies
IE
have not explored how social ties or social support can contribute to more resilient households

and communities. My research takes place in two municipalities in the region of Benguet, a
EV
mountainous region and the most landslide-prone region in the country. Although both

municipalities are agricultural communities, they vary in terms of population size, landscape, and

types of farmers, which I hypothesized would affect farmers’ perceptions and adaptation
PR

strategies.

My study incorporates participatory asset-mapping workshops and semi-structured

interviews with farmers in two communities in the Philippines. Asset-mapping workshops

allowed community members to identify which organizations or individuals supported

community resiliency, as well as what these organizations or individuals did for the community

that helped them recover from disasters. By identifying these groups, community members could

focus on which social ties, in the form of exemplary organizations, already exist which could

help policy makers and stakeholders to continue and proliferate these types of support in their

3
agricultural communities. Interviews with farmers allowed me see who they relied upon to

recover from a disaster or in an emergency at the individual and household level. The interviews

also allowed me to see how farmers defined resiliency as well as who (or what) helped farmers

recover.

Scholars argue that a qualitative approach to understanding risk and resiliency is

necessary. As Ritchie & Gill (2007) state, the “dynamic and contextually sensitive nature of

relations across structural space in the nuanced and complex context of vulnerability and

resilience” (Straub, et al. 2020: 108). This research contributes to the literature on social

resiliency by focusing on a relatively understudied and unique (the most landslide-prone area in

W
the country) agricultural community in the Philippines. For this study, I use a grounded theory to
IE
understand perceptions of risk among farmers and rural community members and how these

perceptions are connected to resiliency. The grounded theory method relies on collecting,
EV
examining, and checking qualitative data which evolved throughout the study (Charmaz &

Belgrave 2019).

Literature Review
PR

Disaster, Risk, and “Double Exposure”

Globalization has increased both risks to the environment as well as from the

environment. By the end of the twentieth century, environmental problems have become social

problems, with nature becoming a political as well as ecological subject at the hands of both

scientists (ecological) and social scientists. Risks are not only calculated by experts, but also by

farmers and households. Calculating risks also opens “the opportunity to document statistically

consequences that were at first always personalized and shifted onto individuals” (Beck

1992:99). Eakin et al. (2009) found that coffee farmer in Mexico and Vietnam survived on the

4
socioeconomic periphery due to few educational and job market opportunities. Farmers were

encouraged to diversity their crops instead of relying solely on coffee farming, but they viewed

growing vegetables and/or fruit trees as much riskier. Coffee farmers viewed vegetables as

highly perishable, which could contribute to much greater production losses and more economic

risk. In contrast, they were aware of the volatility of the coffee market, but felt that other than the

“coffee crisis” of 2003, they had experienced few circumstances (if any) in which they were not

able to commercialize their crops (Eakin et al. 2009).

Scholars have explored risk and vulnerability in the context of climate change,

particularly strategies of adaptation in developing countries. Adger et al. (2003) describe the UN

W
Framework Convention on Climate Change (2001), and the development of the
IE
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001), the Delhi Declaration

(2002). Specifically, these scholars analyzed the parameters of risk and vulnerability in
EV
developing countries and the ways in which populations increase their capacity to adapt to

climate change (Adger et al. 2003). They also analyzed the elements of vulnerability to extreme

weather patterns and uncertainty. The authors found, for example, that agricultural communities
PR

in Nigeria and Bangladesh demonstrated resilience to climate change by investing in agricultural

production and shelters. They conclude by identifying a need for further research on adaptation

processes and a better understanding of “the international political economy of response to the

threat” (ibid). Other scholars have also studied climate change in communities who are also

experiencing economic changes such as the implementation of trade liberalization policies. In

this study, I use O’Brien and Leichenko’s (2000) concept of “double exposure” in order to

analyze community- and household-level resiliency in a province that is simultaneously

experiencing both of these phenomena.

