































   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 5, Issue 2, 2024 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Diana Giraldo Mendez, PhD, University of Reading, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, United Kingdom and 
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia, d.giraldo@cgiar.org,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9200-3916  
2. Graham Clarkson, PhD, University of Reading, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, United Kingdom, 

g.clarkson@reading.ac.uk.  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4342-4773  
3. Peter Dorward, PhD, University of Reading, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, United Kingdom, 

p.t.dorward@reading.ac.uk,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2831-3693  
4. Diego Obando, MSc, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Tegucigalpa, Honduras, d.obando@cgiar.org,  

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5159-7391  
6 

 

First Experiences with Participatory Climate Services for 
Farmers in Central America: A Case Study in Honduras 

 
Diana Giraldo1, Graham Clarkson2, Peter Dorward3, Diego Obando4 

 
 

Article History 
Received: June 13, 2023 
Accepted: July 31, 2023 
Published: January 31, 2024 
 
 
Keywords 
small-scale farmers; decision-making; 
climate forecast; dry corridor; PICSA 
  

Abstract 
While climate services for small-scale farmers are gaining recognition for 
contributing to adaptation and resilience to climate variability and change, their 
provision in developing countries remains a critical challenge. Effective climate 
services consider why and how farmers of varied socioeconomic background 
make relevant decisions avoiding the traditional prescriptive forms of transfer 
that merely focus on delivering climate information. Evidence from sub-Saharan 
Africa shows that climate services for agriculture generates transformations in 
how farmers access and use climate information, as well as changes in farmer 
decision-making. In this paper, we address the question of whether the same 
effect is also seen in Latin America, where farming systems, farming decisions, 
socioeconomic contexts and non-climate constraints are very different to those 
of Africa. A group of 209 farmers in the dry corridor in Honduras was studied. We 
find that 98% of the trained farmers did uptake and use the climate information, 
and some 73% expressed that the agroclimatic information was key to the success 
of their harvest despite the challenging 2019 season. Some 43% of the farmers 
made changes in farming practices. In particular, farmers changed the crop they 
grew, the crop and land management, the planting dates, inputs and crop 
varieties. These changes reportedly had positive effects on their food security, 
and income. These findings support the hypothesis that Participatory Integrated 
Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) plays a positive role in providing effective 
climate services in Central America, improving decision-making, and enabling 
farmers to make their own decisions based on the analysis of information and 
their demands regardless of their level of literacy. We pose that participatory 
climate services in agriculture can catalyse processes of long-term transformation 
in farming systems, notably through lifting farmers out of poverty and food 
insecurity and providing an integrated approach to make informed decisions in 
the face of climatic variation. 

 

mailto:d.giraldo@cgiar.org
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9200-3916
mailto:g.clarkson@reading.ac.uk
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4342-4773
mailto:p.t.dorward@reading.ac.uk
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2831-3693
mailto:d.obando@cgiar.org
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5159-7391


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   7 
 

Introduction 
 
Farmers must be considered as active recipients of weather and climate information, products, 
or derived services. They express needs, discuss and share ideas with their family and peers, 
and then use or apply such services in their decision-making on their farms. They also provide 
feedback on the usefulness of services within their environmental and social contexts. Climate 
services in the agriculture sector are gaining recognition due to the need to support 
communities’ adaptation planning for, and resilience to, the adverse impacts of climate 
conditions (FAO, 2021). Across Latin America, as a region with substantial exposure and 
vulnerability to climate variability and extremes, there is a solid commitment (through policies, 
development and research projects) to developing and providing climate services (Vaughan et 
al., 2019). Despite progress, many climate services implementations lack or have limited 
consideration of user capacities, decision-making dynamics and constraints, as well as of the 
existing networks of cooperation and information flow within and between farmer 
communities (Born et al., 2021; Kolstad et al., 2019). Furthermore, climate services must “fit” 
the information needs of farmers, enable the use of shared knowledge, and build on existing 
institutional arrangements. With these considerations in mind, effective climate services for 
agriculture therefore allow farmers to make decisions that improve their resilience to climate 
variability and change while considering the complexity of the socioeconomic context and 
heterogeneous household dynamics. 

A challenge is that the main goal of climate services is considered by many providers to be the 
delivery of higher-quality data (e.g., information and products) rather than to provide an 
integrated process for improved decision-making (Findlater et al., 2021; Lourenço et al., 2015), 
involving and encouraging farmers to make their own decisions based on the analysis of 
information and their demands. Addressing this challenge requires climate services to 
emphasise which decision-making processes demand what information or why farmers need it 
and the factors influencing these decisions at the ground level (Singh et al., 2016). Participatory 
Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) is an agricultural extension and climate 
services approach that supports farmers in making plans and decisions tailored to each farmer’s 
own “context” in their production systems (Dorward et al., 2015). It highlights the importance 
of prior knowledge, trust building, innovative learning spaces for collaboration, opportunities 
for networking, and active participation for experimentation and reflection regardless of their 
level of literacy. PICSA is implemented by facilitators (e.g., extension officers, nongovernmental 
organisation field staff, community volunteers, and researchers) through a series of meetings 
with groups of farmers that integrate a set of structured information and participatory tools, as 
described by Dorward et al. (2015) and summarized in Figure 1.  

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   8 
 

Figure 1 

Flow Chart of the PICSA Process (Adapted from Clarkson et al., 2022) 

 

Most PICSA implementations have been carried out in Africa (e.g., Clarkson et al., 2019; 
Dayamba et al., 2018). Rwanda was the first country to demonstrate the feasibility of scaling up 
the delivery of rural climate services through a participatory process of PICSA at the national 
level (Grossi & Dinku, 2022). In this paper, we document one of the first experiences with PICSA 
in Latin America—the dry corridor of Honduras. Various studies have provided evidence of the 
potential of weather and climate information to support farmers’ decision-making in Honduras. 
Examples include the use of climate information for identifying the factors and strategies that 
households use to cope with seasonal food insecurity (Alpízar et al., 2020), and the 
identification of Climate Smart Agriculture projects about farm technologies/practices together 
with incentives to make changes (Bonilla Findji et al., 2016). However, these projects took a 
“one-size-fits-all” approach which is unlikely to benefit all farmers because decision-making 
processes are complex and involve a series of factors including (a) the type of decision required; 
(b) the relevant information available; (c) the type of farmers; and (d) the timescale for making 
the decision (Singh et al., 2016; Stringer et al., 2020).  

