
































Microsoft Word - 293-Final.docx


   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 1, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. Rafael Landaverde, Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University, 600 John Kimbrough Blvd, TAMU 2116, College Station, TX 

77843, rafael.q@ag.tamu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-04773  
2. Mary T. Rodriguez, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University, 200E Agricultural Administration Building, 2120 Fyffe 

Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, rodriguez.746@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-2787  
3. Jera E. Niewoehner-Green, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University, 200E Agricultural Administration Building, 2120 

Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, niewoehner-green.1@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-1956 
4. Tracy Kitchel, Professor, The Ohio State University, 200E Agricultural Administration Building, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, 

Ohio 43210, kitchel.2@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7563-5874 
5. Jaqueline Chuquillanqui, Graduate Student, Postgraduate Department, Zamorano University, Valle del Yeguare, 

Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 11101, jaqueline.gomez@est.zamorano.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8535-0429  
75 

 

Local-Scale Factors and Dynamics in Climate Adaptability 
Among Subsistence Farmers   

 
R. Landaverde1, M. T. Rodriguez2, J. E. Niewoehner-Green3, T. Kitchel4, J. Chuquillanqui5 

 
 

Article History 
Received: January 19, 2023 
Accepted: March 2, 2023 
Published: March 23, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
agricultural development, food 
security, poverty, rural livelihoods, 
sustainability 
  

Abstract 
Climate change is the primary environmental threat to subsistence 
farmers’ productivity in Peru. Adaptation is promoted as the best 
mechanism to cope with climate change in subsistence agricultural 
livelihoods. However, climatic adaptability depends on the resources the 
farmer has access to or can use, which are not always adequate to 
respond effectively to the speed and aggressiveness of climate change. 
This study explored the local factors and dynamics (assets) influencing the 
climate adaptability processes of subsistence farmers in Huayhuay, Peru. 
Twenty subsistence farmers participated in semi-structured interviews 
within a basic qualitative design. The results brought to light 18 local 
factors and dynamics that influence the coping mechanisms of climate 
adaptability. These findings support other investigations that 
demonstrate the difficulty of climate change adaptation agricultural 
communities face. The difficulty of climate change adaptation has rooted 
the interrelationships of assets of different natures within the same 
adaptive process. Future research and interventions should encourage 
the active participation of farmers in local climate action and evaluate the 
efficiency and effectiveness of farmers' adaptability mechanisms, 
considering the role of each local-scale factor and dynamic. 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  76 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Climate change (CC) is the most critical environmental challenge humanity has to solve; 
however, according to recent studies, CC is so severe it may be irreversible (Arora, 2019; United 
Nations Environment Programme, 2022). CC severity in Latin America and the Caribbean is 
documented by increasingly frequent high temperatures, droughts, and extreme weather 
events (Núñez Collado & Wang, 2020; Reyer et al., 2017). Although CC affects all economic 
activities, some, such as agriculture, are even more sensitive to climate variability (Dong et al., 
2015). Peru, along with other developing countries, relies primarily on agriculture by 
subsistence farmers (World Bank Group, 2017). Subsistence agriculture is the top Peruvian 
economic development priority due to its dominance over other forms of agricultural 
production (World Bank Group, 2017). CC affects the vulnerability of subsistence agricultural 
livelihoods with implications for food security, food price inflation, and livelihood resilience 
leading to a need for understanding factors impacting climate adaptability (Baiphethi & Jacobs, 
2009).  
 