5
 Since O’Brien and Leichenko (2000) introduced the concept of “double-exposure” 20

years ago, researchers have analyzed the relationships between double-exposure and resiliency at

the community and household levels. For example, Silva, Eriksen, and Ombe (2010) studied the

effects of double-exposure on small farms in two different villages in Mozambique. Both areas

faced high exposure to economic risks due to their lack of access to agricultural inputs, inability

to access regional and international markets, and changes in credit availability, as well as

exposure to extreme environmental events including severe droughts and floods. The study

found that most households were resilient to environmental stressors but demonstrated less

resilience when it came to socioeconomic stressors brought about or intensified by globalization,

W
such as structural adjustment policies. Burton and Peoples (2014) applied the double-exposure
IE
framework to New Zealand, a developed country, and its agricultural sector. New Zealand was

experiencing major droughts as the country was embracing neoliberal political and economic
EV
changes. The authors found that these changes influenced farmers’ choice to reconfigure rural

spaces to adapt to expanding industries (e.g. dairy) based on deregulatory economic policies but

that at the same time, these industries became increasingly vulnerable to climate change (Burton
PR

& Peoples 2014). O’Brien, et al. (2004) surveyed farmer households in three different districts

in India to assess the impacts of agricultural policies and environmental hazards (e.g. droughts)

on farmers’ livelihoods. These scholars found that farmers resorted to changing crops due to

market volatility or moving to a neighboring district in search of work due to years of drought;

however, they also found that larger farmers benefited from government subsidies, bank loans,

and had larger market access than smaller farmers who lacked information and relied on

individual lenders (ibid). Other scholars use the notion of double exposure to analyze agricultural

and economic policies. Fortier and Trang (2013) critique Vietnam’s agricultural modernization

6
policies and national climate change strategies. These scholars argue that these policies, which

have existed for decades, consist of the same agricultural practices that are hard on the

environment (use of high energy outputs and chemicals). Fortier and Trang (2013) also found

that these policies solidified a young and powerful urban elite class who are unlikely to question

and/or change agricultural modernization policies (ibid).

Mountain regions are particularly susceptible to the effects of double exposure vulnerable

to the effects of climate change and double exposure (USGS ND, United Nations Climate

Change 2020, UNESCO 2019, Palomo 2017, Beniston, et al. 2003). Lennox’s (2015) study in

the Peruvian highlands found that, farmers adapted to environmental and economic shifts by

W
moving away from traditional farming and towards animal husbandry, including changing to
IE
crops that sustain livestock (e.g. different types of grasses). Thorpe and Figge’s (2018) study of a

community in the Indian Himalayas found that households dealt with these changes by altering
EV
traditional gender roles; men left farming for other types of employment due to failing farms

(environment) and an increasing devaluation of agriculture jobs, leaving women to own and

operate farms. Guido et al.’s (2020) study of small-holder coffee farmers in the Jamaican
PR

highlands showed that nearly all households insulated themselves against economic and

environmental changes by using personal savings, fewer inputs, changing crops, or selling assets

(ibid). Also, slightly more than half of farmer households stated that they did not use information

and knowledge networks such as farmer organizations or government-sponsored technical

training (or extension services) (ibid). Overall, these studies found that farmers in highland

regions tried different economic strategies that supported resiliency in the face of double-

exposure.

7
 Overall, studies of double-exposure have shown that households may be able to adapt to

environmental stressors associated with climate change (extreme or changes to weather patterns),

but may have more difficulties adjusting to economic shifts, including structural adjustment

policies or increased competition in a globalized market. Existing research also shows that the

resiliency of households depends on the historical context of the agricultural market and farmers’

ability to diversify sources of household income (by switching crops or migrating to urban areas,

for example). However, as discussed below, studies of double exposure have tended to ignore the

social factors – in particular, social ties and social support – that contribute to more resilient

communities and households are still poorly understood.