Using the dry corridor of Honduras as a case study, this research seeks to address the question 
of whether participatory climate services, as established through PICSA, have positive effects on 
farmer decisions and therefore benefit farmers. To answer this question, we evaluate (a) 
whether farmers found the approach useful in their planning and decision-making (why and 
how decisions are made and by whom); (b) how those decisions affected households (their 
food security or income), and (c) limitations and opportunities for PICSA in Central America (for 
effective and practical implementation at large scale). Addressing this question is crucial in 
advancing farmer climate risk management and adaptation in Honduras and more broadly in 
Latin America because it counters the traditional top-down and information/technology-
transfer approaches that limit farmers’ participation that currently prevail in these contexts. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   9 
 

Methods 
 
Study Area 
To explore the effects of PICSA on small-scale farmers in a rainfed context, this study was 
conducted in the villages of Hato Viejo, La Anona, Baldoquin, and Santa Isabel (13°17ʹN 87°2ʹW, 
average 712 m above sea level) in the Choluteca Department and Los Naranjos, Buenos Aires, 
Cataulaca, Zarzal, La Ceibita, and Brisas de Azacualpa (14°19ʹN 88°11ʹW, average 1224 m above 
sea level) in the Intibucá Department of Honduras. Figure 2 presents the bimodal rainfall 
distribution in the two departments, which coincides with the two main growing seasons—
Primera (May–July) and Postrera (August–October).   

Figure 2  

Study Area in Honduras and the Bimodal Rainfall Distribution 

 
Note. Map of Honduras showing PICSA sites (red triangles) and monthly box plots of rainfall for 
the 1981–2018 period for (a) La Esperanza station in Intibucá and (b) San Marcos de Colon 
station in Choluteca. 

The dry season extends from November to April and the rainy season extends from the middle 
of May to October, altered by the midsummer drought, locally known as the canícula; 
specifically, a decrease in rainfall occurs between early July and late August, which significantly 
influences planting dates and crop yields (Magaña et al., 1999). The climate of the Choluteca is 
characteristic of the Pacific Coast of Central America, with an annual average rainfall of 1,100 
mm and average temperature of 27 ºC (minimum = 23 ºC, maximum = 34 ºC). By contrast, 
Intibucá receives an annual average rainfall of 1,400 mm and has an average temperature of 20 
ºC (minimum = 13 ºC, maximum = 24 ºC). According to Duron et al. (2021) and Paz Delgado 
(2016), prolonged droughts, high temperatures, and heavy rainfall are the climatic threats most 
reported by the inhabitants of Intibucá and Choluteca.  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   10 
 

PICSA Field Implementation  
In Choluteca, PICSA was performed with 92 small-scale farmers (40% men, 60% women) from 
March to May 2019 before the Primera season, and in Intibucá it was performed with 117 
small-scale farmers (29% men, 71% women) from July to September 2019 before the Postrera 
season. PICSA was implemented with a total of 209 farmers in the two departments. Four 
meetings were carried out in each village to complete the PICSA process with a clear, logical 
flow (Figure 1). Each meeting had a duration of three to four hours. 

The first meeting focused on step (A), where the farmers individually or with their families drew 
a map of their resources (e.g., crops, livestock, and water sources) and how they allocated them 
to their farm using a resource allocation map (RAM) tool. In addition, the farmers drew a 
“dream farm,” which contained the objectives, goals, and plans that each farmer had for their 
farm over next few years; the consensus was for basic grains over two to three years and coffee 
over four to five years in the planning. Another activity in step (A) aimed to capture farmers’ 
perceptions and local knowledge of the climate in each month. Using this, farmers then 
identified the specific activities performed on their main crops and how these have been 
affected by the weather and climate using an agroclimatic calendar tool.  

The second meeting focused on steps (B) and (C). To ensure that the farmers understood how 
the historical climate information is collected at the meteorological stations, a demonstration 
was conducted to measure a millimetre of water and how to build the average climatology 
graphs. Then, the farmers analysed the historical climate records and compared them with 
their perceptions, which were reflected in their agroclimatic calendar through a participatory 
discussion. The aim of this activity was to build farmers’ confidence in the information collected 
from meteorological stations to enable them to use it in their decision-making processes. Once 
the farmers understood historical graphs to reinforce their perceptions regarding how climate 
is changing—awareness of climatic events and trends (Dorward et al., 2019; Osbahr et al., 
2011), probabilities for specific climate events (dry or wet years) were calculated to understand 
the likelihood of such events occurring in their area. 

The third meeting focused on step (D) using an options matrix tool. Specifically, farmers created 
a matrix of crop and livestock practices by time to identify options for their own individual 
context that could help them to achieve their “dream farm” and to respond to the climate 
challenges identified in the agroclimatic calendar. Once the matrices were completed, a group 
discussion was held involving questions such as who participates in the implementation of the 
practice; the potential benefits of the practice; and risks and disadvantages. Next, farmers 
analysed the time, the resources used and received (labour, cash, and food stocks) to 
implement the options identified in the matrix using the participatory budget tool. In some 
villages, developing a budget with family members and sharing it with peers in the next 
meeting was set as homework. 

The fourth meeting focused on steps (F) to (I). Building on the understanding of probability 
achieved during steps (B) and (C), the farmers explored and interpreted terciles and forecasts. 
Various activities were performed with coloured balls, coins, bean grains, and soccer games to 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   11 
 

explain that a forecast is not a “divination process,” but that it is necessary to have clues or 
historical data. In Honduras, the climate and short-term forecasts were provided by 
Meteorological Service of Honduras (SMHN) – CENAOS-COPECO (Centro de Estudios 
Atmosféricos, Oceanográficos y Sismológicos – Comisión Permanente de Contingencias). The 
forecasts were disseminated just before and throughout the growing seasons using agroclimatic 
bulletins and channels such as WhatsApp, radio, and workshops. During the meetings, the 
forecasts were explained and discussed with the farmers, who then identified and selected 
possible responses. The selection of responses emphasised that each farmers’ situation and 
context is different, which enabled them to adjust their plans (i.e., the agroclimatic calendar, 
option matrix, and participatory budgets) in the lead-up to the growing season. 

