Astier Et Al., 2012

Copyright © 2012 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Astier, M., L. García-Barrios, Y. Galván-Miyoshi, C. E. González-Esquivel, and O. R. Masera. 2012.

Assessing the sustainability of small farmer natural resource management systems. A critical analysis of the
MESMIS program (1995-2010). Ecology and Society 17(3): 25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04910-170325
Research
Assessing the Sustainability of Small Farmer Natural Resource
Management Systems. A Critical Analysis of the MESMIS Program
(1995-2010)
Marta Astier 1, Luis García-Barrios 2, Yankuic Galván-Miyoshi 3,4, Carlos E. González-Esquivel 5, and Omar R. Masera 5
ABSTRACT. Sustainability assessment oriented to improve current systems and practices is urgently needed, particularly in
the context of small farmer natural resource management systems (NRMS). Unfortunately, social-ecological systems (SES)
theory, sustainability evaluation frameworks, and assessment methods are still foreign not only to farmers but to many researchers,
students, NGOs, policy makers/operators, and other interested groups. In this paper we examine the main achievements and
challenges of the MESMIS Program (Spanish acronym for Indicator-based Sustainability Assessment Framework), a 15-year
ongoing effort with impact in 60 case studies and 20 undergraduate and graduate programs mainly in Ibero-America that is
attempting to cope with the stated challenges. The MESMIS experience shows that it is possible to conduct sustainability
assessments in the context of small farmers through a long-term, participatory, interdisciplinary, and multi-institutional approach
that integrates a solid theoretical background, a field-tested operational framework, learning tools specifically devised to facilitate
the understanding of sustainability as a multidimensional and dynamic concept, and a growing set of case studies to apply to
and get feedback from users. Specifically, through the dissemination of the MESMIS assessment framework in a large set of
case studies in a contrasting set of social-ecological contexts, we have been able to: (a) characterize the NRMS, their subsystems,
and their main interactions; (b) link attributes, i.e., general systemic properties, with sustainability indicators to assess critical
socioeconomic and environmental aspects of the NRMS; (c) integrate indicators through multicriteria tools and to expose the
multidimensional aspects of sustainability; (d) propose an initial multiscale assessment to articulate processes and actors at
different spatial scales; (e) develop multimedia learning tools, i.e., Interactive-MESMIS, to help users understand dynamic
concepts, trade-offs, and counter-intuitive behavior; and (f) promote participatory processes through role-playing games and
agent-based simulation models. Key challenges are related to the need to conduct long-term longitudinal studies that fully capture
system dynamic properties while at the same time actively involving relevant stakeholders through creative and lasting
participative processes. We outline an improved assessment framework that should help move the program in this direction.
Key Words: complex systems; Latin America; natural resource management; small farmers; social-ecological systems;
sustainability assessments
INTRODUCTION 2006, Daré et al. 2008, Janssen et al. 2010); and (7) case studies
Sustainability was first linked to a concept of sustainable at the local, regional, national, or global level (Sturtevant et
development that aimed to incorporate environmental al. 2007, Astier et al. 2011).
concerns within the framework of conventional economic
Although research on natural resource management (NRM)
growth (WCED 1987). Relatively simple frameworks
at the local level is vast and diverse, most formal sustainability
(Stockle et al. 1994, Mitchell et al. 1995) and long lists of
analyses are only applied to regional, national, or global scales,
loosely bundled “sustainability indicators” (UN 1996) were
with emphasis on specific sectors, e.g., forestry, agriculture,
used for short-term, rapid assessments. Since then, the
industry, and so on. Approaches for “sustainability in place,”
concept, goal, and tools have diversified, evolved, and become
with emphasis on very local contexts and actors, are crucial
more sophisticated. This has produced: (1) general theories of
to underpin bottom-up adaptive comanagement strategies
sustainability of complex social-ecological systems (Holling
(Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2006). However, these approaches
and Gunderson 2002, Young et al. 2006, van Noordwijk 2009);
remain largely overlooked. Livelihoods of millions of
(2) frameworks that integrate ecological and social drivers
smallholders in developing countries are inextricably and
across scales (e.g., Ostrom 2009); (3) models of regime shifts
tightly dependent on resources and services provided by
in social-ecological systems (SES; e.g., Scheffer 2009); (4)
natural ecosystems. These stakeholders are often marginalized
relevant indicators (e.g., Astier and González 2008); (5)
yet strategic in this process (García-Barrios and García-
multicriteria evaluation methods (Mayer 2008); (6)
Barrios 1992, Boege 2009). Poverty and unsustainable natural
involvement of relevant stakeholders (e.g., Collectif ComMod
resource management practices remain endemic to several
1
Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, 3Grupo Interdisciplinario
4 5
de Tecnología Rural Apropiada, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, Centro de
Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Ecology and Society 17(3): 25
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss3/art25/
peasantry territories. However, initiatives for improving stakeholders to make short- and long-term multicriteria
livelihood strategies are also emerging through the creativity comparisons of alternative NRM strategies; (3) to facilitate
and motivation of local stakeholders and the support from the learning processes by which stakeholders can understand,
external organizations and governments. Such initiatives often use, and give feedback on the concepts, tools, and outcomes
involve recovering traditional management practices for soil of such assessments; (4) to validate the framework by
conservation and restoration, development of efficient and promoting a number of case studies; and (5) to promote and
clean technologies suitable for local cultural practices and facilitate the participation of all stakeholders in the assessment
preferences, and integrated agrosilvopastoral systems, among process.
other options.
In this article we present the conceptual approach of the
Nowadays, however, contrasting NRM strategies, e.g., MESMIS program, summarize its 15 years of experience,
communal vs. private access; agricultural systems with low identify the main contributions and challenges in its
vs. high industrial inputs; monocultures vs. highly diverse implementation, and address areas of current and future
polycultures, coexist in the same small farmer, or smallholder, development of the methodology according to five main
region, locality, or household (García-Barrios et al. 2009a). components of our research approach: theoretical framework,
Under these circumstances, the critical question that needs to operative structure, case studies, teaching and training, and
be answered is: Will small farmers respond to the present participative processes. We briefly outline an improved
challenges and global social-ecological change by developing iterative evaluation cycle directed to incorporate more fully
sustainable NRM practices, production systems, rural the dynamic aspects of SES framework and the participation
livelihoods, and governance schemes that will drive them out of stakeholders into sustainability assessments. We conclude
of poverty traps while enabling critical ecological processes by discussing the future challenges for assessing the
to change but remain functional? Answers to this question are sustainability of small farmer natural resource management
diverse, highly contrasting, and subject to strong debate (Grau systems (NRMS).
and Aide 2008, Perfecto et al. 2009, Brussaard et al. 2010,
Perfecto and Vandermeer 2010). THE MESMIS PROGRAM
The MESMIS effort originated in the early 1990s in Mexico
We argue that, to answer this and other related questions, and in the context of an initiative launched by the Rockefeller
to bridge theory, empirical studies, and social action we need Foundation to foster alternative peasant NRMS. A critical
long-term research, education, and policy building programs need for the Rockefeller Program was to develop a
that enable small farmers, and other related stakeholders, to sustainability assessment framework to address the following
continuously assess the sustainability and the dynamic social- questions: Can small farmers respond to global social-
ecological consequences of their NRM decisions. ecological changes through their NRMS? Are these farmers
Unfortunately, SES frameworks, sustainability evaluation, capable of creating functional and changing ecological
and assessment methods are still foreign not only to farmers processes that can at the same time alleviate poverty in their
but to most researchers, students, NGOs, policy makers/ peasant communities?
operators, and other stakeholders.
From the work of Conway (1994), Gallopín (1997), and García
During the past 15 years, a group of researchers from Mexican (1994), among others, it was clear that a sustainability
institutions and NGOs have made efforts to tackle the evaluation framework should go beyond approaches that focus
aforementioned challenges by developing an integrated on short-term economic and productive aspects, such as
research and development program named “MESMIS,” a standard benefit-cost analyses. With this in mind, the
Spanish acronym for Indicator-based Sustainability MESMIS framework was developed, critically integrating key
Assessment Framework. The framework is adapted to small concepts regarding sustainable development, sustainability,
farmers, who constitute 63% of farmland in Latin America systemic approaches, natural resource management,
(ECLAC 2009). In the context of MESMIS, small farmers are sustainability evaluation, and sustainability indicators
those who commonly hold diversified and small-scale farms (Masera et al. 1999, López-Ridaura et al. 2002).
(usually < 5 ha, but the specific farm-size threshold depends
on the country), employ family labor, and produce both In parallel, a first group of Mexican case studies was launched
subsistence and commercial goods, i.e., crops, livestock, forest to validate the MESMIS methodology in very diverse social
products. and environmental contexts (López-Ridaura et al. 2002). Two
books were published (Masera et al. 1999, Masera and López-
The MESMIS program simultaneously considers five Ridaura 2000) that together with other outreach materials
strategic and interrelated goals: (1) to integrate the theory of helped MESMIS to be quickly adopted as a framework for
complex systems into sustainability assessments; (2) to many more case studies in Latin America and a few in Spain
develop and update a comprehensive and coherent and Portugal. The MESMIS framework was also gradually
sustainability assessment framework that can allow incorporated into more than 20 undergraduate and graduate
programs in these countries through training workshops and between management strategies. Local communities’ views
courses continuously offered in Ibero-America. To date, more and knowledge must truly be considered in the process. At an
than 190 professionals and technicians from 12 countries, operational level, assessments need to provide a practical
coming from the social and biological sciences, have method that can be put in practice by nonexperts, to show the
graduated from MESMIS courses. Significant work has been dynamics and multidimensionality of sustainability and
done with local peasant communities and NGOs that allowed provide concrete guidance on how to improve the social-
the MESMIS Program to link the theoretical aspects to ecological performance of existing small farmer NRMS. At a
concrete local realities, especially with small farmers. pedagogic level, the program needs to provide the tools and
develop the abilities to make the key concepts associated to
So far, we have tracked more than 60 case studies conducted
sustainability understandable to users. Sustainability
mostly in Latin America, but also in Spain, Portugal, and the
assessments need to promote the active participation of all
United States (Speelman et al. 2007, Astier et al. 2011). Many
stakeholders in case studies, and to facilitate the decision
of these studies have been carried out by people trained in the
making process. The rich information and experience provided
MESMIS courses. These rich experiences provided ample
by these case studies should feed back into the rest of the
evidence that a place-based approach to sustainability
components as part of an overall “adaptive” process.
assessment was not only useful to improve local and external
stakeholder capability to address complex and context-
dependent social-ecological problems, but also that small Fig. 1. The MESMIS Program: its components and
farmers urgently called for tools and methods to assess their interactions.
own management strategies (Masera and López-Ridaura
2000, Astier and Hollands 2007). However, new challenges
and a number of conceptual and methodological gaps became
manifest.
To cope with these challenges, the MESMIS Program evolved
in institutional terms, by including members from three
research centers and an NGO. In structural terms, it
simultaneously addressed five main tasks closely interlinked:
(1) a theoretical framework, which is the conceptual referential
background for the other four; (2) an operational structure, or
assessment framework, which is the methodological
framework that has been applied by users; (3) the case studies,
which are promoted mostly by projects aiming at developing
alternative peasant NRMS; (4) the teaching and training
program for those applying MESMIS; and (5) a participatory
framework supported by appropriate role-playing games,
scenario simulators, and group dynamic exercises (Fig. 1). We
describe and discuss in detail the contribution and challenges
of the MESMIS Program within each of the program
components.
CONTRIBUTIONS AND CURRENT CHALLENGES Theoretical framework: integrating SES dynamics into
FROM THE MESMIS PROGRAM sustainability assessments
We argue that the five-component structure of the MESMIS Integrating human and environmental dimensions into an
Program is key for sustainability assessments because operational framework for assessing small-scale NRMS
succeeding in this task implies working simultaneously at a requires bringing together a robust theoretical framework with
cognitive (knowledge-based); operational (method-based); user-friendly guidelines and tools applicable to different
pedagogic (learning/training-based); and evidence (validation- social-ecological contexts and evaluation team skills. To cope
based) level. At a cognitive level, sustainability assessment with this problem in the MESMIS framework, we have
requires moving beyond conventional disciplinary approaches, attempted to integrate two contrasting approaches to
such as standard benefit-cost analyses, which conceive sustainability assessment: measurement-based and process-
assessments as optimization problems aimed at obtaining a oriented approaches. These two approaches are contrasted in
discernible “best solution.” Sustainability assessments need Table 1. In measurement based approaches, shown in the first
to incorporate nonlinear dynamics, complexity, uncertainty, column, the goal is to decode the concept of sustainability into
and multiscale, multidimensional aspects, and trade-offs a set of quantifiable and independent set of indicators, which
Table 1. Approaches to sustainability assessment.
Measurement-based approaches Process-oriented approaches