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] (2018), it is no longer feasible for 
subsistence farmers to mitigate the impacts of CC. The scope and speed of progress of CC 
impacts exceed the response capacities of most developing agricultural communities (FAO, 
2018). While mitigation should still be promoted among subsistence farmers, adaptation seems 
the best alternative to maintain livelihoods (Shaffril et al., 2018). CC adaptation is a place-based 
process incorporating local perspectives, beliefs, and contexts (Murtagh & Lane, 2022). Smit 
and Pilifosova (2001) stated, “adaptation varies according to the system in which it occurs, who 
performs it, the climatic stimuli that cause it, and its timing, functions, and effects” (p. 881). 
Therefore, this study aimed to inform local climate action by exploring the local factors and 
dynamics (assets) farmers considered when implementing CC adaptability strategies. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The livelihoods of interest for this study were those of subsistence farmers in Huayhuay, Peru. 
Therefore, the Integrated Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (I-SLF) was adapted from 
Department for International Development [DFID] (1999) to guide this study. The I-SLF 
“emphasizes the importance of the livelihood assets [local factors and dynamics] that people 
have access to, or draw on, and the context within which they devise livelihood strategies so 
has to attain greater livelihoods outcomes” (Yohannis et al., 2017, p. 6). Due to its flexibility to 
collect and present livelihood contextual factors and dynamics, particularly from poor 
populations in developing countries, the I-SLF has been widely implemented to study the stress 
of climate variability on local agricultural livelihoods (DFID, 1999). For example, Yohannis et al. 
(2017) used the I-SLF to evaluate the integration of climate-related information into Ghanaian 
farmers’ livelihoods using information and communication technologies, and Aboye et al. 
(2022) used the I-SLF to investigate farmers’ experiences derived from major CC impacts in 
southern Ethiopia. Employing the I-SLF (Figure 1) as the conceptual framework for this study 
provided a lens to explain how local factors and dynamics (assets) within the five capitals 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  77 
 

(human, natural, social, physical, and financial) influence livelihood strategies implemented to 
adapt to climate variability (vulnerability context), and thus, influence livelihood outcomes.   
 
CC and its variability in Peru negatively influence the country’s vulnerability context of 
subsistence farmers (Aboye et al., 2022; Lozano-Poviz et al., 2021). Official reports state that CC 
impacts the quality and availability of natural resources in Peru (e.g., water, soil, biodiversity) 
and reduces the productivity of agricultural systems (Lozano-Poviz et al., 2021; U.S. Agency for 
International Development [USAID], 2017). The impacts of CC on agricultural systems indicate 
the need for changes in agricultural practices. However, other non-climatic context 
components, such as human relations and migration patterns, also play a role in determining 
farmers’ adaptability efforts (López et al., 2017). 
 
Figure 1 
 
Integrated Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (I-SLF) 

Note: Adapted from the Department for International Development (1999).  
 
Achieving positive livelihood outcomes for farmers requires identifying the local factors and 
dynamics farmers consider in their climate vulnerability context (DFID, 1999; López et al., 2017). 
Sometimes, managing the climatic adaptability of subsistence farmers requires transformations 
of local structures and processes for which normative and regulatory changes are needed that 
farmers cannot enforce (DFID, 1999). Therefore, improving farmers’ adaptability potential is the 
best option. The United Nations (n.d.) defined adaptation as “adjustments in ecological, social, 
or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or 
impacts and refers to changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential 
damage or benefit from climate change opportunities” (p. 1). Therefore, local asset availability 
variation modifies individuals’ ability to deal effectively with local climatic variations (DFID, 
1999; Scoones, 2015).  
 
 

Climate 
Change 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  78 
 

Purpose 
 
This study aimed to describe local factors and dynamics (i.e., physical, human, financial, social, 
natural) subsistence farmers consider when engaging in agricultural climate adaptability 
strategies to improve their livelihood outcomes. Due to the increase in potential risks and 
vulnerability in Peru resulting from CC, the national government has fostered adaptability at all 
socioeconomic and production levels. Therefore, this study was part of a series of research 
projects designed to engage agricultural stakeholders in local climate action planning in rural 
Peru. The results will inform CC adaptability initiatives and climate-related public policies 
implemented by local and central authorities. The research question guiding this study was: 
What local factors and dynamics (assets) influence Peruvian subsistence farmers’ agricultural 
climate adaptability strategies? 
 

Methods 
 
This basic qualitative research study was grounded in social constructivism (Creswell, 2007; 
Flick, 2019), which seeks individuals’ understanding of the world around them through their 
own experiences (Creswell, 2007). Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with 
subsistence farmers from Huayhuay, Peru. Participation criteria included: producing on less 
than two hectares yearly and primary self-consumption of agricultural production. The 
interview guide was structured using the climate adaptability available literature (Sarkar et al., 
2014; Schattman et al., 2016 Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). Five professionals (researchers, 
practitioners, and policymakers) validated the content and structure of the interview guide 
(Usry et al., 2018).  
 