Data Collection and Analysis 
This study employed a mixed-methods approach (Clarkson et al., 2019; Staub & Clarkson, 
2021), combining a quantitative survey with qualitative case studies. This approach enabled 
complementary analyses to identify changes and decisions that the farmers made following 
their participation in the PICSA meetings, understanding of the process of information use, and 
the evaluation of the farmers’ lessons, successes, and challenges. We used local independent 
enumerators in each department. The enumerators were provided with an in-depth 
explanation of and training on PICSA. The survey and case study protocols were approved by 
the University of Reading’s Research Ethics Committee. For the data collection, each farmer 
was linked to a unique farmer survey ID, of which the first letter corresponds to (C) Choluteca 
or (I) Intibucá (e.g., C52716764F). The eight numbers were assigned in the Open Data Kit (ODK) 
software. Lastly, the second letter at the end indicates the farmer’s gender—(F) female or (M) 
male.  

Quantitative Surveys 
All 209 farmers who participated in the PICSA meetings in 2019 were surveyed individually, five 
weeks (in Intibucá) and ten weeks (in Choluteca) after the meetings concluded. The surveys 
were held in villages in Choluteca from July to September 2019 and in those in Intibucá from 
November 2019 to February 2020. The quantitative survey was designed to understand 
whether farmers engaged with, understood, and used the tools and information from PICSA in 
their planning and decision-making process. Questions included whether farmers had made 
changes due to the PICSA meetings and, if so, what those changes were and what the effects of 
those changes had been. Data were collected using ODK, and the results were plotted using 
Tableau. In order to test for independence, statements that were measured on a five-point 
Likert scale were combined into two categories. More specifically, “agree” and “strongly agree” 
were combined into “agree”; whereas “disagree” and “strongly disagree” were combined into 
“disagree.” The Mann–Whitney U test was run to assess the significance of the differences (𝛼 =
0.05) in the two departments for women and men to understand whether PICSA effects 
differed based on gender. 

Qualitative Case Studies 
For the case studies, 19 households that had received PICSA training were randomly selected 
based on the quantitative survey to ensure equal representation in Choluteca (women = 6, men 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   12 
 

= 4) and Intibucá (women = 5, men= 4). The case studies were documented in October 2020 in 
the two departments using semi-structured interviews (taking approximately two hours) to 
explore the how and why of changes and effects reported in the surveys resulting from PICSA. 
The qualitative case studies involved open-ended questions to capture the farmers’ reflections 
and experiences and participatory activities using budgets and effects diagrams (Clarkson et al., 
2019) to understand the perceived benefits (e.g., yields, food security and income) that they 
had made as a result PICSA. The case study responses were recorded and transcribed. Content 
analysis was conducted to identify key themes and illustrative farmer quotes, to complement 
quantitative analyses and to triangulate findings. 

Findings 
 
Farmer Demographic and Socioeconomic Context 
Table 1 presents a summary of the socioeconomic characteristics of the farmers in the two 
departments of Honduras. In Intibucá, a large proportion of the survey respondents who 
participated in the PICSA approach were women. By contrast, in Choluteca there was more 
balance in the number of men and women participating in the PICSA process. In terms of size, 
some farmers in Intibucá (<10%) reported having farms larger than 3 ha. Most (83–92%) survey 
respondents in Choluteca had some level of primary education, whereas only half of the 
respondents had primary education in Intibucá. 

Table 1 
 
Socio-economic Characteristics of Survey Respondents by Department and Gender 
Socio-economic 
variable 

Choluteca 
(n = 92) 

Intibucá 
(n = 117) 

Household size (mean) 5 5 
Farm size (ha) 1.0 1.5 – 2.0 
Migration (%) 21.7% 36.7% 
Gender Female (n = 55) Male (n = 37) Female (n = 83) Male (n = 34) 
Gender (%) 59.8% 40.2% 70.9% 29.1% 
Mean age (years) 41.9 47.4 42.6 46.8 
Farming history (years) 19.3 29.4 14.4 26.1 
Primary education (%) 92.7% 83.7% 56.6% 50% 

 
Intibucá, where institutions have promoted spaces for the participation of women, has the 
highest number of women who are independent workers (Muller & Sousa, 2020). Many 
organizations are represented by women who have experienced mass migration of their 
husbands and sons, leaving them in charge of agricultural production (Jaramillo et al., 2021). 
Accordingly, the data revealed a high percentage of migration (37%) in Intibucá. When farmers 
were asked about the main reasons that led family members to migrate, 52.1% mentioned job 
opportunities and 25% mentioned escaping poverty. Less than 2% gave violence, drought, or 
crop failure as the main reasons.  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   13 
 

The PICSA Approach was Useful to Most Farmers 
Overwhelmingly, the respondents stated that the training they received (98%) had made them 
more confident in planning and making decisions about their farming and livelihood. 
Furthermore, there were no significant differences based on gender. Table 2 presents the 
proportion of farmers trained in each of the PICSA tools who agreed that they found those 
steps useful for their planning and decision-making. All tools were found useful by most (75–
100%) farmers in both localities, except for the short-term forecast in Choluteca (46.7%). The 
most valued tools were the resource allocation maps, crop information and option matrix, and 
seasonal forecast. A significant difference existed between Intibucá (98%) and Choluteca (47%) 
in the use of short-term forecasts for planning and decision-making as well as the participatory 
budget tool (72% in Choluteca vs. 100% in Intibucá). 

Table 2 
 
Proportion and Numbers of Farmers Trained in each of the PICSA Tools and Their Usefulness in 
their Planning and Decision-making by Department and Gender 

PICSA tool 

Trained (%) Planning and decision-making (%)* 

Choluteca  
(n = 92) 

Intibucá         
(n = 117) 

Choluteca (n = 92) Intibucá (n = 117) 
Women  
(n = 55) 

Men      
(n = 37) 

Women 
(n = 83) 

Men 
(n = 34) 

Resource allocation 
map 

97.8% 98.2% 89.0% 97.3% 86.7% 82.3% 

Historical climate info 97.8% 100% 78.1% 81.0% 75.9% 91.1% 
Probabilities and risk 90.2% 98.2% 78.1% 64.8% 77.1% 85.2% 
Crops information 94.5% 99.1% 85.4% 91.8% 96.3% 97.0% 
Option matrix tool 96.7% 99.1% 83.6% 83.7% 87.9% 97.0% 
Participatory budgets** 78.2% 100% 72.7% 67.5% 85.5% 91.1% 
Seasonal forecast 97.8% 99.1% 92.7% 89.1% 89.1% 94.2% 
Short-term forecast** 46.7% 98.2% 47.2% 40.5% 89.1% 97.0% 
Note. * The n is different for each tool and corresponds to the number of people that reported 
that they had been trained and found those steps useful for their planning and decision-making 
**p values were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test (𝛼 = 0.05) 
 