W
Resiliency
IE
Even as rural communities are disproportionately exposed to the effects of double-

exposure, some communities and households are more resilient than others. Resilience is
EV
generally understood by scientists as the capacity of hazard-exposed communities to adapt, by

either resisting or changing in order to function. Olsson et al. (2015:1) define resiliency as “the

ability to cope with stress or, more precisely, to return to some form of normal condition after a
PR

period of stress.” Early studies of resiliency focused on the resiliency of ecological systems in

the face of change. In 1960, ecologist C.S. Holling introduced the concept of resiliency, defining

it as “the capacity to persist within such a domain in the face of change” (Holling 1973:17, as

quoted in Folke 2006). In the 1970s, scholars outside of ecology began to study resiliency (Folke

2006). For example, anthropologists Vayda and McCay (1975) argued that in order to understand

environmental problems, it was necessary to examine the relationship between “characteristics of

hazards such as their magnitude, duration, and novelty” and “other properties of people’s

responses,” including how both individual groups respond to hazards.

8
 Eventually, the concept of resiliency evolved to incorporate two distinct but

interconnected concepts – social resiliency and ecological resiliency. As stated above, resiliency

is generally understood as the capacity of hazard-exposed communities to adapt by either

resisting or changing in order to function (UNISDR 2002). This involves both environmental and

social systems. The concept of social resiliency is used to show how social groups at the

community level adapt to environmental change (Adger 2000). Scholars argue that social and

ecological systems are linked, especially in social systems that are dependent on a single

resource or single ecosystem (Adger 2000). According to Adger (2000), social resiliency is

“related in some (still undefined) way” to the resilience of the ecosystems in which the social

W
system depends upon and can be observed by “examining positive and negative aspects of social
IE
exclusion, marginalization and social capital” (350, 352). Leichenko and Silva (2014) note that

existing research demonstrates that poor communities are vulnerable to climate change, but that
EV
there is little research on the specific factors that improve or increase resiliency. Silva et al.

(2010) also argue that future research should evaluate the strategies that households and

communities use to cope with multiple stressors and how these strategies influence political and
PR

economic outcomes and, in turn, configure resiliency of rural populations in developing

countries.

Some social scientists studying resiliency have adopted a functionalist approach, focusing

largely on resource dependency. This research finds, for example, when agricultural systems are

more integrated into markets, communities are more resilient in the face of shocks such as

harvest failure or social erosion (Parnwell & King 1998; King 1996; Paulson 1993; Bayliss-

Smith 1991). Other scholars find that resiliency in predominantly agricultural communities

depends on the diversity of economic activities—for example, whether households engage in off-

9
 farm and nonfarm activities or maintain their own livestock, seed, and food reserves (Eakin

2006; Batterbury 2001; Rincoli, Ingram, & Kirshen 2001; Ellis 2000). More specifically,

scholars have found that at the farm and community level, agricultural diversity was critical to

farmers’ economic livelihoods (Eakin & Wehbe 2009; Eakin 2006; Chapin et al. 2004; Ellis

2000). Farmers, whose livelihoods are dependent upon the land and climate, are directly

impacted by climate change and therefore constitute a particularly vulnerable social group.

Therefore, they are negatively integrated into “unequal social, economic and political relations”

which can exacerbate existing issues of inequality and power (Taylor 2013: 318). Rural farmers

not only rely on access to assets such as mechanical equipment, pesticides, or technical

W
knowledge, they also rely on their relationships to other people or groups, who may share
IE
knowledge or help them access credit or labor (Taylor 2013).

Some studies use survey methods to analyze resiliency at the household level. Hassan and
EV
Nhemachena’s (2008) study of eleven African countries used cross-sectional surveys to

determine adaptation measures in over 8,000 individual farms. They found that mono-cropping

farms were most vulnerable to climate change and that access to markets, credit services, and
PR

technology helped farm households adapt to the effects of climate change, specifically droughts

and high temperatures. Mehar et al. (2016) studied an agricultural community that was extremely

vulnerable to shocks due to climate change, including floods and droughts. They found that male

farmers were more likely than female farmers to make decisions based on specific coping

strategies. More specifically, men resorted to alternative employment in urban locations in order

to cope with these climatic shocks to their farms (Mehar et al. 2016).

A handful of studies have examined the social factors that contribute to resiliency.

Scholars have argued that social resiliency is linked to social norms and behaviors as well as

10

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.