Participants were recruited through a personal visit from a Huayhuay Agricultural and 
Environmental Affairs office member. During the visit, participants received verbal and written 
information about the study, including future use of the results. Therefore, participants had 
space to ask questions and then voluntarily share their intention to participate by agreeing with 
the researcher on a convenient date and time to schedule the semi-structured interview. Most 
participants self-identified as male (70%, n = 14) and were between the ages of 29 and 72, with 
an average age of 52. Participants produced various crops, including potatoes, ulluco, barley, 
and corn, and raised livestock, including goats, sheep, and llamas. Each participant was assigned 
a pseudonym to protect their privacy.  
 
To participate in the semi-structured interviews, participants traveled to the Huayhuay 
Agricultural and Environmental Affairs office facilities located at the municipality offices. Upon 
arrival, they were directed to a private room with audio and video equipment and an internet 
connection. Following Ortiz’s (2015) privacy recommendations for anonymous human research 
and to establish trust, only the interviewer (first author) and interviewee were present during 
the interview. The interviewer addressed cultural and power dynamics implicit in the interview 
process and incentivized rapport with the interviewers by approaching them with a curious 
attitude, following the recommendations of McGrath et al. (2019). With an interview protocol 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  79 
 

of 16 guiding questions, interviews lasted an average of 45 minutes and were conducted in 
Spanish, recorded, and transcribed. The following are examples of two guiding interview 
questions: Are you receiving any type of support to adapt your agricultural production to 
climate variability? and Have you noticed changes in the climate?  If so, how have these 
changes affected your farm? A structural coding scheme based on DFID’s (1999) five capitals of 
sustainable livelihoods was implemented to analyze the data using NVivo 12. Coding followed a 
hybrid approach, incorporating newly emerged themes into pre-established categories. Data 
were translated during the interpretation of the results by members of the research team who 
are sociolinguistically competent in Spanish and English (Squires, 2008). Each farmer was given 
a code name beginning with F and followed by a number 1-20 to anonymously report the 
findings. 
 
Trustworthiness and rigor were established in several ways. First, credibility was achieved by 
triangulating the data using detailed observations and the interviewer’s reflective memos 
(Creswell, 2007). Second, transferability was achieved by providing readers with a thick and rich 
description of the study’s information sources and findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln 
& Guba, 1985). Third, confirmability was achieved through researchers’ self-critical attitude and 
openness, accounting for their experiences, feelings, and biases in reflective memos (Thomas & 
Magilvy, 2011). Fourth, reflexivity was achieved through researchers’ self-recognition and 
written self-reflection. Finally, the principal researcher was born and raised in a developing 
country with similar socioeconomic and environmental conditions to Peru. He has previous 
experience in research and extension with subsistence farmers in low and middle-income 
countries. His interest in this community is rooted in a collaborative partnership with local 
authorities. Four researchers were fluent in Spanish and had previous experience with climate 
adaptability among agricultural communities in developing countries. Finally, one researcher 
knew participants before the study was conducted and had professional responsibilities 
addressing their livelihood needs. 
 

Findings 
 
Eighteen local-scale factors and dynamics influencing climate adaptability were identified and 
categorized using the five capitals of sustainable livelihoods (Human (n = 3), Natural (n = 3), 
Social (n = 4), Physical (n = 2), and Financial (n = 6)).    
 
Human Local Factors and Dynamics 
 
Climate-Related Knowledge 
Farmers know that their limited knowledge of climate adaptability prevents them from making 
sound decisions (F3, F5, F13). This was echoed by F16, who said, "You do what you can. I try to 
keep the animals [llamas] healthy, but I notice that the heat affects them, but I do not know 
what else to do." Failure was the most common result of climate adaptability strategies 
implemented by farmers because they needed to be more adequate and appropriately 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  80 
 

implemented. F10 commented that he perceived the climate changes and implemented 
strategies to cope with them but got discouraged when those strategies failed.   
 
Labor Demand  
Climate adaptability strategies require higher agricultural labor investment. Farmers are aware 
of the increment in labor investment they must make to produce under the new climatic 
scenario (F4, F11, F17). For example, farmers affirmed that practices like irrigation, pest and 
disease control, and weed demand more time than before, not just because these agricultural 
treats have become more resistant but because it is harder to perform them with the increase 
in local temperatures (F4, F9, F14, F19, F20). A common trend among farmers was that they 
needed help to meet the increasing demand for labor in their agricultural production. F6 
commented, “I am old, and the plot demands more work than before. So sometimes, if my son 
has time, he helps me, and if he doesn’t, I look for someone to work with me for a couple of 
days.” 
 