Overall, case study results indicate that the design of the tools does address the range of needs 
and expectations from farmers in the study region, and that several of these tools aid farmer 
decision-making processes. Consistent with the overall perceived usefulness of the individual 
tools, the RAM, the option matrix tool, and participatory budget, and the seasonal forecast 
were highlighted by farmers. The farmers mentioned that the option matrix tool helped them 
(a) to know what practices to implement and to plan them using the resources available on the 
farm (C52722694F); (b) to learn to integrate soil protection, care for the environment, and 
family work (C52722688F); and (c) to have a portfolio of practices that help increase economic 
income (I53522042M). With regards to the participatory budget tool, farmers mentioned that it 
was helpful for (a) planning a budget, which is required to understand all the expenses, 
ultimately enabling one to determine whether it will be profitable (C52688472M); (b) planning 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   14 
 

and having an estimate of what they can invest (I55876919F); and (c) keeping track of what 
they spend, which it is not easy (I55806058M).  

The seasonal forecast is a crucial component in the PICSA approach, because if well 
understood, it allows farmers to foresee climate conditions during the rainy or cropping 
seasons and use that information to make tactical and strategic management decisions 
(Dayamba et al., 2018). At the time of the implementation of PICSA in 2019 (March–May), the 
Honduran government had issued alerts due to the El Niño event, expected to affect the 
Primera season. These conditions are conducive to drought, which added to an already ongoing 
dry period. Overall, the seasonal forecast improved farmers’ understanding of the risks for the 
upcoming season, boosting their confidence during planting time and harvest planning, as 
reported through surveys and case studies. Seasonal forecasts, as well as the short-term 
forecasts were deemed critical to the success of the harvest and allowed farmers to better 
understand the amount of water that falls and determine suitable crop and varieties, and 
planting times (C46944052F). Additionally, farmers reported an improved comprehension of 
the forecast generation process and how to interpret the results. 

In Choluteca, the CENAOS-COPECO seasonal forecast for the first rainy season of 2019 was 
presented (Rodríguez, 2020) and then communicated through PICSA to the farmers; 73% of the 
farmers considered the climate forecast valid and helpful to integrate into the decision process 
(women = 80%, men = 62%). Although the forecast was fulfilled and there were significant 
losses in basic grain crops in Honduras (FEWS NET, 2019; WFP, 2019), the farmers who 
participated in PICSA were able to use the information provided in the meetings to plan their 
sowing and reduce the risk of crop loss. In general, the farmers adopted the optimal sowing 
dates that were presented at the beginning of the season. Those who sowed early did well on 
their crops. The farmers expressed in the surveys and case studies that the agroclimatic 
information was key to the success of their harvest. 

The various case studies showed that the farmers who participated in PICSA were able to use 
the information provided in the meetings to plan their sowing. For example, a farmer 
C51619585F said the following: “The [Primera] rains ended much earlier than expected. Maize 
could not be harvested. However, PICSA was very useful to me because the bean harvest was 
excellent.” In Intibucá, farmers who participated in PICSA mentioned that the 2019 Postrera 
season was normal. For example, farmer I53522037F stated the following: “The Postrera season 
2019 was normal. The forecasts were used, maize and beans were planted, and there were 
good yields. In coffee, there will also be a good production.”  

It is noteworthy that while farmers found the provided climate information very useful, they 
also reported other information related to weather and climate that they would like to have 
received from PICSA meetings. In Intibucá, a large proportion of farmers (50%) wanted to 
receive information on the moon’s phases, which contrasted with Choluteca, where only 8% 
stated that they wanted such information. Furthermore, in both departments, the farmers 
wanted to receive information about the mid-summer drought or canícula (34%), followed by 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   15 
 

information about wet spells (30% in Choluteca and 9% in Intibucá). Temperature and winds 
were other types of information that the farmers wanted to receive from the PICSA. 

Farmers Made Changes in their Farms Based on the PICSA Approach 
In general, farmers stated that following the PICSA meetings (80%), felt better able to cope with 
bad years caused by weather and climate. Yet it is important for us to learn what changes 
farmers made in their crop, livestock, or farm as a result of PICSA meetings and tools (Figure 3). 
Farmers were thus asked in the surveys and case studies whether they had made any changes 
in their crops, livestock, and livelihood enterprises as a result of the PICSA meetings received. 
Despite the challenging 2019 season, 43% (n = 90) of the farmers said that they had made 
changes, with a large difference existing between departments. Most of the farmers (81%, n = 
75) in Choluteca had made at least one change in their farming. On the contrary, only 18% (n = 
21) had made changes in Intibucá. Farmers who did not implement practices indicated that 
PICSA should have been conducted earlier in the season to allow more time for planning and 
making changes before the start of the season. Farmers made changes in their crops (84%), 
followed by changes in livestock (14%). Only women in Choluteca (2%) reported changes in 
other livelihoods.  

Figure 3  
 
The Changes (%) that Farmers Made to their Crops as a Result of the PICSA Approach.  

 
Note. The grey bars indicate the percentages of total respondents (men + women) in each 
category (n = 135). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   16 
 

A total of 135 changes were made to crops with some significant differences when gender is 
considered. The most frequent change was the growing of a different crop, followed by changes 
in crop or land management, changes in planting dates, inputs, varieties, adjustments in land 
distribution, and others (Figure 3). This order changed depending on gender, with women 
prioritizing changes in crop type, followed by changes in crop variety, and changes how land or 
crop management. For men, changes in crop type and crop management were equally frequent 
(27%), followed by changes in planting dates and inputs. Choice of crop was a very frequent 
change. Farmers reported planting beans and maize outside of the regular growing season, 
followed by cassava and sorghum. Women in Choluteca (66%) reported planting a new crop 
and were more likely to diversify (e.g., sweet potato, garlic, or tomato). Farmers in Choluteca 
also planted an improve varieties of maize. In Intibucá, farmers grew a new bean variety under 
the government bonus program. It would therefore appear that removing constraints regarding 
access to seeds of crops that are suitable in the region, would enable farmers to adapt in 
response to seasonal climate variations. 