Theoretical conceptual framework Sustainable development targets and goals, 3 Dynamic systems
dimensional approach (social, economic, Complex adaptive systems
environmental)
Focus of attention Benchmarking and ranking Identify and understand key drivers for
sustainability
Main goal Judge success in relation to the attainment of a Explore potential future scenarios
target or goal
Methodological approaches Composite indices System attribute-based frameworks
Goal-oriented frameworks
Main instruments Quantitative, reliable, and verifiable indicators Quantitative and soft modeling approaches,
Narratives
Timing of the assessment Ex post Ex ante (planning)
Duration Short-term assessments Long-term assessments
Archetypical examples FESLM (Smyth and Dumanski 1993) AMESH (Waltner-Toews and Kay 2005)
CIFOR framework (Prabhu et al. 1999) Resilience analysis (Walker et al. 2002)
Stockle et al. (1994) framework Ostrom (2009) framework
can then be used to construct performance metrics to compare that exhibit complex behavior in time and space (Gunderson
(rank) and assess (benchmark) progress toward sustainability. and Holling 2002, Ostrom 2009), such as positive and negative
Most developed methodologies provide a set of guidelines for feedbacks, nonlinear responses, irreversible thresholds,
the decoding process, based on a Principles-Criteria- emergent properties, and unpredictable/unexpected/unwanted
Indicators (PCI) hierarchical structure. Principles represent results (Sterman 1994, Spector and Anderson 2000).
universal goals of sustainable development, like those Specifically, we consider the sustainability of SES as a process
established by the Agenda 21, which are progressively refined of “persisting by changing,” which is achieved by the
and translated into an equivalent, but place-specific set of combination of short-term regulation and long-term
indicators (Table 1). adaptation to ever-changing biophysical and social conditions
(Capra 2002). This form of persistence through adaptive cycles
Process-oriented approaches are also grounded on general,
(Holling 2001) requires attributes such as stability, reliability,
and universal, sustainability principles. However, sustainability
and resilience in the short and medium terms, but also
is conceived as a systemic property rather than as a set of fixed
instability, alternative equilibria, and adaptability in the long
goals (Clayton and Radcliffe 1996, Holling and Gunderson
term (García-Barrios et al. 2008a, van Noordwijk 2009,
2002). The endeavor is to identify key variables and process
Jackson et al. 2010). To operationalize the evaluation, we
driving (un)sustainable dynamic regimes. Variables and
identify the most relevant attributes required by a specific
processes can be represented through quantitative or
NRMS, translate them into an appropriate set of indicators at
qualitative models as well as narratives, because these
different scales, and integrate them through multicriteria and
representations help to inform on functional relationships
graphical methods, such as AMOEBA diagrams. We have
between different domains of social-ecological systems. Such
found that agent-based models and role-playing games are
understanding is important to anticipate future outcomes from
very effective for assisting this process of analysis and
which society can take advantage of new opportunities or
synthesis, and can help stakeholders understand and explore
undertake preventive measures to deal with potential dangers.
scenarios of SES sustainability with a complex-adaptive
The evaluation is the means to develop plausible future
approach (García-Barrios et al. 2009b). We have also started
scenarios and for planning adequate strategies to cope with
to incorporate these tools successfully into the sustainability
them (ex ante assessment). Having long-term evaluation
assessment processes (García-Barrios et al. 2008b, Speelman
periods is a crucial aspect to better understand SES dynamics.
and García-Barrios 2010).
The evaluation process is then forcibly conceived as a long-
term continuous activity. Process-oriented frameworks rely Operational structure and case studies
on the emergent interdisciplinary fields of systems theory and The MESMIS framework proposes four basic methodological
complex adaptive systems (Table 1). premises and a cyclical sustainability assessment. The
In the MESMIS Program, NRMS are seen as systems premises are: (1) sustainability of NRM systems is defined by
integrating social and environmental aspects currently thought seven general systemic attributes: productivity, stability,
of as SES (Berkes et al. 2002). These systems present multiple reliability, resilience, adaptability, equity, and self-reliance;
social and environmental subsystems and internal variables (2) the assessment is context-based, and constrained to a
specific spatial and time scale; (3) it is thought of as a
participatory process requiring an interdisciplinary evaluation Most case studies connected indicators with systemic
team; and (4) sustainability is not measured per se but in attributes (Fig. 3). It was easier, however, to derive indicators
relative terms through the comparison of either two or more related with the productivity, both biological and economic,
contrasting NRMS (cross-sectional assessment) or by attribute, than those related with resilience, adaptability, and
assessing one NRMS through time (longitudinal assessment; reliability. The derivation of some indicators, e.g., biodiversity
Masera et al. 1999, López-Ridaura et al. 2002). = stability and resilience, was more axiomatic than based on
empirical demonstration and/or dynamical analysis. Different
The cyclical sustainability assessment is based in a step-wise
dimensions of sustainability were integrated into one set of
process that involves: (a) defining the context and the system
indicators to achieve a balance without oversimplification
under analysis; (b) deriving critical points and sustainability
(Table 2; Valentin and Spangenberg 2000).
criteria, which are related to three areas of evaluation, i.e.,
environmental, social, and economic, and to the perceived Indicators were integrated using AMOEBA graphs, which
strengths and weaknesses of the system under analysis; (c) proved very useful to highlight the multidimensional character
deriving and measuring sustainability indicators along with of NRMS and also to communicate sustainability in a more
their evaluation units and optimum values; (d) integrating the operational and appropriate way than aggregated indices. This
results by means of multicriteria graphic tools and analysis; analytical tool helped farmers think about their management
and (e) communicating results from the assessment, which strategies in a holistic way (Galván-Miyoshi 2008). Most
will in turn provide feedback to management decisions. Once AMOEBAS were used to show the state of the systems
the recommendations from the evaluation process are applied, assessed at a particular point of time. However, in some cases
a second stage is initiated, thus repeating the cycle. This the AMOEBA graph was also used as an innovative
procedure ensures a consistent relationship between monitoring tool, i.e., for ex post analysis of the time evolution
sustainability indicators and general attributes (for a detailed of the indicators selected during the assessment (Fig. 4). Only
description of the assessment framework see López-Ridaura a few case studies explored long-term and trade-off analyses
et al. 2002). (See the Appendix).
We selected 25 case studies out of the 60 documented by our
Even though specific participatory techniques and tools were
group to assess how the framework has been applied (Table
used in each step of the assessment cycle (Ortiz-Ávila 2008),
2). The case studies were chosen based on the quality and
in many case studies the assessment teams struggled to
quantity of available data. We found that most case studies
incorporate dynamic concepts into the evaluation.
were conducted by academic institutions and, to a lesser extent,
Nevertheless, in seven cases the stakeholders had outstanding
by NGOs and groups of farmers. The case studies were mostly
participation in all steps of the evaluation (Table 2). Most of
executed independently from the MESMIS research team.
the case studies involved a comparison of resource
Therefore, the operational structure was often adapted to
management strategies across farms within a community. A
satisfy the specific characteristics and objectives of the
small set of case studies explored multiscale assessments, from
different case studies. Thirteen of these cases took place in
farm to region, by defining specific objectives for each
Mexico, eight in Central and South America, three in Spain
stakeholder at each relevant geographical scale, deriving
and Portugal, and one in the USA.
scale-dependent indicators, and linking them using functional
Intensive collaboration among researchers, technicians, and relationships (López-Ridaura 2005, López-Ridaura et al.
peasant families was required to define the system under 2005).
analysis (López-Ridaura et al. 2002, Speelman et al. 2007,
Only one evaluation cycle was performed in the great majority
Ortiz-Ávila 2008). Usually the small farm integrates two or
of case studies. One of the few exceptions was the work of
more subsystems, i.e., crop-livestock, agroforestry, crop-
Martínez (2005) in Sinaloa, Mexico, where an alternative
livestock-forestry (Fig. 2). To a lesser extent systems are
crop-forestry-grazing system, based on tropical legumes and
devoted only to cash crops, e.g., vineyards, cotton, agave, or
semifeedlot silage, was compared against a conventional
extensive livestock, i.e., grazing systems. Because of this
system over a nine-year period (Fig. 4; Martínez 2005, Astier
complexity, the evaluation usually focused on the subsystems
et al. 2011). Analysis of system dynamics and trade-offs
containing the commercial crops/products, leaving aside
between attributes and indicators were not addressed in any
subsistence crops and other elements, i.e., external or
of the reviewed case studies.
nonmonetary income, that also contribute to the livelihoods
of the communities involved (Table 2). Usually two Teaching and training: development of interactive
contrasting NRM systems, a conventional or reference system learning tools
and an alternative one, are compared. In most cases, the Learning tools were designed to improve the courses and
alternative NRMS is based on agroecological principles, such effectiveness of training workshops in the last six years. A
as crop diversification, soil conservation, and external input first compilation of these tools was integrated in “Interactive-
reduction (Astier et al. 2011). MESMIS.” Highly graphic, fun, and pedagogic interactive
Table 2. Main features of MESMIS case studies. Source: The authors based on the information from a sample of 25 case studies
conducted in Latin America, Spain, Portugal, and USA
Key aspects Description and number of cases Examples of the most representative of each category
(n = 25)
NRM systems analyzed Mixed (agroforestry, crops-livestock, crops- Modernized crop-livestock-forest system based on soil and water
livestock-forestry) – 10 conservation measures and diversification (local species and cultivars;
Gomes de Almeida and Biaconi 2007)
Cash crops – 8 Traditional Chinampas for the production of vegetables (Merlin 2009)
Basic crops – 1 Small-scale, multiple cropping systems (Moya et al. 2007)
Livestock - 4 Conventional vs. organic sheep production (Salcedo and García-
Trujillo 2005)
Forestry – 1 Extraction vs. community managed forestry (Negreros-Castillo et al.
2000)
Aquaculture – 1 Wetlands in monoculture vs. multiculture (Moctezuma-Malagón et al.
2008)
Type of assessment Simultaneous, contrasting systems (i.e., Conventional vs. alternative small-scale maize-dairy systems (Brunett-
(longitudinal/cross-sectional) reference vs. alternative) – 19 Pérez et al. 2005)
Longitudinal (same system before and after Dairy sheep farm evaluated three times over 10 years of technological
management changes) – 6 change (North and Hewes 2006)
Leading institutional evaluator Academic – 11 Dehesa (Mediterranean agroforestry system, Gaspar et al. 2009)