Food Consumption Patterns 
Local food consumption patterns limited farmers’ climate adaptability. F6 affirmed that 
customers were looking for more sustainable and environmentally friendly food that is very 
difficult to produce because of CC. Farmers, especially men in charge of agricultural marketing, 
commented on how changes in consumer preferences interfered with their climate adaptability 
processes (F6, F14). F1 mentioned, “When I want to sell quinoa, they [customer] ask me if I 
applied fertilizers…and of course, I had to. Otherwise, the production will not survive. When I 
explain that to them, they do not want to buy it anymore.” 
 
Household eating patterns followed a similar trend. Foods preferred by household members 
usually do not yield adequately in the field due to the climatic variability of the area. For 
example, F7 said, “We used to eat oats; everyone liked them, and is nutritious and good for 
children. However, they do not yield, so it is not worth planting them…The heat really affects 
the oats plants. So, we are now planting grass.” 
 
Natural Factors and Dynamics 
 
Water 
Water resource availability for domestic and agricultural uses was essential for climate 
adaptability among participants. Farmers expressed concern about available water to maintain 
their agricultural production effectively (F1, F16, F19). F11 shared, “It is risky for me to start 
planting because I don’t know how much water will be available… The rain doesn’t fall as often 
anymore, and everyone risks losing everything invested.” While most farmers relied entirely on 
rainwater, others used water from the community water system, opening up competition 
between domestic and agricultural water use. F6 mentioned: 

We get water daily [from the community supply system]. But that water is for our 
house... but, if I want to produce, I have to irrigate the crops, so I try to make good use 
of the water that I get… I always wonder if I’ll have enough water for the next crop 
season. 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  81 
 

  
Farmers also highlighted that constantly decreasing water availability prevented them from 
implementing an irrigation system as an adaptation strategy (F1, F4, F17). F1 affirmed that 
installing an irrigation system was a big investment that did not bring the expected benefits 
because “ there wasn’t enough water to use it.” 
 
Local Weather Patterns 
The instability of precipitation and temperature made it challenging to implement adaptation 
strategies such as crop diversification and changes in agricultural production practices (F4, F9, 
F15). For example, F12 commented, “We changed crops and planting schedules, trying to 
produce more. However, it doesn’t work because it’s so hot. I keep thinking it will rain, and it 
doesn’t. So even if I try, it only sometimes works out for me.” Local climate variation was 
described as unpredictable (F3, F17, F20), and farmers acknowledge its influence on climate 
adaptability strategies' effectiveness.  
 
Soil Fertility 
Faced with infertile soil, farmers chose not to implement climatic adaptability strategies for soil 
conservation and protection due to their self-perception of inefficiency grounded in previous 
experiences (F4, F13). Other farmers lost interest in other adaptability strategies due to their 
infertile soil. For example, F20 said, “When I know that I am producing on infertile land, then I 
don’t worry about investing in irrigation or other products that can help me produce more... If 
the soil is not good, there is not much to do.”  
 
Social Factors and Dynamics 
 
Knowledge Generation  
Although not all farmers were interested in generating knowledge related to CC, all explained 
how their limited ability to access productive and educational resources was a hindrance (F3, 
F17). For example, F11 shared, “every year, they give me a different plot. Everything I 
implemented and learned last year no longer served me this year. The soil fertility, water 
availability, and everything were different because I worked in a different plot." Others stated 
that they decide whether or not to implement an adaptability strategy based on the potential 
to learn either in practice or from interactions with other farmers (F2, F7, F11). Finally, farmers 
noted difficulties associated with needing to have records of their implemented efforts to 
compare and contrast the effectiveness of the strategies (F12, F18) and with their inability to 
identify strategies that responded to the characteristics of their agricultural production (F8). 
 