The case study analysis helped explore in more detail how PICSA influenced and supported the 
farmers’ decision-making process and how the changes they made affected their households. 
Figure 4 summarises the farmers’ changes and their effects—food security, income, social 
standing, yield and environment—influenced by PICSA approach in both departments, the 
farmers’ changes are grouped by (a) grew a new or different crop; (b) grew a new or different 
variety; (c) changed the way they managed the land/crop; (d) changed the planting date; or (e) 
changed the type of inputs used in the crop. The changes reported in the surveys and case 
studies came from the options matrix tool and from farmers ideas (e.g., reducing chemical use, 
reducing deforestation). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   17 
 

Figure 4 
 
Diagram of Farmers’ Changes and their Effects Influenced by PICSA in Both Departments, Case 
Studies = 19. 

 
 
A smaller number of farmers made changes to their livestock (14%), the majority in Choluteca; 
women (71%) were significantly more likely to make changes to livestock than men (29%). The 
most prevalent change for all those who changed in livestock concerned the way the 
households manage their livestock (57%) due to the information they learned during the PICSA. 
Some farmers also started a new livestock enterprise (28%). The women explained how the 
process behind the PICSA had encouraged them to diversify their sources of income. Farmer 
C51619584F stated the following:  

Thanks to PICSA, I implemented poultry farming [March 2020] and bought a pig to raise 
and sell [August 2020] to improve food security and household income. I feed them with 
homemade concentrate. The income generated by the pig will be for my son's 
graduation and studies expenses […] I built a barn for my chickens; those are only for 
reproduction.  

Furthermore, farmer C51619585F stated the following:  
With a farmers group, we carried out the participatory community budget, and it was 
there that we realised that it was feasible to have poultry […] I spoke with a neighbour 
about improving the corral and the production of eggs with better feeding and 
hydration for my chickens. 

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   18 
 

Limitations on Making Changes 
Overwhelmingly, the farmers reported that they would have liked to have made more changes 
on the back of the PICSA meetings that they received. In the surveys, Intibucá farmers and 
enumerators identified several factors contributing to the low percentage of farmers (18%) who 
made changes due to their participation in PICSA. These factors included (a) the farmers were 
highly uncertain about planting in Postrera season, stemming from losses in the Primera 
season; (b) PICSA focused more on annual crops, whereas their primary source of income is 
coffee; and (c) the gender balance (more women participated), where decision-making often 
involves the entire family. However, male migration, such as during the 2019 migratory caravan 
(Phillips, 2019), can lead to a shift in responsibilities within the household. In the case studies, 
overall, the farmers in Intibucá mentioned that they would have liked to make changes as a 
result of the PICSA meetings but were unable to due to a lack of financial resources. In 
Choluteca, farmers in the case studies mentioned, for example, that they want to have 
vegetable gardens and to plant fruit trees, but due to their family’s economic situation they 
have not been able to do so (C51783783F and C51619585F). Moreover, farmer C51619584M 
stated the following: “I have not yet been able to build a tank to store water because I do not 
have the necessary resources, and it is one of my projects drawn on the dream farm.” 

PICSA benefitted farmers in terms of household income and food security 
A combination of Likert statements was used in the surveys, and participatory budgets and 
effects diagrams in the case studies, to understand if and how the changes the farmers made to 
their enterprises had affected their household income and food security (Figure 3.) The farmers 
indicated that using the PICSA approach had improved their household food security, with 91% 
in Intibucá and 74% in Choluteca responding with “agree.” In Choluteca, 80% of the women 
reported that using the PICSA approach had improved their household food security. These 
women farmers had specifically decided to plant a new crop, have a garden, and diversify. 
Examples included sowing sweet potato. Farmer C51619585F stated the following: “I made this 
change to vary my children's diet and provide them with more nutrients.” Farmer C51783832M 
mentioned the following: “I obtained higher yields planting improved maize, and it is resistant 
to pests and diseases as well as drought. Also, I ensured my family’s food for a few months and 
obtained the seed to sow in the next cycle.” 

In Intibucá, the farmers were very uncertain about planting due to the losses in the Primera 
season. However, the government promoted the planting of beans by providing a bonus (seed 
and fertilizers) to farmers (El Heraldo, 2019; El Mundo, 2019), which coincided with a good 
rainy season that favoured a good harvest in the Postrera season. The government bonus was 
one of the reasons for the low percentage of farmers in Intibucá who made changes due to 
PICSA, since the government (not PICSA) triggered the changes. Choluteca farmers (70%) 
agreed that they perceived tangible benefits (in yields and income) where the PICSA had 
encouraged them to diversify their sources of income—new crops and new livestock 
enterprises (i.e., poultry farm and pigs) —through using the participatory budget and RAMs. By 
contrast, Intibucá farmers stated that they did not improve their income due to the PICSA (73% 
disagreed). The latter was because the survey, which was applied slightly early (starting in 
November), was unable to capture changes in income, especially for those whose main source 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   19 
 

of income was coffee. However, the case studies in Intibucá indicated that where farmers had 
been able to make changes, they also had improved their income and yields.  

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Effective Climate Services for Farmers 
In Central America, decision-makers recognize the relevance of climate services in supporting 
adaptation plans of smallholder farmers (Donatti et al., 2017). However, top-down one-size-fits-
all climate services are not appropriate for meeting the diverse needs and contexts of farmers 
in Honduras and have not been successful to date (Müller et al., 2020). Our findings 
demonstrate that the PICSA approach played an important role in Honduran farmers’ planning 
and decision-making, generating income and food security benefits. The surveys and case 
studies reported here revealed that (a) most farmers were able to integrate information (e.g., 
climate and crop) and participatory tools into their planning and decision-making; (b) in 
Choluteca, with a high percentage of primary education level and lower migration rates 
compared with Intibucá, most farmers made changes in their crops and livestock with effects 
on their food security and income; (c) PICSA motivated the farmers to discuss and share ideas 
with their families and fellows, made them more curious to seek help through social networking 
with their field officers and other sources for improving their agricultural practices; and (d) 
bringing together farmers, field officers, national meteorological services, and other 
stakeholders within the PICSA process, contributed to farmers becoming more aware of their 
demands and that establishing new decision-making processes. These results reinforce previous 
findings (Findlater et al., 2021; Lourenço et al., 2015) and have important implications for the 
provision of climate services in Honduras and Latin America. These are discussed below. 

First, our results highlight that a new era of climate services is needed to integrate climate 
information with other information (such as budgets and resource endowment, constraints to 
decisions, access to market) driven by demand. Specifically, results reveal that farmers 
considered different time scales, including a long-term “vision” through the use of the dream 
maps and shorter-term seasonal and short-term views, connecting their local knowledge 
through participatory tools (e.g., agroclimatic calendar and option matrix). At the same time, 
PICSA helped farmers think logically through considering their farm as an integrated and 
dynamic system in the context of weather and climate, and other factors, and identify and plan 
what they consider best for their individual contexts (farm, socioeconomic situation, and 
beliefs).  

