Lessons  Learned

7.  Conclusion  

7.1  Lessons  Learned    

Though  the  initial  study  set  out  to  draw  linkages  between  quality  coffee  production  and  human   wellbeing,   it   became   increasingly   clear   during   the   fieldwork   and   literature   review   that   these   relationships   are   extremely   complex,   and   potentially   value-­‐laden   to   quantify.   The   practical   question   “Why   do   some   farmers   produce   higher   quality   coffee   than   do   others?”   proved   intellectually  challenging  to  assess.  From  the  quantitative  perspective,  I  have  tried  to  formulate   wellbeing   through   material   proxies   like   income,   household   expenditures,   and   food   security.   I   compressed  the  data  into  new  explanatory  variables  through  multivariate  analysis  like  PCA  and   LASSO.  Not  having  a  clear  sense  of  the  outcome  was  one  of  the  greatest  statistical  challenges.  

Though  the  initial  sampling  design  controlled  three  groups  of  farmers  with  different  Q-­‐scores  to   understand  differences  based  on  the  output  of  quality  coffee  production,  I  had  not  accounted   for  the  possibility  of  variation  within  coffee  quality  itself.  A  farmer  may  follow  exactly  the  same   production,  use  the  same  plants,  inputs,  and  processing  techniques,  yet  due  to  uncontrollable   factors  like  climate  change  and  plant  disease,  not  achieve  the  same  level  of  quality  one  year  to   the  next.  Additionally,  there  is  a  cyclical  nature  to  coffee  production;  roughly  every  three  years   coffee  plants  need  a  “rest”  and  have  a  lower  harvest  year.  Plants,  like  humans,  have  cycles  of   productivity.    

Summary  of  quantitative  findings:  

• Higher   quality   coffee   is   associated   with   higher   revenue   from   coffee,   though   not   necessarily  higher  income  overall  (due  to  alternative  sources  of  income).    

• Total  annual  expenses  rather  than  income  may  be  a  more  appropriate  proxy  for  socio-­‐

economic  status,  for  this  context.    

• Socioeconomic   status,   however,   is   not   the   sole   indicator   of   wellbeing;   farmers   may   report  lower  levels  of  some  dimensions  yet  overall  higher  life  satisfaction.    

From  the  qualitative  perspective,  I  can  only  empirically  state  that  there  is  something  different   about   farmers   who   produce   higher   quality   coffee,   though   it   is   difficult   to   describe   the   exact  

reasons.   Those   farmers   seem   to   have   a   closer   alignment   between   the   coffee   farms   and   their   core  values  like  relationships  (with  people  and  with  nature),  concern  for  future  generations,  and   stewardship.   Their   interviews   more   frequently   brought   up   concepts   like   “working   together,”  

“responsibility,”  and  “inheritance.”  These  farmers  also  talked  differently  about  coffee,  referring   to   the   plants   as   part   of   their   family,   sometimes   becoming   very   emotional   during   the   conversation   or   while   out   on   the   farm.   In   one   instance,   the   question   about   direct   communication  with  the  plants  provoked  a  farmer  to  cry.      

Summary  of  qualitative  findings:    

• Health   is   perhaps   the   most   context-­‐specific   CES   category,   as   there   were   more   identifiable   connections   with   mental   and   physical   human   health   to   the   environment   (that   said,   other   connections   like   spirituality   are   important   and   noteworthy,   though   sometimes  harder  for  participants  to  articulate).    

• The  relationship  to  the  environment  has  positive  and  negative  attributes.  Many  farmers   expressed   kinship   toward   the   coffee   plants   and   landscape   through   modes   like   energy   exchange  and  direct  communication.  They  sought  ways  to  “control”  negative  attributes   of   the   land,   such   as   pests   and   weeds,   through   natural   and   non-­‐natural   mechanisms   including   agro-­‐chemicals.   In   turn,   their   own   wellbeing   is   affected   in   positive   and   negative  ways  through  this  relationship.    