Agricultural Exchange 
An informal agricultural exchange system operated among farmers in Huayhuay, Peru, who 
acknowledged its beneficial influence on climate adaptability (F7, F16). Although most of the 
transactions only involved agricultural products, some farmers participated in exchanges of 
non-agricultural goods, labor, and knowledge (F4, F8, F11, F19). For example, F16 mentioned, 
“We exchanged food with relatives to have a greater variety…My husband also helps them 
install irrigation systems on their plots; sometimes, they pay him with money, and when it is 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  82 
 

not possible, they pay with something from the harvest.” Additionally, farmers claimed to 
benefit from the exchange of knowledge they maintain with other farmers they perceive as 
successful in their climate adaptability processes (F2, F7, F11, F16). For example, F13 shared, “I 
knew very little about mixing crops. But Mr. [Name] had already done it before. So, I asked him, 
and he helped me do it, and thank God we have improved our production, even when it does 
not rain.” 
 
Farmers Association 
Mutual support, access to agricultural products and food, and technical assistance were 
incentives for farmers’ climate adaptability, and they received these through a local farmers’ 
association (F16, F17, F5). F4 commented, “I have been able to have access to an agricultural 
plot as a member of a community association. We meet at least once a month, and, in that 
meeting, you can always learn from what others are doing.” Farmers prioritize the knowledge 
and supplies they receive from the association, as they perceive them to be of superior quality 
(F6, F10, F19). 
 
Migration 
Farmers noted how human migration increased and thus interfered with their ability to cope 
with CC. F3 shared that her husband emigrated, and she could not continue with the family's 
agricultural production because the changes she had to make due to climate changes were not 
feasible to do on her own. In addition, migration was more common among men, causing 
women to assume more responsibilities in family agricultural production. F16 said, "I help my 
husband with the fieldwork; I do not think I could do it alone. I admire several women in the 
community whose husbands leave, and they keep working in the plots. For me, it was 
impossible.”  Farmers perceived migration as the nonstop flight of knowledge and the best 
labor force for agricultural production (F2, F9, F13). 
 
Physical Factors and Dynamics 
 
Land Tenure 
Land access and ownership were critical to promoting local climate adaptability. In Huayhuay, 
Peru, most of the agricultural land belongs to the municipality. Therefore, at the discretion of a 
farmers’ association, each farmer received a plot for one year, for which they pay a fee and 
must abide by the association’s regulations. F2 shared, “They assign us a plot each year, and we 
must do what we can in the space they have assigned us. There is no possibility of making 
changes or asking for more land. It is what it is.” The annual allocation of agricultural land 
prevents farmers from implementing CC adaptation strategies. This land governance practice 
adversely affects farmers’ implementation capacities because they encounter climate variability 
and constant change in production settings. F11 mentioned, "Every year, I am assigned a 
different plot. So, I must wait to find out where it is to start deciding what and how I will 
produce it.” F10 supported that trend and said, “I was very lucky two years ago because they 
gave me a plot with very good soil. So, I combined crops and produced several foods. This last 
year, the plot was fertile, but there was no water to irrigate.” 
 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  83 
 

Technical Assistance  
Farmers have limited access to and a perceived rising need for climate-related technical 
assistance (F1, F3, F8, F11, F19, F20). Besides what they receive through the farmers’ 
association, they could not identify any other training source. F19 shared, “In other 
communities, we have seen that they train people on how to improve [agricultural production]; 
here, we have no support from anyone.”  Farmers recognized that needing more technical 
support has obligated them to rely on improvising to adapt to climate variability. Farmers 
expressed their interest and motivation to participate in climate adaptability training to 
potentially build capacities (F9).  
 
Financial Factors and Dynamics  
 
Agricultural Income and Investment 
Although farmers were implementing climate adaptability strategies that required economic 
investment, their agricultural production did not generate enough income to meet household 
needs or allow for investment (F20, F13, F11). Farmers named low productivity, higher prices, 
and inflation as factors connected to the family income that prevented them from investing in 
agricultural climate adaptability. F2 commented how in his household, they must prioritize 
money for essential needs, leaving him with no money to obtain any product or service to 
improve his agricultural productivity.  
 
Economic Diversification 
Faced with economic deficiencies, farmers had to explore other areas of employment. As a 
result, many farmers earned income through economic sectors other than agriculture (F3, F14). 
F7, who has worked in agriculture since childhood, recently began working at a local goldmine 
due to his increasingly negative farm results and perceived inability to meet household needs. 
This type of economic diversification has led to reduced farmer interest in agricultural climatic 
adaptation. Participants affirmed that other economic sectors have higher salary or income 
generation rates and farmers acknowledged reducing the emphasis on productivity when they 
work outside agriculture (F7, F11). F8 commented: 

Before, my children and I worked together on the plot, but since they wanted to earn 
more money, they went to try out the mine… They give me money every month, so, no 
reason for me to keep trying to produce when the weather is not on our side. 