Second, understanding farmers’ perceptions of climate risk was an integral part of the PICSA 
process of how to provide and connect relevant weather and climate information to their 
decision-making dynamics (Osbahr et al., 2011). In line with previous studies (Clarkson et al., 
2022; Dorward et al., 2019; Loboguerrero et al., 2018), the historical climate information 
plotted and analyzed by farmers built their confidence in the climate science data to enable 
them to use it in their decision-making processes. This confidence then allowed identifying and 
selecting possible responses on the basis of the forecast, which in turn helped farmers reduce 
risk from the forecasted drought stemming from a negative ENSO phase. 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   20 
 

Finally, it is well recognized that providing effective climate services is a substantial challenge 
where most farmers in Latin America are older people (particularly regarding production of 
staple crops) with low literacy levels and little motivation to change their current practices 
(FAO, 2021). Despite the challenging 2019 season, this study revealed that most of the farmers, 
especially in Choluteca, used the PICSA tools and information to make a great variety of 
changes in their practices regardless of their literacy level. It is noteworthy, however, that 
changes in practices in Intibucá, where literacy levels are lower, occurred much less often 
across the group of farmers. Our results demonstrated not only that literacy challenges can be 
overcome by discussion and training, but also that farmers were appreciative of the bottom-up 
participatory approach that enabled them to be at the centre of the decision-making process. 
At the same time, farmers need time to experiment with different practices, validate some of 
them, and adapt them to local conditions, as well as receiving technical assistance, to ensure 
the correct use of inputs at the optimal time (Chiputwa et al., 2022; Loboguerrero et al., 2018). 

Climate services for drought-related food security management in Central America need to 
move from reactive crisis response to proactive planning and decision-making (Keller et al., 
2018; Müller et al., 2020). During a challenging 2019 season, the farmers expressed that the 
agroclimatic information was key to the success of their harvest. We showed that in Honduras, 
the changes made by the farmers reportedly led to positive effects on food security and income 
and increased their confidence in their abilities to plan and deal with climate variability and 
change in the short and long-term. These findings are promising in the context of socio-
economic development in Honduras and Latin America to manage agricultural risk, forecast 
seasonal changes and transform their agricultural systems by creating the conditions so that 
farmers can choose their own development path. For this potential to be realized, work needs 
to be done to address farmer constraints to changing their practices. However, climate services 
for better decision-making should go closely together with supporting institutional and 
governance processes for effective and sustainable implementation (Müller et al., 2020). 
Notably, the findings suggest that access to finance would enable farmers to make changes in 
their practices if such finance were coupled with extension and advisory involving a PICSA-like 
approach. We highlight that the PICSA process in Honduras achieved an improved integration 
of existing weather and climate information into agricultural extension structures and 
approaches, which helped stakeholders and farmers to learn from each other’s experiences and 
expertise, understand challenges in information use, create innovative learning spaces, build 
trust, and provide networking opportunities. 

Scaling up the PICSA approach by adapting it to local and knowledge contexts requires time and 
financial investment for the capacity development of staff in institutions but can then fit within 
the operations of existing structures. A relevant result was the inclusion of the PICSA approach 
within the Climate Resilience Plan of the national bean chain in Honduras (Obando et al., 2021) 
and the exploration of gender dynamics in the rural sector of Guatemala (Mosso et al., 2022). 
Furthermore, the PICSA implementation herein described led to spillover effects whereby 
farmers shared their ideas more broadly with their community and field workers. While this 
emphasized the need of further investigating the role of farmers and organisational networks in 
climate information flows and communication, it also shows that a network of indirect 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   21 
 

beneficiaries can arise from a PICSA implementation. This information seeking and sharing, 
ideas, and lessons among farmers and local stakeholders is particularly critical in Latin America, 
where the extension system is limited and the national level organizations have not been 
effective in addressing local agroclimatic challenges. The PICSA approach and its tools can be 
part of a broader transformation of the institutional, knowledge, and innovation networks in 
the region. 

Limitations and Future Research and Action 
Although the implementation of PICSA (in number, time, and content of the meetings) in both 
departments was the same, the number of farmers in Intibucá who made changes was much 
lower than in Choluteca. The survey in Intibucá was applied early (five weeks), before the 
farmers may have seen the benefits of the changes, which may have reduced the number of 
changes reported. Practical constraints can influence implementation in development initiatives 
and unpredictable environments, including a nationwide shutdown of economic and transport 
activities leading to a delay in the process (Phillips, 2019). The lower number of changes in 
Intibucá could also be associated with sociodemographic factors—lower education levels and 
higher migration rates in Intibucá than in Choluteca. For example, the Intibucá respondents 
mentioned that they had a household member who had migrated, mainly men, leaving women 
in charge of agricultural production and decision-making (Jaramillo et al., 2021) which explains 
the high proportion of women participants (71%) in the PICSA meetings. More research is 
needed to better understand the farmers’ decision-making processes regarding the intersection 
of climate, food security, and migration, as well as the linking of climate services with off-farm 
livelihoods and the role of remittances in households’ decision-making.  

Looking at wider opportunities, the results of this study have the potential to be applied to the 
national scale and contribute to the commitments of Honduras including the Nationally 
Determined Contribution (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change. This is especially significant with regard to the social inclusion component by 2030—
contingency and risk management plans with a gender approach to climate risks built in a 
participatory manner—and the adaptation component by 2025—that is, innovation, research, 
technology, and agriculture adapted to the climate. Furthermore, a large step in long-term 
sustainability is to build capacity within the national government to help them achieve the NDC, 
including incorporating this approach into the national plan and policies.  

The COVID-19 pandemic forced a massive increase in online engagement and delivery in the 
climate service arena, with large constrains in participatory approaches. However, this also 
opened an opportunity to transition from face-to-face to online training beyond these 
“intermediaries”—i.e., the extension service, NGO staff or farmers’ associations who are 
already working directly with farmers— and had restrictions carrying out their work in the field. 
An important learning from Honduras, which is applicable to many rural areas of Latin America 
is that ICTs can also, with less digitally connected farmers play a supporting and complementary 
role after the PICSA implementation (e.g., farmer and extension WhatsApp groups). However, 
creating opportunities for young farmers using climate services (Giraldo et al., 2021) provides a 
strong starting point for discussion and further research into ICTs, which will encourage young 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   22 
 

people to become a bridge between farmers and intermediaries in facilitating PICSA 
implementation in the field and will enable more farmers to access and use ICTs without the 
need for facilitators as a complementary approach to a PICSA field implementation in a scalable 
manner.  

