| dc.description.abstract | The increase of population demands the use of more natural resources for the creation of human livelihoods. Yet, the way in which society manages today’s environmental resources threatens the survival of our society and the planet. Agriculture is one example of this mismanagement, since agricultural activities have been observed as the major human endeavour causing negative environmental effects on the planet (Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2011). At the same time, agriculture is an important source of food and income, especially in the developing world, where millions of families practice agriculture to feed their household members and earn a small income. While intensified agriculture has contributed to feed the world since the last century, agroecology poses an interesting practice that can provide a livelihood by also maintaining or even improving today’s depleting natural resource base. Thus, by applying the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA), this study presents a comparative analysis between the differences in the livelihoods portfolios of farmers adopting agricultural intensification and agroecology. This analysis will give insights in the ways in which these two agricultural systems help farmers in the Mixteca Alta region in Mexico to create a sustainable livelihood. For this purpose, a set of multiple indicators was developed to measure difference of these two cases in terms of the (1) access the corresponding farmers have to resources or capitals; (2) key strategies farmers undertake to make a living; and (3) community norms and institutions that mediate the ways in which livelihoods are crafted. Methodically, data was collected from thirty samples per case through field experiments of soil quality and livestock carrying capacities of fields as well as observations, and household questionnaires. The findings show that the livelihoods of farmers practicing intensified agriculture and agroecology differ in the benefits derived from natural, human, social, financial, and physical capital. Overall intensified farmers seem to be less vulnerable due to a larger access to capitals, especially through financial capital provided from subsidies and the sale of produce at markets. However, the agroecological case seems to bear more potential to craft a sustainable livelihood in terms of the environmental dimension of sustainability, due to its capacity to maintain and derive higher benefits from natural capital through collective action based on informal, local institutions. Thus, given the ecological crisis today’s world is facing, policy makers should consider improving agroecological farmers’ livelihood portfolio by providing financial support, training, and networking opportunities in such a way that indigenous cultures and ecological practices that strengthen the natural resource base are recognized, strengthened, and sustained. | |