NGO – 8 Small-scale lemon production (Orozco and Astier 2007)
Government/extension centre – 3 Conventional vs. organic cotton (Gomero and Velásquez 2007)
Farm/Farmers group – 3 Indigenous Coffee Cooperative Unión de Ejidos Majomut, Chiapas
(Pérez-Grovas 2000)
Spatial/organizative scale where Plot/ single farm – 2 Conventional vs. diversified crop-livestock-forestry system in an
the evaluation is centered experimental farm (Gutiérrez-Cedillo et al. 2012)
Community – 18 Tequila production, 27 farms in one community (Bowen and Zapata
2009)
Regional/farmers association – 5 Organic coffee growers association, 118 farms in one region (Cárdenas-
Grajales et al. 2006)
Time length of the alternative Short term (< 3 yrs) – 10 Vineyards in organic transition (Pino-Torres 2007)
system
Medium term (3-5 yrs) – 3 Conventional vs. organic coffee and agroforestry (Pérez-Grovas 2000)
Long term (> 5 yrs) – 10 Conventional vs. alternative irrigation system over 20 years (Ocampo-
Fletes 2004)
N/A – 1 No alternative system evaluated (Bowen and Zapata 2007)
Degree of participation from Low – 17 Farmers not involved in most steps of the evaluation process (Abbona et
farmers al. 2007)
Medium – 1 Farmers involved in definition of general sustainability criteria (Pino-
Torres 2007)
High – 7 Farmers involved in design, measurement, and integration of
sustainability indicators (Alemán et al. 2007)
Indicators connected to Yes – 19 Use of all seven sustainability attributes defined by MESMIS (Aguirre
sustainability attributes as and Chiappe 2009)
defined by MESMIS No – 6 Indicators derived from technological, economic, and social criteria
(Salcedo and García-Trujillo 2005)
Integration of results using AMOEBA/qualitative integration – 24 Use of AMOEBA graphs to present results (Duarte-Silveira 2005)
multicriteria representation
techniques
Modeling – 1 Linear programming used to define “ideal” system (Costa and Poeta
2008)
Multiple evaluation cycles No – 22 Agrosilvopastoral alternative systems based on multicropping evaluated
Yes – 3 after four years (Astier et al. 2007)
Main results Alternative system more sustainable – 15 Improved yields and income, more stable production, increased
participation (Alemán et al. 2007)
Mixed results – 3 Traditional system had higher cost-benefit ratio, similar income and
lower agrochemical use (Merlín 2009)
Reference system more sustainable – 3 Increased labor efficiency, but reduced productivity (North and Hewes
2006)
N/A – 4 No alternative system (Orozco and Astier 2007)
Fig. 2. A model of an agrosilvopastoral system generated in a case study in Chullpakasa, Bolivia. The first step of the
assessment framework aims to understand and describe the natural resource management systems (NRMS) to be evaluated in
systemic terms. Characterizing a NRMS implies describing its limits, subsystems, interactions, and its socio-environmental
context. In this case we see a system composed of four subsystems tightly linked. Usually this type of information is
generated in community workshops where stakeholders participate actively (Ortiz-Ávila 2008).
simulation models, embedded in fictitious but plausible social- phenomenon are lost (Gilbert 2005). We attempt to create
ecological narratives, were constructed. Step by step, the models that provide a comprehensive overview of the range
following five concepts are assimilated by the user: (1) the of possible long-term behaviors and of the main drivers,
dynamic nature of sustainability attributes; (2) how natural interactions, and thresholds involved (García-Barrios et al.
resources respond in a complex and nonlinear manner to 2008a). These programs also help the user to learn abstract
management strategies; (3) the adaptive-interactive character concepts, first through a very experiential and interactive
of sustainable natural resource management strategies; (4) process, and later through a conceptual method. Two of these
trade-offs manifested among indicators when trying to simulation models, SUSSI and LINDISSIMA (García-Barrios
optimize them simultaneously; and (5) stakeholder necessity and Pimm 2008, García-Barrios et al. 2008b) were included
for managing and solving conflicts that originated from their in Interactive-MESMIS to facilitate the application of the
contrasting interests and views (García-Barrios and Pimm operational structure (See Fig. 5; http://mesmis.gira.org.mx/
2008). ).
A simulation model built to help people understand a complex We have also developed AGRODIVERSITY, a very graphic
system should simplify things as much as possible, but not to and user-friendly agent-based model that challenges users to
the point where the interesting characteristics of the find the biological, ecological, and management parameters
Fig. 3. Deriving indicators through the MESMIS framework. These are examples of common strengths/weakness and
indicators registered in case studies. Sustainability attributes are translated into criteria that, at the same time, connect
indicators with identified natural resource management systems (NRMS) strengths and weakness.
that allow a crop, weed, herbivore insect/natural enemy produce unwanted and uncontrollable consequences for all
community to self-organize into a functionally biodiverse and (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004).
economically sustainable agroecosystem (García-Barrios and
Reconciling rural well-being with sustainable land use and
Speelman 2006, Speelman and García-Barrios 2010).
natural resource conservation in smallholder rural territories
These tools have been used in more than 20 local, national, is a complex and challenging social task that requires the
and international training workshops addressed to graduate development of an adaptive comanagement process with the
students, professionals, researchers, farmers’ group leaders, active participation of all stakeholders involved (Ostrom 2009,
and government officials. The favorable pedagogic results Poteete et al. 2010). This ultimately implies going beyond
have been documented (García-Barrios et al. 2008b) even for strategic cooperation and achieving substantive cooperation
people with little formal education (Speelman and García- among social groups, which naturally benefits the most those
Barrios 2010). For those interested in understanding NRM that have been the least favored (García-Barrios and García-
modeling better or engaging in writing simple dynamical Barrios 2008).
models, we have developed an illustrated introductory guide
A whole new field of interest in developing social-ecological
(García-Barrios et al. 2008a).
simulations and games for promoting participatory processes
Participatory processes: methods and tools in rural settings is now evolving (Bousquet et al. 2002, Daré
The social process of NRM has become increasingly complex, et al. 2008). Agent-based modeling has been proposed to be
interdependent, and uncertain (Gunderson and Holling 2002, well suited for capturing the complex biophysical and
Young et al. 2006). In consequence, the apparently socioeconomic settings and long-term behaviors found in
independent actions of different stakeholders involved can peasant natural resource management systems in many
developing countries (Berger et al. 2006, Speelman and extended the educational use of Sierra Springs to other Man
García-Barrios 2010). The joint use of agent-based simulation and the Biosphere Reserves and to academic settings in Latin
and role-playing games, increasingly referred to as America, Europe, USA, and South Africa. An online version
Companion Modeling (Collectif ComMod 2006), is relatively of this board game is on trial, available at http://chiapasgames.
new (Barreteau et al. 2003), but flourishing. This strategy org.
motivates stakeholders to become more involved, interact, and
Our role-playing games are designed for two types of
thereby reframe their views, strategies, interests, and conflicts.
participants: (1) farmers, NGOs, government agencies,
Role-playing games constitute a nonconfrontational social
researchers, and other stakeholders that interact in a rural
space in which human actions and their consequences can be
territory, normally a mountainous watershed, and (2) students
explored and discussed by all stakeholders, including
and/or teachers. These games have been successfully played
scientists (Barreteau 2003). The combination of simulation
by students ranging from rural primary schools to PhD students
and role playing also generates a potentially powerful tool for
at top universities in the USA.
interactive learning. Participants simultaneously acquire not
only new eco-technical knowledge but also new social skills Within this context, we are also currently developing a project
such as the ability to understand each other’s views and in the buffer zone of an important Man and the Biosphere
interests, collectively explore scenarios, negotiate, define, and Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico, aimed at participatory design and
commit to practical solutions. Companion Modeling has implementation of sustainable silvopastoral production
proven its capacity to help stakeholders understand, mediate, systems. This includes establishing experimental silvopastoral
and solve social conflicts involving common pool resources plots with many farmers, and an ongoing ComMod process.
in rural settings (Bousquet and Trebuil 2005, Gurung et al. To date we have developed a thorough multiactor diagnosis
2006, Daré et al. 2008). that addresses the levels of consensus over different
sustainability issues.
Fig. 4. AMOEBA diagram showing progress toward
BASIS FOR AN IMPROVED ITERATIVE
sustainability on agrosilvopastoral systems throughout a
EVALUATION CYCLE
nine-year period in Sinaloa, Mexico (created using Martínez
To include the most recent developments in each of the five
2005 and Perales et al. 2000). The diagram allows
components of the MESMIS Program, we propose an
stakeholders to readily see to what extent the systems are
improved iterative evaluation, or assessment cycle to be tested
improving in each of the selected indicators. Trade-offs, or
and validated in a new set of case studies. This improved cycle
synergies, and trends can thus be observed. For example, we
is also needed to cope with the main challenges that emerged
can see that initial investment costs, yields, crop diversity
when applying the MESMIS approach in the different case
improved, while cost-benefit ratio is decreasing a bit. Also
studies: (1) a lack of quantitative and qualitative analysis of
participation in farmers’ groups remains a challenge.
the system’ dynamical behaviors, and the consequent
difficulty to derive stability and resilience indicators, beyond
resorting to strong assumptions and generalizations; (2) an
insufficient consideration of trade-offs among attributes and
among indicators, at a given scale and across scales; (3) the
partial involvement of rural producers, and of other social
actors who operate across scales, in the evaluation and decision
making process; (4) the lack of longitudinal evaluations that
could help understand and improve the transition or
hybridization of the reference and alternative NRM system(s);
and (5) the lack of scientific approaches and tools that could
support local institutions conducting long-term participatory
evaluation even without funding for long-term research.
We offer a general blueprint for building an improved iterative
evaluation cycle that could better address the practical
challenges of the MESMIS framework. We envision an
evaluation cycle consisting of six main steps, three of them
more linked to a diagnosis stage and three more related to a
Within the context of the MESMIS, we have created a generic participatory planning stage that feed back on each other (Fig.
role game called “Sierra Springs” that can be adapted to a 6). It should be noted that the proposed evaluation is
wider set of ecosystems and rural contexts (García-Barrios et longitudinal, i.e., the goal is to adaptively assess the
al. 2009b). Through a dozen workshops (2009-2010), we have sustainability of a particular NRMS through time, and to build
Fig. 5. LINDISSIMA. The online educational tool “Production System Design and Negotiation Among Stakeholders in
Conflict” in MESMIS-Interactive is a three-act drama in Spanish and English with 84 interactive screens that include
