Comparing apples and pears: Linking capitals and capacities to assess the resilience of commercial farming operations

CONTEXT As the concept of social-ecological resilience gains increasing policy attention, there is growing demand for approaches that operationalise it. Amongst these demands is the need to empirically assess absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities that underpin resilience to better understand the ways in which social-ecological systems can navigate change and uncertainty. OBJECTIVE We explore the application of a capitals approach for assessing resilience capacities, using an example of deciduous fruit farming operations in the Western Cape region of South Africa. METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted, thematically coded, and analysed using causal loop diagrams and co-occurrence analyses to identify changes experienced by farming operations, their responses to these changes, and the effects of both on capital resources. We then apply the criteria developed for the classification of resilience capacities. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS A variety of changes affect farming operations at multiple points across the value chain, and have effects across capital resources. Most significant to farmers are changes which impact the amount of water available and the cashflow they require to sustain their operations. The most common responses employed by farmers consisted of activities which either increase the availability of an affected resource, or decrease its demand in order to maintain the same functions (adaptive capacity). In fewer cases, farming operations were able to absorb the depletion of their capital resources due to pre-emptive management (absorptive capacity). In similarly few cases, the potential or realised resource deficiencies caused by changes were either corrected or decoupled from the farming operation through structural reorganisation towards a different or additional function and types of output being delivered (transformative capacity). Evidence of changes being anticipated prior to their onset were also identified, leading to responses which are used in conjunction with the preceding three capacities. SIGNIFICANCE Our findings suggest that the criteria we developed for classifying resilience capacities offer a useful means of operationalising resilience. In particular, the approach we pilot in this paper enables the application of a systems perspective to identify interactions between changes and responses, which broadens the options for identifying management strategies and interventions. The approach we propose can be used to identify key leverage points to strengthen the capacities of vulnerable farmers. Further work is required to integrate consideration of cross-scale effects of farm-scale resilience strategies on the broader social-ecological system.