 
Agricultural Credits  
Agricultural credits helped support climate adaptability investments. F3 affirmed that 
agricultural credits were the only financial mechanism to invest in farming inputs and enhance 
adaptability practices. However, several community members did not qualify for them. F2 
commented, “We tried to get a credit to buy an irrigation system, but they did not give it to us; 
they said we did not qualify for it.” Farmers who mentioned having accessed agricultural credits 
did so through a financial assistance program implemented by an international aid entity, now 
defunct it due to long-term sustainability issues. 
 
 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  84 
 

Agricultural Supplies Cost  
Farmers reported rising prices for farm inputs, including tools, chemicals, and seeds. The high 
cost of agricultural inputs reduced farmers’ purchasing power and, consequently, their ability to 
implement adaptation strategies. In addition, farmers stated that the cost of farm supplies 
discourages them from engaging in climate resiliency practices, as they cannot guarantee future 
purchasing power. For example, F5 shared, “Every year, I apply more and more fertilizer to have 
production, and the difficulty is not in the extra work required to do it, but in that the products 
are more and more expensive.”  
 
Agricultural Product Prices 
Farmers identified a trend of increasing variability in the marketing prices of their agricultural 
production, which prevents them from having a reliable and secure income that meets their 
financial needs and allows them to invest in climate adaptation practices. According to F2, 
“[Products] change value quickly, I'm producing quinoa, and if I'm not mistaken, it costs 300 
soles a quintal, but it goes up or down. So, it’s impossible to maintain a price that ensures I will 
recover everything I invested.”  
 
Market Quality Standards 
Farmers often found it challenging to sell their products due to non-compliance with visual and 
organoleptic market standards. They face poor physiological development of crops and 
vegetables due to climate change. F4 said: "the potatoes are so small that I cannot sell them, so 
we eat them, so they don't go to waste.” F9 shared: “The vegetables were not fully developed; 
they are super crooked, so no one buys them.” Farmers were reluctant to implement 
adaptability strategies without market acceptance for their products because they did not 
perceive a reason to improve their production quality (F6, F14). 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Peruvian subsistence farmers identified diverse factors and local dynamics influencing their CC 
adaptation. These findings support literature that has shown how the challenges of adaptability 
to CC lie in the multitude of interrelationships between factors and dynamics from socio-
environmental and economic conditions (Hopkins, 2014; Naylor et al., 2020). Although each 
local factor or dynamic identified in the current study was classified within a single capital, the 
literature indicates that livelihoods are not linear and, therefore, many factors and dynamics 
have concurrent implications (DFID, 1999). For example, migration is a dynamic of social capital 
due to the experiences of social change it promotes. However, studies have found an 
improvement in the rural family economy (e.g., financial capital) resulting from migration 
(Richerson & Boyd, 2008; Rocca, 2020). While one trend may negatively affect one capital, it 
could improve another (Scoones, 2015). 
 
The local factors and dynamics described in this study highlight many implications of 
adaptability in the connectivity between vulnerability context and livelihood transformation 
processes. These transformations are aimed at positive livelihood outcomes, such as increased 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  85 
 

food diversity and availability, stable income, and human capacities (DFID, 1999). For example, 
factors and dynamics related to farmers’ participation in agricultural markets and their buying 
and selling power will impact income generation. On the other hand, regarding agricultural 
productivity, the factors and dynamics could favor the reduction of vulnerability and the 
assurance of nutritious food in households (DFID, 1999). 
 