narratives, detailed tutorials, simulations, quizzes, and multiactor agroforestry system design. Users work in groups and learn
about sustainability attributes, nonlinear processes, multicriteria analysis, and conflict resolution.
such assessment both with empirical time series of indicators, participatory processes, the use of interactive learning tools,
and with qualitative and quantitative stylized dynamical and by obtaining results tangible to local users, local
models of the systems’ components, interactions, and actual/ institutions will be better able to internalize the sustainability
potential behaviors. Throughout the different steps, pedagogic assessment cycle and continue to carry it out on a long-term
tools are applied to help participants understand concepts, basis even without external funding.
particularly those regarding nonlinear, multidimensional
Step 1 involves an intuitive analysis of the NRMS main
processes; to collect and monitor information to assess the
components, interactions, drivers, and behavior(s). This
different indicators; to build dynamical models and role-
analysis is built on the knowledge and experience of
playing games representing the NRMS; and to integrate results
smallholders and other social actors involved in the process,
with multicriteria methods to both collectively evaluate
including researchers. In this step, participants attempt to
possible scenarios and to enable a cooperative approach to
systematically describe the current status of the NRMS and
decision making. The evaluation cycle is therefore naturally
its main challenges and opportunities in terms of
linked with the teaching and training component of the
sustainability.
MESMIS Program. Also, we hope that through the different
Fig. 6. The MESMIS Improved Iterative Evaluation Cycle encompasses a permanent process of participative diagnosis and
planning, which includes six main steps closely related that feed back on each other.
In Step 2, indicators are selected and defined in the following ● The most relevant current means and activities for
ways: achieving such goals are listed and characterized
quantitatively/qualitatively, e.g., building on statements
● The most relevant socio-environmental goals related to
like “we apply industrial fertilizer to maize and wish to
the NRMS under analysis are listed and their current and
apply more as soil becomes impoverished”; “we have
desired status is described quantitatively or qualitatively
doubled the cattle stocking rate”; “former staple food
by the actors, e.g., through statements like “we produce
producers have become middlemen for our marketable
one ton of maize per hectare and need to produce two
cattle”.
tons”; “riparian vegetation and water quality are
decreasing and we would like this to stop”; “local income ● Goals and means are represented explicitly as indicators
inequity is high and we want it to be reduced”; “actors A in a graphical conceptual model. Hypothetical cause and
and B compete for access to resources and would prefer effect relations are proposed and explored to identify
to cooperate if possible”. additional (hidden) critical variables, to integrate positive
and negative feedback loops among variables, and to
approximate quantitative/qualitative sustainability constraint Step 4 involves the integrated assessment of indicators, using
and threshold values for the indicators representing goals multicriteria representation tools and techniques, with
and means. continuous feedback from steps 2 and 3. For each indicator
the state of the system is judged according to a “scale of
As a result of the process, a manageable set of goal-oriented
preferences” in terms of sustainability, where optimal values,
indicators is selected by participants seeking to capture the
targets, or critical thresholds are used to define the most
legitimate interests of all the stakeholders involved in the
preferred state. Multicriteria representation tools such as the
assessment, and the smallest possible list of drivers and
AMOEBA diagram are commonly used at this stage.
interactions that define if such goals and means can be
sustained is derived. This latter process is more elaborate In Step 5 a scenario exploration and assessment, which
because it requires that participants: (1) acquire an experiential involves a prospective analysis and social negotiation of
understanding of the dynamical and systemic nature of potential courses of action available for decision makers, is
sustainability attributes of NRMS; (2) build graphic undertaken and, therefore, trade-offs among attributes and
representations of their conceptual models of the NRMS, indicators can be visualized and analyzed. The final step (6)
including components, cause and effect relations, and is the selection of a desired scenario that is translated into a
feedback cycles; (3) “play out” the qualitative dynamics of set of adaptive/corrective actions oriented to improve the
critical indicators implicit in their diagrams, and discover the sustainability of the NRMS under analysis. This process, in
desirable and undesirable attractor(s) of the hypothetical turn, triggers a new diagnosis-planning cycle that begins at
system; and (4) confirm the relevance of the selected time “t2” (Fig. 6). The Companion Modeling (COMMOD)
indicators. Deriving the minimal set of both types of indicators framework (Etienne 2011) and tools are well suited for aiding
is key in reducing the costly and time consuming process of in steps 3 to 6. We have started to conduct and test this
monitoring them. To facilitate conducting this step, a host of improved MESMIS evaluation cycle in the buffer zone of a
participatory processes for defining collective goals are Man and the Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico with
available in the literature (e.g., Lynam et al. 2007). Also, encouraging results (Cruz-Morales et al. 2011, Brunel-Manse
highly intuitive and interactive didactic tools are becoming and García-Barrios 2012).
available to introduce academics and nonacademics to the
basics of nonlinear dynamics, complexity science, and CONCLUSION
sustainability science. Dynamical system teaching resources The concept, the goals, and the strategies for achieving SES
(García-Barrios and Pimm 2008) and agent-based modeling sustainability are rapidly evolving in the midst of intense and
tools have become more user-friendly, and have proved useful sometimes contentious debate. There is no single theory that
in the MESMIS teaching experience, for example, the suffices for this challenge; approaches so far need to be
LINDISSIMA and AGRODIVERSITY models. Conceptual fundamentally eclectic and integrate recent developments
modeling and user-friendly simulation software based on from measurement-oriented approaches to sustainability
qualitative reasoning that can deal with qualitative and assessment, theory of complex system dynamics, participatory
incomplete information about the components and processes, agent-based simulation, and role-playing games. In
interactions of NRMS is being developed (Bredeweg and particular, within small-scale farm territories, natural resource
Forbus 2003, Bredeweg et al. 2009), and the first study cases management is inextricably related to the livelihoods of
have been successful in modeling the restoration ecology of millions of smallholders in Latin America and the world at
specific NRMS (Salles et al. 2006). large, and continues to be central in the analysis of sustainable
and unsustainable strategies and resultant SES scenarios.
In Step 3, stakeholders integrate the selected goal-oriented
indicators and sustainability-driver indicators into role- Although the theoretical discussion about sustainability is
playing games, in the form of board games and spatially booming, funding for long-term research programs in Latin
explicit agent-based models. These games allow stakeholders America and for many other regions is still a major challenge.
to display their goals and strategies, discover the dynamical The MESMIS Program has actually survived by surfing
consequences of their management decisions, identify through and bridging a large set of short-term projects.
thresholds and trade-offs, and reveal the coordination and Assessment and monitoring are seen by funders and
cooperation dilemmas involved in building a sustainable path organizations more as the end-point of a project rather than a
for the NRMS under scrutiny (e.g., Janssen et al. 2010, García continuous activity. Priorities are also on short-term impacts
Barrios et al. 2011). In the process, the indicators listed in step rather than on sustaining longer term strategies. In fact, several
2, and the model as a whole, are reconsidered and refined. institutions explicitly preclude the funding for more than two
Different strategies for participatory modeling have been to three years, which completely contradicts sustainability
developed and explored in the past two decades with success objectives. Finally, the assessment itself and the development
(Etienne 2011). Of course, the modeling tools and resources of learning and methodological tools are often a low funding
described in step 2 should also be used here. priority. These limitations should be urgently overcome.
Sustainability assessments need to support bottom-up, Aguirre, O., and M. Chiappe. 2009 Evaluación de Estrategias
adaptive comanagement strategies; therefore, characterizing Sustentables en Sistemas de Producción Hortícolas del Áea
the local contextual circumstances that are most relevant for de Influencia de Salto (Uruguay). Revista Brasileira de
sustainability in a given place is essential. Unfortunately, the Agroecologia 4(2):454-457
topic is still foreign not only to farmers but to many
Alemán, S. T., T. J. Nahed, and M. J. López. 2007. Evaluación
researchers, students, NGOs, policy makers/operators, and
de la sustentabilidad de dos sistemas de producción ovina en
other interested groups. The MESMIS program has attempted
comunidades tzotziles. Pages 11-55 in M. Astier and J.
to bridge theory, empirical studies, and social action to enable
Hollands, editors. Sustentabilidad y campesinado. Seis
small-scale farmers and other relevant stakeholders to
experiencias agroecológicas en Latinoamérica. MundiPrensa,
continuously assess the dynamic social-ecological consequences
Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada
of NRM decisions made in these territories. So far the
(GIRA A.C.), Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture
experience has been rewarding, as the interest for the different
(ILEIA), and Inter-church Organisation for Development
methods and tools developed within MESMIS continue to
Cooperation (ICCO), Mexico City, Mexico.
grow, and more case studies are conducted aimed at finding
more sustainable alternatives for small-scale NRMS. Because Astier, M., and C. González. 2008. Formulación de
the MESMIS Program is itself an adaptive process, we have indicadores socio-ambientales para evaluaciones de sistemas
proposed in this paper an improved operative framework with de manejo complejos. Pages 73-94 in M. Astier, Y. Galván-
emphasis on the dynamics/participatory aspects of Miyoshi, and O. R. Masera, editors. Evaluación de
sustainability assessments. sustentabilidad. Un enfoque dinámico y multidimensional.
Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (SEAE), Centro
Putting in practice this new form of sustainability assessments
de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (CIGA), Centro
requires a sustained, long-term, multi- and interdisciplinary
de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas (CIEco-UNAM), Grupo
effort. To be effective this effort needs to encompass a range
Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.
of scenarios from the incorporation of sustainability science
C.), Fundación Instituto de Agricultura Ecológica y
programs into formal curricula in universities, to training
Sustentable, and MundiPrensa, Catarroja, Valencia, Spain.
courses in rural settings. Finally but not least important, it
should be noted that these types of efforts will be more Astier, M., and J. Hollands. 2007. Sustentabilidad y