• The  greatest  overlaps  in  ES  were  between  provisioning  services  (specifically,  food)  and   cultural   services   (specifically,   human   health,   identity,   learning,   and   spirituality).   Food   may  therefore  be  a  promising  area  through  which  to  examine  multiple  ES.    

The  present  study  has  explored  many  dimensions  of  human  wellbeing  through  a  mixed-­‐methods   research  design.  In  trying  to  account  for  so  many  dimensions,  I  have  inevitably  omitted  some   and   possibly   not   gone   sufficiently   in   depth   with   the   ones   selected   (i.e.   this   is   not   a   comprehensive   assessment   of   health).   This   study   highlights   the   challenges   of   synthesising   quantitative   and   qualitative   data.   Some   data   are   more   straightforward   to   interpret,   such   as   gross  revenue  from  coffee  sales;  some  are  more  prone  to  subjective  interpretation,  such  as  the   spiritual  connection  to  nature.    While  it  may  not  be  feasible  to  synthesise  all  data  from  such  an   all-­‐encompassing  study,  the  protocol  flow  lends  well  to  building  up  a  rapport  with  farmers.  This   was  critical  for  unpacking  nuanced  pieces  of  information,  such  as  the  role  of  informal  labour,  the  

multiple  meanings  of  “co-­‐existence”  with  nature,  and  the  connections  between  human  health   and  ecosystem  health.  I  also  noticed  that  as  I  spent  more  time  with  the  farmers,  and  interacted   with  different  members  of  the  household,  my  ability  to  detect  differences  between  households   improved.  I  began  to  see  patterns,  such  as  similarities  in  the  household  expenditures  regardless   of   income,   and   recognize   common   names   of   trees   and   plants   in   each   region.   It   also   became   increasingly   clear   that   there   was   not   necessarily   a   logical   rationale   for   producing   high   quality   coffee,  or  that  this  was  the  outcome  of  an  active  decision.    

Above   all,   this   study   has   illustrated   the   very   complex   nature   of   the   relationship   between   the   environment  and  human  wellbeing.  First,  we  cannot  assume  that  all  farmers  equally  value  the   coffee  plantations  for  their  nonmaterial  benefits.  Simply  because  natural  resources  exist,  it  does   not   mean   that   farmers   fully   utilize   or   value   such   resources.   For   example,   having   access   to   subsistence   crops   and   wild   plants   does   not   guarantee   food   security   if   farmers   do   not   have   a   cultural  preference  to  eat  those  foods,  or  if  they  lack  the  environmental  knowledge  to  harvest   and   prepare   those   foods.   Second,   coffee   farming   is   an   integral   part   of   life   that   touches   upon   both  cultural-­‐level  transcendental  values  and  context-­‐specific  values   (Kenter  and  Reed,  2014).  

These   can   be   difficult   to   disentangle.   Human   health,   however,   seemed   to   have   the   clearest   context-­‐specific  association  with  the  environment.  Third,  coffee  farming  is  both  a  collective  and   individual   experience.   This   implies   that   data   collected   should   carefully   consider   the   unit   of   analysis,  as  some  measures  (i.e.  expenditures)  relate  to  the  household  unit,  others  (i.e.  health)   are  individual,  and  some  (i.e.  spirituality)  share  properties  of  both.    

7.2  Dissemination    

The  next  phase  will  involve  returning  to  the  study  site  Veracruz,  Mexico  to  present  information   back  to  the  communities  in  2016.  I  could  use  deliberation-­‐based  activities  (Kenter  et  al.,  2011)  to   validate  the  salient  themes  of  the  CES  interview—health,  family,  and  spirituality—to  probe  their   relational  qualities  to  provisioning  and  regulating  ES.  I  could  also  discuss  lessons  learned  with   collaborators   at   INECOL   and   CAFECOL   and   help   them   establish   key   indicators   for   a   baseline   study  to  evaluate  the  impact  of  the  Oikos  certification.