The I-SLF suggests a discussion of priority-setting actions to support the adaptation processes of 
subsistence farmers (DFID, 1999). The current study captured farmers’ perspectives regarding 
what is relevant to them when adapting their livelihoods to CC, and the findings lead to several 
important implications for practitioners and policymakers. First, farmers’ perceptions of and 
experiences with local factors and dynamics relevant to climate adaptability should be at the 
center of the climate action discussion. Practitioners, researchers, and funding agencies must 
view farmers as protagonists in the climate adaptability debate rather than passive information 
recipients, especially when planning, implementing, and evaluating initiatives focused on 
improving agricultural livelihoods (Menconi et al., 2017). Second, the spaces and mechanisms 
for farmers’ participation must be created by those in leadership positions that can improve the 
dynamics associated with climate adaptability (Ariti et al., 2018). Finally, engaging farmers in 
local climate action reduces participation gaps among stakeholder groups in climate planning. 
Although the study revealed numerous local-scale factors and dynamics important to 
subsistence farmers’ climate adaptability in Peru, these may not be exhaustive. Climate 
adaptability research has identified an extensive list of influential factors and dynamics, several 
of which did not emerge in this study. For example, women’s participation, traditional 
practices, and cultural identities are other local factors and dynamics that influence climate 
adaptability in communities similar to Huayhuay (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
[IPCC], 2022).  
 
Although this study supports the recommendations of Murtagh and Lane (2022) on the 
importance of promoting people and place-based climate adaptability practices and considering 
the particularities of the locality and target population, the results revealed local factors and 
dynamics of high interest among developing countries. Thus, although preliminary, these 
results offer valuable insights for individuals and organizations to set priorities for research and 
action to strengthen climate adaptability and improve the livelihoods of subsistence farmers in 
Peru and similar communities elsewhere. For example, local and regional governments should 
consider paying farmers for their productive services, ensuring them a source of income and 
strengthening their livelihoods. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  86 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
We thank the local authorities of Huayhuay for their instrumental support in recruiting 
participants and collecting data. 
 
Author Contributions: R. Landaverde - conceptualization, methodology, validation, 
investigation, data curation, analysis, writing-original draft, review & editing; M.T. Rodriguez - 
methodology, writing-review, and editing, supervision; T. Kitchel - methodology, writing-review 
and editing, supervision; J. Niewoehner-Green - methodology, writing-review, and editing, 
supervision; J Chuquillanqui - investigation. 
 

References 
 
Aboye, A. B., Kinsella, J., & Leza, T. (2022). Major climatic changes experienced by farm 

households: Evidence from the lowlands of Southern Ethiopia. Advancements in 
Agricultural Development, 3(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.163  

Ariti, A. T., van Vliet, J., & Verburg, P. H. (2018). Farmers’ participation in the development of 
land use policies for the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 71, 129–137. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.051 

Arora, N. K. (2019). Impact of climate change on agriculture production and its sustainable 
solutions. Environmental Sustainability, 2(2), 95–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-
019-00078-w 

Baiphethi, M. N., & Jacobs, P. T. (2009). The contribution of subsistence farming to food 
security in South Africa. Agrekon, 48(4), 459–482. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2009.9523836 

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches 
(2nd ed.). Sage Publications 

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed 
methods approach (5th edition). Sage Publications. 

Department for International Development. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. 
https://www.ennonline.net/attachments/872/section2.pdf 

 Dong, Z., Pan, Z., An, P., Wang, L., Zhang, J., He, D., Han, H., & Pan, X. (2015). A novel method 
for quantitatively evaluating agricultural vulnerability to climate change. Ecological 
Indicators, 48, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.032 

Flick, U. (2019). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage. 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  87 
 

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2018). Climate change mitigation 
and adaptation in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. 
https://library.sprep.org/sites/default/files/252.pdf  

Hopkins, D. (2014). The sustainability of climate change adaptation strategies in New Zealand’s 
ski industry: A range of stakeholder perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(1), 
107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.804830  

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation 
and vulnerability. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf  

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalist inquiry. Sage Publications. 

López, S., Jung, J.-K., & López, M. F. (2017). A hybrid-epistemological approach to climate 
change research: Linking scientific and smallholder knowledge systems in the 
Ecuadorian Andes. Anthropocene, 17, 30–45. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2017.01.001  

Lozano-Povis, A., Alvarez-Montalván, C. E., & Moggiano, N. (2021). Climate change in the Andes 
and its impact on agriculture: A systematic review. Scientia Agropecuaria, 12(1), 101–
108. https://doi.org/10.17268/sci.agropecu.2021.012 

McGrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., & Liljedahl, M. (2019). Twelve tips for conducting qualitative 
research interviews. Medical Teacher, 41(9), 1002–1006. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149 