successful in those circumstances and settings where adaptive, campesinado. Seis experiencias agroecológicas en Latinoamérica.
participative governance of social-environmental processes is Second edition. MundiPrensa, Grupo Interdisciplinario de
already making significant progress. Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Centre for
Learning on Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), and Inter-
church Organisation for Development Cooperation (ICCO),
Responses to this article can be read online at: Mexico City, Mexico.
responses/ Astier, M., E. Pérez, T. Ortiz-vila, and F. Mota. 2007.
Sustentabilidad de sistemas campesinos de maíz después de
cuatro años: el segundo ciclo de evaluación MESMIS. Pages
Acknowledgments: 85-120 in M. Astier and J. Hollands, editors. Sustentabilidad
We thank three anonymous reviewers for their very useful y campesinado. Seis experiencias agroecológicas en
comments. This study is part of the larger MESMIS project, Latinoamérica. MundiPrensa, Grupo Interdisciplinario de
financed by CONACYT Project 51293, and FORDECYT Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Centre for
Project 116306, Mexico. The authors express their gratitude Learning on Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), and Inter-
to all farmers and researchers that used the MESMIS church Organisation for Development Cooperation (ICCO),
framework, and who shared their documents and experiences Mexico City, Mexico.
with us. Astier, M., E. N. Speelman, S. López-Ridaura, O. R. Masera,
and C. E. González-Esquivel. 2011. Sustainability indicators,
alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems:
LITERATURE CITED
analysing 15 case studies from Latin America. International
Abbona, E. A., S. J. Sarandón, M. E. Marasas, and M. Astier.
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(3):409-422. http://dx.
2007. Ecological sustainability evaluation of traditional
doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.583481
management in different vineyard systems in Berisso,
Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Barreteau, O. 2003. The joint use of role-playing games and
119:335-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.08.001 models regarding negotiation processes: characterization of
associations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Brunel-Manse, C., and L. García-Barrios. 2012 Acknowledging
Simulation 6(2). [online] URL: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/3. consensus and dissent among and within stakeholder groups
html over conservation, production and urbanization in a Mexican
“Man & the Biosphere” Reserve. Research Journal of
Barreteau, O., C. Le Page, and P. D’Aquino. 2003. Role-
Biological Sciences 6(9):459-467.
playing games, models and negotiation processes. Journal of
Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6(2). [online] URL Brunett-Pérez, L., C. González-Esquivel, and L. A. García-
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/10.html Hernández. 2005. Evaluación de la sustentabilidad de dos
agroecosistemas campesinos de producción de maíz y leche,
Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2002. Navigating social-
utilizando indicadores. Livestock Research for Rural
ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and
Development 17(7):78. [online] URL: http://www.lrrd.org/lrr
change. First Edition. Cambridge University Press,
d17/7/pere17078.htm
Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957
Brussaard, L., P. Caron, B. Campbell, L. Lippert, S. Mainka,
R. Rabbinge, D. Babin, and M. Pulleman. 2010. Reconciling
Berger, T., P. Schreinemachers, and J. Woelcke. 2006. Multi-
biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific
agent simulation for the targeting of development policies in
challenges for a new agriculture. Current Opinion in
less-favored areas. Agricultural Systems 88:28-43. http://dx.d
Environmental Sustainability 2:34-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
oi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.002
j.cosust.2010.03.007
Boege, E. 2009. El patrimonio biocultural de los pueblos
Capra, F. 2002. The hidden connections: a science of
indígenas de México. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
sustainable living. Anchor Books, New York, New York,
Historia (INAH), Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes
USA.
(CONACULTA), and Comisión Nacional de los Derechos
Humanos (CNDH), Mexico City, Mexico. Cárdenas-Grajales, G. I., H. Giraldo-Gómez, A. Idárraga-
Quintero, L. N. Vásquez-Grisales, and Asociación de
Bousquet, F., O. Barreteau, P. D’Aquino, M. Etienne, S.
Caficultores Orgánicos de Colombia (ACOC). 2006.
Boisseau, S. Aubert, C. Le Page, D. Babin, and J. C. Castella.
Desarrollo y validación de metodología para evaluar con
2002. Multi-agent systems and role games: collective learning
indicadores la sustentabilidad de sistemas productivos
processes for ecosystem management. Pages 248-285 in M.
campesinos de la Asociación de Caficultores Orgánicos de
Janssen, editor. Complexity and ecosystem management: the
Colombia – ACOC. Investigaciones de Unisarc 4:22-46.
theory and practice of multi-agent approaches. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK. Clayton, A. M. H., and N. J. Radcliffe. 1996. Sustainability:
a systems approach. Island Press, New York, New York,
Bousquet, F., and G. Trebuil, editors. 2005. Introduction to
USA.
companion modelling and multi-agent systems for integrated
natural resource management in Asia. International Rice Collectif ComMod. 2006. Modélisation d'accompagnement.
Research Institute, Los Baños, Phillipines. Pages 217-228 in F. Amblard and D. Phan, editors.
Modélisation et simulation multi-agents: applications aux
Bouwen, R., and T. Taillieu. 2004. Multi-party collaboration
sciences de l'homme et de la société. Hermès Sciences,
as social learning for interdependence: developing relational
London, UK.
knowing for sustainable natural resource management.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology Conway, G. R. 1994. Sustainability in agricultural
14:137-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.777 development: trade-offs between productivity, stability, and
equitability. Journal for Farming Systems Research and
Bowen, S., and A. V. Zapata. 2009. Geographical indications,
Extension 4(2):1-14.
terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: the
case of tequila. Journal of Rural Studies 25(1):108-119. http: Costa, M., and A. Poeta. 2008. Stages for the more sustainable
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.07.003 farm. 12th Congress of the European Association of
Agricultural Economists. EAAE, Ghent, Belgium.
Bredeweg, B., and K. Forbus. 2003. Qualitative modeling in
education. AI Magazine 24(4):35-46. Cruz-Morales, J., R. Trujillo-Vázquez, L. E. García-Barrios,
J. M. Ruiz-Rodríguez, and J. A. Jiménez-Trujillo. 2011.
Bredeweg, B., F. Linnebank, A. Bouwer, and J. Liem. 2009.
Buenas Prácticas para la Ganadería Sustentable en la
Garp3–Workbench for qualitative modelling and simulation.
Reserva de la Biosfera La Sepultura (REBISE). Universidad
Ecological Informatics 4(5-6):263-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1
Autónoma Chapingo, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur,
016/j.ecoinf.2009.09.009
Conservación Internacional-México y Comisión de Áeas
Naturales Protegidas, San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Garcia-Barrios, L., R. García-Barrios, A. Waterman, and J.
Mexico. Cruz-Morales. 2011. Social dilemmas and individual/group
coordination strategies in a complex rural land-use game.
Daré, W., R. Ducrot, A. Botta, and M. Etienne. 2008. Repères
International Journal of the Commons 5:(2)364-387.
méthodologiques pour la mise en oeuvre d'une démarche de
modélisation d'accompagnement. Cardère éditions, Laudun, García-Barrios, L., O. Masera, and R. García-Barrios. 2008a.
France. Construcción y uso de modelos dinámicos sencillos para
evaluar estrategias de manejo productivo de recursos bióticos.
Duarte-Silveira, N. 2005. Sostenibilidad socioeconómica y
Una guía básica ilustrada. Pages 109-128 in M. Astier, Y.
ecológica de sistemas agroforestales de café (Coffea arabica)
Galván-Miyoshi, and O. Masera, editors. Evaluación de
en la microcuenca del Río Sensemiles, Copán, Honduras.
sustentabilidad. Un enfoque dinámico y multidimensional.
Thesis. Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education
Center (CATIE), Cartago, Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas (CIEco-UNAM), Grupo
(ECLAC). 2009. The outlook for agriculture and rural Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.
development in the Americas: a perspective on Latin America C.), Fundación Instituto de Agricultura Ecológica y
and the Caribbean. ECLAC, Inter-American Institute for Sustentable, and MundiPrensa, Catarroja, Valencia, Spain.
Cooperation on Agriculture, Food and Agriculture
García-Barrios, L., and M. Pimm. 2008. Simuladores de
Organization, Santiago, Chile.
escenarios complejos socioambientales: herramientas de
Étienne, M. 2011. Companion modelling: a participatory apoyo para entender, evaluar y negociar estrategias
approach to support sustainable development. Update sustentables de manejo de recursos naturales. Pages 169-172
Sciences & Technologies collection. Editions Quae, in M. Astier, Y. Galván-Miyoshi, and O. Masera, editors.
Versailles, France. Evaluación de sustentabilidad. Un enfoque dinámico y
multidimensional. Sociedad Española de Agricultura
Gallopín, G. C. 1997. Indicators and their use: information for
Ecológica (SEAE), Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía
decision-making. Part one-introduction. Pages 13-27 in B.
Ambiental (CIGA), Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas
Moldan and S. Bilharz, editors. Sustainability indicators. A
(CIEco-UNAM), Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnología
report on the project on indicators of sustainable development.
Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Fundación Instituto de
Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Agricultura Ecológica y Sustentable, and MundiPrensa,
Galván-Miyoshi, Y. 2008. Integración de indicadores en la Catarroja, Valencia, Spain.
evaluación de sustentabilidad: de los índices agregados a la
García-Barrios, L. E., and E. N. Speelman. 2006.
representación multicriterio. Pages 95-119 in M. Astier, Y.
AGRODIVERSITY ver.2, CD-ROM. El Colegio de la Frontera
Galván-Miyoshi, and O. Masera, editors. Evaluación de
Sur, San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.
Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (SEAE), Centro García-Barrios, L., E. N. Speelman, and M. Pimm. 2008b. An
de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (CIGA), Centro educational simulation tool for negotiating sustainable natural
de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas (CIEco-UNAM), Grupo resource management strategies among stakeholders with
Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A. conflicting interests. Ecological Modelling 210:215-226
García-Barrios, L., A. Waterman, R. García-Barrios, C.
Brunel-Manse, and J. Cruz-Morales. 2009b. Sierra Springs: a
García, R. 1994. Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos. generic role-playing game addressing conflict and cooperation
Pages 85-123 in E. Leff, editor. Ciencias sociales y formación in land, forest and water management in a tropical mountain
ambiental, Gedisa, Barcelona, Spain. watershed. In Proceedings of the 40th International
Simulation and Gaming Conference, 29 June 3-July,
García-Barrios, L., Y. Galván-Miyoshi, I. A. Valdivieso-
Singapore, Singapore.
Pérez, O. Masera, G. Bocco, and J. Vandermeer. 2009a.
Neotropical forest conservation, agricultural intensification, García-Barrios, R., and L. García-Barrios. 2008. La sociedad
and rural out-migration: the Mexican experience. BioScience controlable y la sustentabilidad. Pages 109-128 in M. Astier,
59:863-87. Y. Galván-Miyoshi, and O. Masera, editors. Evaluación de
García-Barrios, L., and R. García-Barrios. 1992. La
modernización de la pobreza. Dinámica del cambio técnico
entre los campesinos temporaleros de México. Revista
de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas (CIEco-UNAM), Grupo
Estudios Sociológicos 10:263-288.