Conclusion 
The main conclusion is that the PICSA approach supported farmers in making their own 
decisions by incorporating tools, weather and climate information with their knowledge, and 
supported them to make changes in their livelihoods with positive effects on their food security 
and income. Further, the approach fuelled farmers’ longer-term vision development and 
motivation to enhance their farming systems. Our study aims to help fill the knowledge gap on 
the participation of the farmers in climate services development, making the information more 
transparent to the farmers, enabling them to gain ownership over the process, integrating 
various aspects of the decision-making process (e.g., budgeting, farm dynamics, socioeconomic 
conditions), and creating relationships between science and decision-making. Transforming 
climate services that better account for why and how farmers make relevant decisions could 
represent a new era in the climate action for agriculture with important implications for future 
adaptations in Latin America, building capacity and expertise in local communities to manage 
their resources and implement measures for climate adaptation in a systematic and effective 
way. 

Acknowledgements 
 
This work was supported by the Resilient Central America (ResCA) project, led by The Nature 
Conservancy under a grant from the United States Department of State. We also acknowledge 
support from the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), under the project 
Agroclimas (http://bit.ly/2i3V0Nh). CCAFS was carried out with support from CGIAR Trust Fund 
Donors and through bilateral funding agreements. For details, please visit 
https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. We also acknowledge the support of the AgriLAC Resiliente One 
CGIAR Initiative (2022-2024). The views expressed in this paper cannot be taken to reflect the 
official opinions of these organizations. 
 

References 
 
Alpízar, F., Saborío-Rodríguez, M., Martínez-Rodríguez, M. R., Viguera, B., Vignola, R., Capitán, 

T., & Harvey, C. A. (2020). Determinants of food insecurity among smallholder farmer 
households in Central America: Recurrent versus extreme weather-driven events. 
Regional Environmental Change, 20(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01592-y  

Bonilla Findji, O., Jarvis, A., Loboguerrero Rodriguez, A. M., & Diarte, N. (2016). CCAFS deep dive 
assessment of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in the feed the future portfolio in 
Honduras [Report]. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food 
Security (CCAFS). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/81014  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363
http://bit.ly/2i3V0Nh
https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01592-y
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/81014


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   23 
 

Born, L., Prager, S., Ramirez-Villegas, J., & Imbach, P. (2021). A global meta-analysis of climate 
services and decision-making in agriculture. Climate Services, 22, 100231. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100231  

Chiputwa, B., Blundo-Canto, G., Steward, P., Andrieu, N., & Ndiaye, O. (2022). Co-production, 
uptake of weather and climate services, and welfare impacts on farmers in Senegal: A 
panel data approach. Agricultural Systems, 195, 103309. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103309  

Clarkson, G., Dorward, P., Osbahr, H., Torgbor, F., & Kankam-Boadu, I. (2019). An investigation 
of the effects of PICSA on smallholder farmers’ decision-making and livelihoods when 
implemented at large scale – The case of Northern Ghana. Climate Services, 14, 1–14. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.02.002  

Clarkson, G., Dorward, P., Poskitt, S., Stern, R. D., Nyirongo, D., Fara, K., Gathenya, J. M., Staub, 
C. G., Trotman, A., Nsengiyumva, G., Torgbor, F., & Giraldo, D. (2022). Stimulating small-
scale farmer innovation and adaptation with Participatory Integrated Climate Services 
for Agriculture (PICSA): Lessons from successful implementation in Africa, Latin America, 
the Caribbean and South Asia. Climate Services, 26, 100298. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100298  

Dayamba, D. S., Ky-Dembele, C., Bayala, J., Dorward, P., Clarkson, G., Sanogo, D., Mamadou, L. 
D., Traoré, I., Diakité, A., Nenkam, A., Binam, J. N., Ouedraogo, M., & Zougmore, R. 
(2018). Assessment of the use of Participatory Integrated Climate Services for 
Agriculture (PICSA) approach by farmers to manage climate risk in Mali and Senegal. 
Climate Services, 12, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018.07.003  

Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Martinez-Rodriguez, M. R., Vignola, R., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2017). 
What information do policy makers need to develop climate adaptation plans for 
smallholder farmers? The case of Central America and Mexico. Climatic Change, 141(1), 
107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1787-x  

Dorward, P., Clarkson, G., & Stern, R. (2015). Participatory Integrated Climate Services for 
Agriculture (PICSA): Field manual. Walker Institute, University of Reading. 
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68687  

Dorward, P., Osbahr, H., Sutcliffe, C., & Mbeche, R. (2019). Supporting climate change 
adaptation using historical climate analysis. Climate and Development, 12(5), 1–12. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1642177  

Duron, M., Ferrera, R., Obando, D., & Uclés, M. (2021). Municipal Climate Change Adaptation 
Plan of San Juan Intibucá - Honduras 2021-2026. CGSpace. 
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114158  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100231
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103309
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.02.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100298
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018.07.003
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1787-x
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68687
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1642177
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/114158


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   24 
 

El Heraldo. (2019). 41% of the corn harvest was lost during the first season. El Heraldo. 
https://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/1313775-466/el-41-de-la-cosecha-de-ma%C3%ADz-se-
perdi%C3%B3-en-temporada-de  

El Mundo. (2019). Planting beans for the postrera harvest is recommended due to the forecast 
of rain. https://elmundo.hn/recomiendan-sembrar-frijol-para-postrera-ante-solo-60-
dias-de-lluvias-intermitentes/  

FAO. (2021). Global outlook on climate services in agriculture: Investment opportunities to reach 
the last mile. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6941en  

FEWS NET. (2019). Harvests from the late season, on average, will contribute to the food reserve 
of poor households. https://fews.net/es/central-america-and-caribbean/el-salvador-
honduras-and-nicaragua/remote-monitoring-report/december-0  

Findlater, K., Webber, S., Kandlikar, M., & Donner, S. (2021). Climate services promise better 
decisions but mainly focus on better data. Nature Climate Change, 11(9), 731–737. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01125-3  

Giraldo Mendez, D. C., Jiménez, G., Obando, D., Clarkson, G., & Dorward, P. (2021). Creating 
opportunities for young coffee farmers in Honduras using climate services. 
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/114603   

