Simulación de resultados

In this research, contextual vulnerability is primarily constructed from the elements of social capital and social networks, and human capital and agency. These elements can be understood as one context, which gets more explanatory value when it is reflected through aspects of socio-economic stratifications and other research context related elements, such as cultural and historic dimensions. Contextual vulnerability analysis combined with the farmers’ adaptation strategies allows us to examine the value of the applied concept and level of adaptive capacity. Based on the presented results of this research, it can be argued that on the basic level, the differences were the most drastic between those farmers who implemented positive adaptation strategies and farmers who had only passive coping strategies or coping and passive coping strategies. The logical conclusion is then to argue that farmers with higher adaptive capacity can more likely apply positive adaptation strategies. Despite being in line with the theoretical background, this finding requires more detailed articulation in order to increase understanding of the role of the contextual vulnerability concept in construction of farmers’ response strategies.

Good social capital can be argued to support evolvement of individual’s human capital as it can increase understanding over agriculture through trainings, enhance individual’s confidence over own

61 skills and thereby strengthen the sense over one’s authority and role in a household’s farming practices. In this research, despite of the relatively small sampling size, most of the farmers noted friends, neighbours or organized social groups as primary source of information. Farmers who participated in social groups most often also shared the information and felt that their knowledge is useful and valuable. To agree with Cassidy and Barnes (2012), the connectivity of a household tends to increase availability of response strategies. In some cases, high human capital through traditional knowledge or high age could substitute the lack of social capital and networks. Female farmers who applied only short-term coping strategies did not report participation to successful social groups, which indicates that in order to have long-term positive adaptation strategies, it was helpful to participate to social groups for increasing access to loans or information, which were essential resources for positive adaptation strategies. This can also be seen as an example of preference to minimise the individual risk of taking loans.

In this research, the importance of income and agriculture-related resources has been touched mainly through social networks and groups, as they can increase accessibility of otherwise too expensive farm inputs. Even though individual and society related characteristics can offer valuable information about the common response strategies, it is paramount to understand the role of resources as well. In this context, resources meant most often basic farm inputs, such as water and seeds, and if the income level allowed, also fertilizers and pesticide. On basis of this research, I agree with Mohan and Mohan (2002), who argue that despite the importance that social capital can have for an individual, it does not overcome complete lack of resources or income, which results in narrow bargaining set (as discussed in Van Aelst & Holvoet, 2017). Society’s positive characteristics, such as trust and sense of reciprocal sharing, can enforce individual’s characteristics, such as the sense of empowerment through gaining new knowledge and ability to make decisions. Two-headed households’ farmers who were connected by bridging or bonding networks and had financial resources did not perceive themselves vulnerable because of the possibilities to react, even though they would have difficulties with resources as well. Farmers with fewer networks and resources also had coping strategies but they noted that most often they could not implement the ideas they had. In the context of the single- headed households, social capital and networks could substitute more notable existing lack of income and other resources. Therefore, it should be argued that social capital and networks especially through organised social groups can work as a way towards having more stable income level, when an individual can afford the registration fees. In case of more severe poverty, social groups are often considered too expensive and exclusive. If applied for adaptation programmes, the conclusion could be that to approach farmers who are in the most disadvantaged position, adaptation programmes

62 should aim at increasing those farmers’ participation who are not already involved with social groups and who could not otherwise afford to register to such groups.

When analysing the possibilities and limitations for having multiple response strategies, the contextual analysis should always be reflected through broader scale societal processes, as Eriksen et al. (2005) argue. Individual’s access to resources is not only limited by her or his own assets, but also depends on availability determined by the markets (ibid.). Geographic scale in terms of location and connections determines the accessibility and prices of the resources. In this research, many of the farmers and key informants argued that unaffordable prices of the farming inputs are partly due to high transportation expenses. As noted already in the research context, Taita Hills and its towns are located in higher altitudes, which means that farm inputs such as manure, fertilizers and seeds are transported from the lower areas, which increases the prices. This can be seen working as an example of the structural constraints which are created on concrete, environmental condition but also on national and international scale through politics and markets. Contextual vulnerability analysis can work as perspective that aims at understanding essential structures determining farmers’ response strategies. Through this concept, it could be possible to examine which individuals are in vulnerable position rather than automatically connecting vulnerability as a generalizable characteristic to the certain groups of people, like women and youth. If the vulnerability discourse would address vulnerability as a disadvantaging position, the discussion could include other nuances and agencies more easily. As Taylor (2015) concludes, climate change as a discourse affects the institutional practices and knowledge productions, which ultimately frames the way people are responding to socio-economic changes brought by climate change and variability.