Holling, C. S., and L. H. Gunderson. 2002. Resilience and
adaptive cycles. Pages 25-62 in L. H. Gunderson and C. S.
Gaspar, P., F. J. Mesías, M. Escribano, and F. Pulido. 2009. Holling, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in
Sustainability in Spanish extensive farms (Dehesas): an human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,
economic and management indicator-based evaluation. USA.
Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:153-162. http://dx.doi.
Jackson, L., M. van Noordwijk, J. Bengtsson, W. Foster, L.
org/10.2111/07-135.1
Lipper, M. Pulleman, M. Said, J. Snaddon, and R. Vodouhe.
Gilbert, N. 2005. Agent-based social simulation: dealing with 2010. Biodiversity and agricultural sustainagility: from
complexity. Centre for Research on Social Simulation, assessment to adaptive management. Current Opinion in
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. [online] URL: http://cre Environmental Sustainability 2:80-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
ss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/web/resources/ABSS%20-%20dealing%20with% j.cosust.2010.02.007
20complexity-1-1.pdf
Janssen, M. A., R. Holahan, A. Lee, and E. Ostrom. 2010. Lab
Gomero, O. L., and A. H. Velásquez. 2007. Evaluación de la experiments for the study of social-ecological systems.
sustentabilidad del sistema de algodón orgánico en la zona de Science 328:613-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1183532
trópico húmedo del Perú San Martín, Tarapoto. Pages 57-73
in M. Astier and J. Hollands, editors. 2007. Sustentabilidad y
Keating, B. A., P. S. Carberry, G. L. Hammer, M. E. Probert,
campesinado. Seis experiencias agroecológicas en Latinoamérica.
M. J. Robertson, D. Holzworth, N. I. Huth, J. N. G. Hargreaves,
Second Edition. MundiPrensa, Grupo Interdisciplinario de
H. Meinke, Z. Hochman, G. McLean, K. Verburg, V. Snow,
Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Centre for
J. P. Dimes, M. Silburn, E. Wang, S. Brown, K. L. Bristow,
Learning on Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), and Inter-
S. Asseng, S. Chapman, R. L. McCown, D. M. Freebairn, and
church Organisation for Development Cooperation (ICCO),
C. J. Smith. 2003. An overview of APSIM, a model designed
Mexico City, Mexico.
for farming systems simulation. European Journal of
Gomes de Almeida, S., and F. G. Bianconi. 2007. Agronomy 18:267-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301
Sustentabilidad Económica de un Sistema Familiar en una (02)00108-9
Región Semiarida de Brasil. Pages 121-156 in M. Astier and
López-Ridaura, S. 2005. Multi-scale sustainability evaluation:
J. Hollands, editors. 2007. Sustentabilidad y campesinado.
a framework for the derivation and quantification of indicators
Seis experiencias agroecológicas en Latinoamérica. Second
for natural resource management systems. Dissertation.
Edition. MundiPrensa, Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnología
Wageningen University and Reseah Center, Wageningen, The
Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Centre for Learning on
Netherlands.
Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), and Inter-church Organisation
for Development Cooperation (ICCO), Mexico City, Mexico. López-Ridaura, S., O. Masera, and M. Astier. 2002.
Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental
Grau, H. R., and M. Aide. 2008. Globalization and land-use
systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators
transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society 13(2): 16.
2:135-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00043-2
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/
art16/
López-Ridaura, S., M. K. van Ittersum, O. R. Masera, P. A.
Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy:
Leffelaar, M. Astier, and H. van Keulen. 2005. Sustainability
understanding transformations in human and natural systems.
evaluation. Applying ecological principles and tools to natural
Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
resource management systems. Pages 139-167 in A. D.
Gurung, T. R., F. Bousquet, and G. Trébuil. 2006. Companion Maples, editor. Sustainable development: new research.
modeling, conflict resolution, and institution building: sharing NovaScience, Hauppauge, New York, USA.
irrigation water in the Lingmuteychu watershed, Bhutan.
Lynam, T., W. De Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and K. Evans.
Ecology and Society 11(2): 36. [online] URL: http://www.eco
2007. A review of tools for incorporating community
logyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art36/
knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in
Gutiérrez-Cedillo, J. G., L. A. Aguilera-Gómez, C. E. natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12(1): 5.
González-Esquivel, and J. I. Juan-Pérez. 2012. Evaluación de [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/
la sustentabilidad posterior a una intervención agroecológica art5/
en el subtrópico del Altiplano Central de México. Tropical
Manuel-Navarrete, D., S. Slocombe, and B. Mitchell. 2006.
and Subtropical Agroecosystems 15:15-24.
Science for place-based socioecological management: lessons
Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of from the Maya forest (Chiapas and Petén). Ecology and
economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems Society 11(1): 8. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
4:390-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5 org/vol11/iss1/art8/
Maya de Quintana Roo. Pages 83-141 in O. Masera and S.