Menconi, M. E., Grohmann, D., & Mancinelli, C. (2017). European farmers and participatory 
rural appraisal: A systematic literature review on experiences to optimize rural 
development. Land Use Policy, 60, 1–11. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.007 

Murtagh, E., & Lane, M. (2022). Putting the ‘place’ in place-based climate action: Insights from 
climate adaptation initiatives across Scotland. In C. Howarth, M. Lane, & A. Slevin (Eds.), 
Addressing the Climate Crisis (pp. 15–25). Springer International Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79739-3_2 

Naylor, A., Ford, J., Pearce, T., & Van Alstine, J. (2020). Conceptualizing climate vulnerability in 
complex adaptive systems. One Earth, 2(5), 444–454. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.04.011 

Núñez Collado, J. R., & Wang, H.-H. (2020). Slum upgrading and climate change adaptation and 
mitigation: Lessons from Latin America. Cities, 104, 102791. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102791 

Ortiz, A. M. (2015). The qualitative interview. In F. Stage & K. Manning (Eds.), Research in the 
college context (pp. 57-71). Routledge. 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  88 
 

Reyer, C. P. O., Adams, S., Albrecht, T., Baarsch, F., Boit, A., Canales Trujillo, N., Cartsburg, M., 
Coumou, D., Eden, A., Fernandes, E., Langerwisch, F., Marcus, R., Mengel, M., Mira-
Salama, D., Perette, M., Pereznieto, P., Rammig, A., Reinhardt, J., Robinson, A., … 
Thonicke, K. (2017). Climate change impacts in Latin America and the Caribbean and 
their implications for development. Regional Environmental Change, 17(6), 1601–1621. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0854-6  

Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Migration: An engine for social change. Nature, 456, 877–
877. https://doi.org/10.1038/456877a 

Rocca, P. (2020). The salience of migrant money: A Peruvian analysis. Politicus Journal, 6(1), 60-
67. https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/politicus/article/view/14317  

Rojas-Downing, M. M., Nejadhashemi, A. P., Harrigan, T., & Woznicki, S. A. (2017). Climate 
change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Management, 
16, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001 

Sarkar, S., Padaria, R. N., Vijayaragavan, K., Pathak, H., Bhowmik, A., Kumar, P., & Jha, G. K. 
(2014). Constructing a knowledge test to measure the knowledge level of farmers about 
climate change in arid ecosystem of India. International Journal of Bio-Resource and 
Stress Management, 5(4), 530. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-4038.2014.00603.4 

Schattman, R. E., Conner, D., & Méndez, V. E. (2016). Farmer perceptions of climate change risk 
and associated on-farm management strategies in Vermont, northeastern United States. 
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 4, 000131. 
https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000131 

Scoones, I. (2015). Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. Practical Action Publishing. 

Shaffril, H. A. M., Krauss, S. E., & Samsuddin, S. F. (2018). A systematic review on Asian farmers’ 
adaptation practices towards climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 644, 
683–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349 

Smit, B., Pilifosova, O.(2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable 
development and equity. In J. McCarthy,  O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K. S. 
White (Eds.), Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (pp. 881-911). 
Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg2/        

Squires, A. (2008). Language barriers and qualitative nursing research: Methodological 
considerations. International Nursing Review, 55(3), 265– 273. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2008.00652.x 

Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research: 
Scientific inquiry. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(2), 151–155. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x 



Landaverde et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i1.293  89 
 

United Nations Climate Change. (n.d.). Introduction to adaptation and resilience/loss and 
damage. https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/the-big-
picture/introduction  

United Nations Environment Programme. (2022). Emissions gap report 2022: The closing 
window – Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies. 
https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022  

Usry, J., Partington, S. W., & Partington, J. W. (2018). Using expert panels to examine the 
content validity and inter-rater reliability of the ABLLS-R. Journal of Developmental and 
Physical Disabilities, 30(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9574-9  

World Bank Group. (2017). Gaining momentum in Peruvian agriculture: Opportunities to 
increase productivity and enhance competitiveness. 
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/107451498513689693/pdf/P162084-
06-26-2017-1498513685623.pdf  

Yohannis, M., Waema, T., Wausi, A., & Hutchinson, M. (2019). Enhancing access and use of 
climate information through ICTs. Journal of Climate Change and Sustainability, 1–12. 
https://doi.org/10.20987/jccs.1.03.2019 

 
 
© 2023 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