Grossi, A., & Dinku, T. (2022). Enhancing national climate services: How systems thinking can 
accelerate locally led adaptation. One Earth, 5(1), 74–83. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.007  

Jaramillo, P. L., Boren-Alpizar, A. E., Morales, S., Burris, S., & Carpio, C. (2021). A love-hate 
relationship: An ethnographic study of migration with Lenca women in rural Honduras. 
Migration and Development, 11(3), 1–24. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2021.1934022  

Keller, M., Zamudio, A. N., Bizikova, L., Sosa, A. R., & Gough, A. M. (2018). Food security and 
climate change from a systems perspective: Community case studies from Honduras. 
Climate and Development, 10(8), 742–754. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1447901  

Kolstad, E. W., Sofienlund, O. N., Kvamsås, H., Stiller-Reeve, M. A., Neby, S., Paasche, Ø., 
Pontoppidan, M., Sobolowski, S. P., Haarstad, H., Oseland, S. E., Omdahl, L., & Waage, S. 
(2019). Trials, errors and improvements in co-production of climate services. Bulletin of 
the American Meteorological Society, 100, 1419-1428. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-
18-0201.1  

 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363
https://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/1313775-466/el-41-de-la-cosecha-de-ma%C3%ADz-se-perdi%C3%B3-en-temporada-de
https://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/1313775-466/el-41-de-la-cosecha-de-ma%C3%ADz-se-perdi%C3%B3-en-temporada-de
https://elmundo.hn/recomiendan-sembrar-frijol-para-postrera-ante-solo-60-dias-de-lluvias-intermitentes/
https://elmundo.hn/recomiendan-sembrar-frijol-para-postrera-ante-solo-60-dias-de-lluvias-intermitentes/
https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6941en
https://fews.net/es/central-america-and-caribbean/el-salvador-honduras-and-nicaragua/remote-monitoring-report/december-0
https://fews.net/es/central-america-and-caribbean/el-salvador-honduras-and-nicaragua/remote-monitoring-report/december-0
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01125-3
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/114603
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.007
https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2021.1934022
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1447901
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0201.1
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0201.1


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   25 
 

Loboguerrero, A. M., Boshell, F., León, G., Martinez-Baron, D., Giraldo, D., Recaman Mejía, L., 
Díaz, E., & Cock, J. (2018). Bridging the gap between climate science and farmers in 
Colombia. Climate Risk Management, 22, 67–81. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.08.001  

Lourenço, T. C., Swart, R., Goosen, H., & Street, R. (2015). The rise of demand-driven climate 
services. Nature Climate Change, 6, 13–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2836  

Magaña, V., Amador, J. A., & Medina, S. (1999). The midsummer drought over Mexico and 
Central America. Journal of Climate, 12(6), 1577–1588. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-
0442(1999)012<1577:TMDOMA>2.0.CO;2  

Mosso, C., Pons, D., & Beza-Beza, C. (2022). A long way toward climate smart agriculture: The 
importance of addressing gender inequity in the agricultural sector of Guatemala. Land, 
11(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081268  

Müller, A., Bouroncle, C., Gaytán, A., Girón, E., Granados, A., Mora, V., Portillo, F., & van Etten, 
J. (2020). Good data are not enough: Understanding limited information use for climate 
risk and food security management in Guatemala. Climate Risk Management, 30, 
100248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100248  

Muller, M., & Sousa, L. D. C. (2020). “She Helps Me All the Time”: Underestimating women’s 
economic engagement in rural Honduras [SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3582192]. Social 
Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3582192  

Obando, D., Durón, M., Uclés, M., Cid, J. del, Martínez, O., Villagran, E., Lara, N., & Aguilar, V. 
(2021). Climate Resilience Plan for the National Bean Chain, Honduras. [Report]. Alliance 
of Bioversity International and CIAT. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/113984  

Osbahr, H., Dorward, P., Stern, R., & Cooper, S. (2011). Supporting agricultural innovation in 
Uganda to respond to climate risk: Linking climate change and variability with farmer 
perceptions. Experimental Agriculture, 47(2), 293–316. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479710000785  

Paz Delgado, A. C. (2016). Vulnerabilidad de la población del Departamento de Choluteca ante 
efectos del cambio climático 1988, 2001, Y 2013, [Department of Choluteca Population 
Vulnerability to the Effects of Climate Changes during 1988, 2001 and 2013; Master's 
thesis, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras.]. Tegucigalpa.  

Phillips, T. (2019, January 15). ‘No way to live here’: New Honduran caravan sets off north as 
Trump blasts warnings. The Guardian. 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/15/new-honduran-caravan-sets-out-
north-trump-blasts-warnings  

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2018.08.001
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2836
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3c1577:TMDOMA%3e2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012%3c1577:TMDOMA%3e2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081268
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100248
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3582192
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/113984
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479710000785
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/15/new-honduran-caravan-sets-out-north-trump-blasts-warnings
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/15/new-honduran-caravan-sets-out-north-trump-blasts-warnings


Giraldo et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363   26 
 

Rodríguez, J. (2020). Agroclimatic Technical Committee: Municipalities of Namasigüe and 
Orocuina, Honduras. [Report]. Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. 
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/113044  

Singh, C., Dorward, P., & Osbahr, H. (2016). Developing a holistic approach to the analysis of 
farmer decision-making: Implications for adaptation policy and practice in developing 
countries. Land Use Policy, 59, 329–343. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.041  

Staub, C. G., & Clarkson, G. (2021). Farmer-led participatory extension leads Haitian farmers to 
anticipate climate-related risks and adjust livelihood strategies. Journal of Rural Studies, 
81, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.029  

Stringer, L. C., Fraser, E. D. G., Harris, D., Lyon, C., Pereira, L., Ward, C. F. M., & Simelton, E. 
(2020). Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers. 
Environmental Science & Policy, 104, 174–189. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.007  

Vaughan, C., Muth, M. F., & Brown, D. P. (2019). Evaluation of regional climate services: 
Learning from seasonal-scale examples across the Americas. Climate Services, 15, 
100104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.100104  

WFP (2019). MVAM Monitoring - University Observatory on Food and Nutritional Security. 
https://obsan.unah.edu.hn/monitoreo-mvam/  

 
 
 
© 2024 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/). 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.363
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/113044
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.041
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.029
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2019.100104
https://obsan.unah.edu.hn/monitoreo-mvam/