Martínez, C. O. 2005. Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de un
López-Ridaura, editors. 2000. Sustentabilidad y sistemas
modelo de sistema agrosilvopastoril alternativo y su
campesinos: cinco experiencias de evaluación en el México
factibilidad de implementarse por productores del sur de
rural. MundiPrensa, Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnología
Sinaloa. Thesis. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Texcoco,
Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Programa de las Naciones
Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA), and Instituto de
Masera, O. R., M. Astier, and S. López. 1999. Sustentabilidad Ecología (IE-UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico.
y manejo de recursos naturales: El Marco de evaluación
North, K., and D. Hewes. 2006. Seguimiento de fincas para el
MESMIS. MundiPrensa-GIRA-UNAM, Mexico City,
progreso hacia la sostenibilidad. LEISA Revista de
Mexico.
Agroecología 22(1):33-36.
Masera, O., and S. López-Ridaura, editors. 2000.
Ocampo-Fletes, I. 2004. Gestión del agua y sustentabilidad
Sustentabilidad y sistemas campesinos: cinco experiencias de
de los sistemas de pequeño riego. El caso del canal San Félix,
evaluación en el México rural. MundiPrensa, Grupo
Atlixco, Mexico. Dissertation. University of Córdoba,
Córdoba, Spain.
C.), Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente
(PNUMA), and Instituto de Ecología (IE-UNAM), Mexico Orozco, Q., and M. Astier. 2007. Evaluación de
City, Mexico. sustentabilidad del Proyecto: Renovación de Plantaciones del
Limón Mexicano y Tecnificación del Riego para el uso
Mayer, A. L. 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common
eficiente del agua. Primer ciclo de evaluación utilizando el
sustainability indices for multidimensional systems.
marco MESMIS. Technical Report. Grupo Interdisciplinario
Environment International 34:277-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1
de Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.) and Fundación
016/j.envint.2007.09.004
Ashoka, Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, Mexico.
Merlín, Y. 2009. Evaluación de dos sistemas de manejo de
Ortiz-Áila, T. 2008. Caracterización de sistemas de manejo
recursos naturales de Xochimilco con indicadores de
de recursos naturales. Pages 59-71 in M. Astier, Y. Galván-
sustentabilidad. Thesis. Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa,
Miyoshi, and O. Masera, editors. Evaluación de
Veracruz, Mexico.
Mitchell, G., A. May, and A. McDonald. 1995. PICABUE: a Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (SEAE), Centro
methodological framework for the development of indicators de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (CIGA), Centro
of sustainable development. International Journal of de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas (CIEco-UNAM), Grupo
Sustainable Development & World Ecology 2:104-123. http:// Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509509469893 C.), Fundación Instituto de Agricultura Ecológica y
Moctezuma-Malagón, A., C. González-Esquivel, G. De la
Lanza-Espino, and C. González-Rebeles Islas. 2008. A Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing
methodology for evaluating the sustainability of inland sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science
wetland systems. Aquaculture International 16:525-537. http 325:419-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10499-007-9163-5
Perales, R. M. A., T. L. E. Fregoso, A. C. O. Martínez, R. V.
Moya, G., X. Caamal, A. Ku Ku, A. B. Chan Xool, I. Cuevas, M. A. Loaiza, J. J. E. Reyes, G. T. Moreno, V. O.
Armendáriz, I. Flores, J. Moguel, M. Noh Poot, M. Rosales, Palacios, and R. J. L. Guzmán. 2000. Evaluación del sistema
and X. J. Domínguez. 2007. La sustentabilidad que viene de agro-silvo-pastoril del sur de Sinaloa. Pages 143-206 in O.
lejos: una evaluación multidisciplinaria e intercultural Masera and S. López-Ridaura, editors. 2000. Sustentabilidad
campesina de los mayas en Xohuayan, Yucatán. Pages y sistemas campesinos: cinco experiencias de evaluación en
161-201 in M. Astier and J. Hollands, editors. 2007. el México rural. MundiPrensa, Grupo Interdisciplinario de
Sustentabilidad y campesinado. Seis experiencias agroecológicas Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Programa de las
en Latinoamérica. Second Edition. MundiPrensa, Grupo Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA), and
Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A. Instituto de Ecología (IE-UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico.
C.), Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA),
Pérez-Grovas, G. V. 2000. Evaluación de la sustentabilidad
and Inter-church Organisation for Development Cooperation
del sistema de manejo de café orgánico en la Unión de Ejidos
(ICCO), Mexico City, Mexico.
Majomut, región de los Altos de Chiapas. Pages 45-81 in O.
Negreros–Castillo, P., J. C. Núñez, and L. Merino. 2000. Masera and S. López-Ridaura, editors. 2000. Sustentabilidad
Evaluación de la sustentabilidad del sistema de manejo forestal y sistemas campesinos: cinco experiencias de evaluación en
de la Organización de Ejidos Productores Forestales de la Zona el México rural. MundiPrensa, Grupo Interdisciplinario de
Tecnología Rural Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Programa de las Speelman, E. N., S. López-Ridaura, N. A. Colomer, M. Astier,
Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA), and and O. R. Masera. 2007. Ten years of sustainability evaluation
Instituto de Ecología (IE-UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico. using the MESMIS framework: lessons learned from its
application in 28 Latin American case studies. International
Perfecto, I., and J. Vandermeer. 2010. The agroecological
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology
matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agricultural
14:345-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469735
intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America 107:5786-5791.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905455107 Sterman, J. D. 1994. Learning in and about complex systems.
System Dynamics Review 10:291-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, and A. Wright. 2009. Natures
sdr.4260100214
matrix: linking agriculture, conservation and food
sovereignty. Earthscan, Sterling, Virginia, USA. Stockle, C. O., R. I. Papendick, K. E. Saxton, G. S. Campbell,
and F. K. van Evert. 1994. A framework for evaluating the
Pino-Torres, C. A. 2007. Estudio de sostenibilidad de sistemas
sustainability of agricultural production systems. American
vitícolas en transición agroecológica en la provincia de
Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9:45-50. http://dx.doi.org/1
Cauquenes, Chile. Thesis. Universidad Internacional de
0.1017/S0889189300005555
Andalucía, Andalucía, Spain.
Sturtevant, B. R., A. Fall, D. D. Kneeshaw, N. P. P. Simon,
Poteete, A. R., M. A. Janssen, and E. Ostrom. 2010. Working
M. J. Papaik, K. Berninger, F. Doyon, D. G. Morgan, and C.
together: collective action, the commons, and multiple
Messier. 2007. A toolkit modeling approach for sustainable
methods in practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton,
forest management planning: achieving balance between
New Jersey, USA.
science and local needs. Ecology and Society 12(2): 7. [online]
Prabhu, R., C. J. P. Colfer, and R. G. Dudley. 1999. Guidelines URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art7
for developing, testing and selecting criteria and indicators
United Nations (UN). 1996. United Nations, indicators of
for sustainable forest management: a C&I developer’s
sustainable development framework and methodologies.
reference. Center for International Forestry Research
United Nations Sales Publication No. E.96.II.A.16. New York,
(CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. [online] URL http://www.cifor.c
New York, USA.
giar.org/nc/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/762.
html Valentin, A., and J. H. Spangenberg. 2000. A guide to
community sustainability indicators. Environmental Impact
Salcedo, A., and R. García-Trujillo. 2005. Sheep production
Assessment Review 20:381-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0
systems in the north of Granada province. Case studies.
195-9255(00)00049-4
Options Méditerranéennes Serie A:101-109.
van Noordwijk, M. 2009. Linking sustainability and
Salles, P., B. Bredeweg, and S. Araújo. 2006. Qualitative
agroforestry science to multifunctional policy action. Pages
models about stream ecosystem recovery: exploratory studies.
150-158 in Proceedings of the 6th global consortium of higher
Ecological Modelling 194(1-3):80:89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
education and research for agriculture conference, 23rd - 27th
j.ecolmodel.2005.10.018
November. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Scheffer, M. 2009. Critical transitions in nature and society. Technology, Nairobi, Kenya.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. S.
Smyth, A., and J. Dumanski. 1993. FESLM: an international Cumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. D. Peterson,
framework for evaluating sustainable land management. and R. Pritchard. 2002. Resilience management in social-
World Soil Resources Reports 73. Food and Agriculture ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. approach. Ecology and Society 6(1): 14. [online] URL: http://
www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14/
Spector, M., and T. Anderson, editors. 2000. Integrated and
holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology: Waltner-Toews, D., and J. Kay. 2005. The evolution of an
understanding complexity. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The ecosystem approach: the diamond schematic and an adaptive
Netherlands. methodology for ecosystem sustainability and health. Ecology
and Society 10(1): 38. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyand
Speelman, E. N., and L. García-Barrios. 2010. Agrodiversity
society.org/vol10/iss1/art38/
v2: an educational simulation tool to address some challenges
for sustaining functional agrodiversity in agro-ecosystems. World Commission on Environment and Development
Ecological Modelling 221:911-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ (WCED). 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press,
j.ecolmodel.2009.12.007 New York, New York, USA.
Young, O. R., F. Berkhout, C. Gilberto, M. Gallopin, M. A.

