Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTurín, Cecilia
dc.contributor.authorFernández-Baca, Edith
dc.contributor.authorCóndor, Pedro
dc.coverage.spatialPuno
dc.coverage.spatialPerú
dc.coverage.spatialSouth America
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-19T20:08:15Z
dc.date.available2016-04-19T20:08:15Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier4318
dc.identifier.citationPresented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Climate Change and Societal Response: Livelihoods, Communities, and the Environment, Madison, Wisconsin, 30 July - 2 August 2009
dc.identifier.other4318_PresentationRSS_2009_CeciliaTurin.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/69031
dc.description.abstract"Under the assumption that advocacy coalition participatory-research process (AC) can lead to building a community's social and political capitals, an AC was initiated in the Aymara communities of Santa Maria and Apopata in the Peruvian Altiplano. The purpose was to develop agency in the decision making process that affects the community and its resources and therefore enable community governance for market integration and adaptation to climate changes. Aymara communities are integrated systems that involve decision making at different levels of the household and community, therefore climate and market changes affect more than only natural capital. But livelihoods strategies in the Altiplano differ from one community to another, providing different opportunities. Santa Maria, has a mixed farming system, agricultural production is consumption oriented and livestock market oriented. Apopata with no agricultural production produces livestock primarily for the market. Thus, changes in markets affect each community differently. Initial AC workshops identified increased soil fertility as the goal in Santa Maria and improved market access for alpaca fiber in Apopata. At one point both communities were equally engaged in the process. Both communities increased networks and identified key actors to build alliances. However, as the process has evolved, Santa Maria has shown some reticence in continue the process, apparently as a result of the change in local authorities. Apopata has shown more willingness to continue in coalition building. Preliminary analysis shows that the type of social capital (communal leadership) matters. Santa Maria as a community did not take ownership of the process while Apopata did." (Abstract from conference website: http://rss2009.ruralsociology.us/)
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.subjectMarkets
dc.subjectLivelihoods
dc.subjectAdvocacy coalitions
dc.subjectPower relations
dc.subjectAltiplano
dc.subjectAgency
dc.subjectClimate change
dc.subjectMarket change
dc.subjectEcosystem
dc.titleAdvocacy coalitions and power relations in the Peruvian Altiplano: Building agency to improve households' response to climate and market change
dc.typePresentation
dc.description.notesLTRA-4 (Practices and Strategies for Vulnerable Agro-Ecosystems)
dc.type.dcmitypeText


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record