Limitations of this work and recommendations for further research

Although many important insights were gained through this research on the Verde Valley agricultural SES, it is certainly a first step in further engaging with growers to support their adaptive capacity in a time of climate change. As such, there were several limitations of my research that I recognize here, accompanied by ideas and suggestions for further research in the area. First, although my research design was informed by a review of the literature and key informant interviews, my research questions and project did not fully engage with or incorporate the needs of the growers themselves. If I could do this work again or carry out more research in this area, I would use a participatory action research (PAR) or other similar community-based

approach to collaborate closely with those actually involved in agriculture in the Verde Valley. As one major barrier that emerged from the data related to a lack of organizational support for small growers, it would be incredibly useful and meaningful to work with growers to identify what they want from programs to help them adapt to different changes. I feel that researchers can act as a bridging mechanism between growers and the organizations in the area to collectively study and work towards developing actionable, affordable, and accessible programs. This is an important next step that future research could include.

As a related point, although I determined expert knowledge of growers in the Verde Valley to be a key part of adaptive capacity, further work should center this knowledge as equally legitimate as that of the person doing the research. As noted before, many of the growers rely on and trust their own experiences as a major source of information to guide their adaptive strategies. However, at the same time, they often critiqued their expertise as non-scientific or uneducated. One grower demonstrated this by explaining: “I really just leave it up to the experts to figure it out. Then I’ll just deal with it,” while another referred to himself as a “stupid

hillbilly.” Although I hoped that I communicated my respect and earnest desire to learn from the growers throughout the interviews, my actual research questions and research design could have better incorporated and centered the validity of their expert knowledge.

While speaking with some of the growers before, during, and after the interviews, I observed a desire to further their knowledge and understanding of climate change. Several growers who believe in anthropogenic climate change expressed how they want to learn more about the realities behind the subject because of their exposure to confusing and conflicting information. Also, a few noted how they appreciated being asked about how they would adapt to these different scenarios because it forced them to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses if

exposed to climate change-related stresses. Even some of the growers who were wary of acknowledging the role of humans in climate change expressed interest in furthering their understanding of changes that are occurring. Also, only one of the growers mentioned the ways that agriculture can contribute to climate change, demonstrating a clear gap in the knowledge, understanding, or acceptance of this relationship. Therefore, I feel that there is an opportunity for educational programs or PAR work in the future to help growers increase their knowledge about climate change, potentially leading to a corresponding increase in adaptive capacity.

However, this work would certainly involve careful navigation of how these issues are presented and approached. Because of the politically controversial nature of this subject, along with the denial of some of growers, the framing of the educational programs should, at least at the beginning, focus on the proactive and positive need to increase the ability to adapt rather than challenging climate beliefs (Takahashi et al, 2016). Stuart et al. (2012) make a similar

recommendation about how to discuss agriculture’s role in climate change, seeing that “when framed in a positive context, participants felt that farmers could help society address climate risks… Involved parties may wish to consider how they frame climate change, choosing to highlight positive steps forward rather than past or current contributions” (p. 321). Also, education should not be relied upon as the only strategy to cause shifts in agricultural adaptive capacity as a whole, as we also need to target barriers that exist at higher institutional and

structural levels (Stuart & Schewe, 2016). However, due to the receptivity and interest of several growers to engage with and learn more on this subject, I feel that this could still be an important avenue for more research that works to increase growers’ adaptive capacity to climate change.

Finally, my work on this subject was limited in that it focused primarily on adaptation rather than transformation. As mentioned throughout my thesis, it is important to study how

individual growers will adapt to climate change due to their effects on the agricultural sector as a whole and because of the guaranteed future climate changes based on the greenhouse gases already emitted. However, Folke (2006) notes that emphasizing transformation in SES can be vital when the current system is pathologically resilient and undesirable for the future. Through this work, I have argued that industrial agriculture is both socially and environmentally

unsustainable and that a better understanding of alternative forms of food production can aid in creating more adaptive and truly resilient systems. While I characterized the diversity in practices and interconnections with the environment as key parts of Verde Valley growers’ ability to not only adapt but also to shift away from the dominant problematic paradigms of Western society, further work is needed to better understand and encourage transformation of these systems. Kathleen Dean Moore (2016) powerfully explains the problems with only focusing on adaptation, along with the false optimism that adaptation will always be possible:

The driving assumption is that humans can adapt, continuing to thrive on a sizzling, stripped-down, drought- and flood-stricken, dangerously destabilized planet. That

assumption is shaky, given that unpredictable conditions might be the only contingencies one can’t plan for. [There is] also the frustrating question of why anyone imagines it will be easier and cheaper to adapt to a devastated world than to mount a full-out effort to slow the wreckage and save what’s left of all the life-sustaining ecosystems… I

understand that it’s prudent to figure out how to live in the world as it presents itself… But a single-minded focus on accommodation to climate change, a focus that ignores the need to reduce climate change, is a moral failure. (p. 191, 193)

Therefore, I feel that future research needs to prioritize the roles of both adaptation and mitigation and to understand our ability to respond to changes yet also avoid creating some of them in the first place.