Janssen, E. Ostrom, and S. van der Leeuwd. 2006. The
globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for
scientific research. Global Environmental Change 16:304-316.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.004
Appendix. An example of the use of models to predict sustainability in small farming systems
under conservation tillage in the Purepecha´s highlands, México. The model was APSIM
(Keating et al. 2003; www.apsru.gov.au). In discussions and workshops with stakeholders,
scenarios were constructed comprising three levels of maize forage left over the soil -hereafter
named “crop residue retention”- (0%, 35% and 100%), in a maize farming system. Two
sustainability attributes were explored through maize yield and crop residues modeled for 20
years under different weather sequences. Figures A-1 and A-2 show the resilience of the system,
i.e., the ability to recover from an abrupt perturbation. This was tested by using a weather file
with one ‘stress’ year of low precipitation (884 mm yr-1) (year 5, the third cropping year) in a 20
year weather sequence. It can be seen that in the year of stress, the 100% crop residue retention
system yields are the best of the three management types. However there is a fall of maize yield
in the first cropping year after the stress year, namely year 7, after which maize yields go up
again and stay higher than yields from the 0% and 35% crop residue retention systems. This fall
in yields is due to nutrient immobilization. Figures B-1 and B-2, illustrate the adaptability of the
systems, i.e., their ability to cope with new long-term environmental conditions, illustrated in
this case through a weather sequence with decreasing amounts of precipitation. The 100% crop
residue retention management shows very fluctuating yields and crop residue production
between years. After a very low maize yield and a relatively low crop residue production in year
5, the 100% regime produces higher yields and crop residues than the 0% or 35% residue
retention systems (Speelman 2004).
Figure A-1 and A-2
Figures B-1 and B-2

Astier Et Al., 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Astier Et Al., 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © 2012 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.

Astier, M., L. García-Barrios, Y. Galván-Miyoshi, C. E. González-Esquivel, and O. R. Masera. 2012.

Table 1. Approaches to sustainability assessment.

Measurement-based approaches Process-oriented approaches

C.), Fundación Instituto de Agricultura Ecológica y

Maya de Quintana Roo. Pages 83-141 in O. Masera and S.

Young, O. R., F. Berkhout, C. Gilberto, M. Gallopin, M. A.

Figure A-1 and A-2

Figures B-1 and B-2

You might also like