A presentation from the WCCA 2011 event held in Brisbane, Australia.

1. Farm typologies and resilience:
Household diversity seen as
alternative system states
Pablo Tittonell1,2
1Centre de coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement
Montpellier, France
2Tropical Resource Ecology Program, University of Zimbabwe, Harare
Farming Systems Design
September 27, 2011
Brisbane, Australia

2. Introduction
Farm typologies
(i) Aim at categorising diversity in livelihood strategies and/or levels of
household resource endowment;
(ii) Used in a diversity of applications (research, policy, monitoring and
evaluation, econometrics, etc.);
(iii) Should respond to the objectives of the study/ intervention;
(iv) Often used as the basis for scaling-up/ scaling out-approaches;
(v) Different methods are used to categorise household diversity: statistical
clustering, participatory rankings, expert knowledge, etc.
Structural Based on resources and asset levels
Functional Livelihood strategies and household dynamics

3. Structural typologies
Smallholder households in NE Zimbabwe
Farm type Farm size # Livestock # Scotch Maize yield
(ha) carts (t ha-1)
Poor 20 < 0.7 0 None 0.2 – 1.0
Clustering (e.g. multi-dimensional scaling)
Medium 0.7 – 1.2 2–4 1 1.0 – 1.2
40
Rich > 1.2 4 - 22 2 2.0 – 3.5
50% similarity
Within-group similarity (%)
60
80
100
Farm samples

4. Functional typologies
• Resource endowment (allocation pattern)
• Production orientation (subsistence, markets)
• Livelihood strategy (e.g., access to non-/ off-farm income)
• Household structure (position on farm development cycle)
• Household dynamics (where do they come from/ go?)
Dependence on off-farm income
Hypothesis: - +
+ +
Different household types may be Type 2 as alternate states of the
Rich seen
farms
same system (in this case, the smallholder rural livelihood system)
+ Type 1
+
Resource endowment
Resource endowment
farms
Market orientation
This may allow: Fo
od
s elf
Type 3 su
Medium
• Understanding the nature and resilience of poverty trapsy
ffic
ien
c
farms
• Analysing possible shifts (or not) between household types in response to
Type 4
farms
-
e.g. poverty alleviation measures, market or climatic scenarios, etc.
-
Type 5
Poor
farms
- -

5. Underlying assumptions about household diversity
Farm productivity
Smallholder farming systems
A) No alternate regimes
arms
B) Two alternate regimes
B B
f
State of capital stock (fast variable)
tock
State of capital stock (fast variable)
-
L ives Syst
em state
I
-
Hysteresis
Threshold
A A
+
‘Destocking’ + I
‘Stocking’te I
Syst
em s
ta
Underlying (controlling) variable Underlying (controlling) variable
Assumptions: Assumptions:
Policies and development Moving form A to B may not be so
interventions may impact on the farms
easy; these are two alternative
right driving variables to move -lives tock system regimes; interventions need
gradually from A to B Non to provoke a ‘jump’ (hysteresis)
A threshold may be there… Discontinuity, irreversibility…
Resources

6. Livelihoods aspirations and strategies of the poor
Dorward (2009)
• People aspire to maintain their current welfare and to advance it
• Expanding their existing activities and/or moving into new activities
‘Hanging In’: assets are held and activities engaged in to maintain livelihood
levels (adverse socio-economic circumstances)
‘Stepping Up’ current activities engaged in, with investments in assets to expand
these activities, to increase production and income to improve livelihoods
‘Stepping Out’ activities engaged in to accumulate assets which in time can
provide a ‘launch pad’ for moving into different activities – e.g. accumulation of
livestock as savings to finance children’s education

7. Western Kenya
1000 inhabitants per Km2

8. Heterogeneity and landscape dynamics
Farm developmental cycle (Forbes, 1949)
Resources
Maturity
h
De
wt
o
cli
gr
ne
nd
an
ta
d
Maintaining &
en
dis
m
reproducing
so
sh
resources;
bli
lut
ta
ion
production
Es
Expanding
• Formerlyfamily & household that has been subdivided as the children married
a single may exceed Sub-dividing
consumption land
resources
Time (life cycle)
Tittonell et al., Ag Sys 2007

9. A functional typology for East African highland systems
Type 1
Type 3
MKT LVSTK
FOOD
MKT CSH
CNS
HOME
OFF-FA RM
OE
Wealthier households
Mid-class to poor households
CSH WOOD
LVSTK
Type 2
Resource HOME
CSH
allocation CNS
WOOD
strategies
MKT
LVSTK
Type 4
MKT LVSTK
CNS
CNS FOOD
HOME FOOD
HOME
OFF-FARM
WOOD
WOOD
Type 5
Cash MKT FOOD
Labour CNS
HOM
E
OFF-FARM
Nutrients WOOD
CSH
Tittonell et al., AGEE 2005a,b

10. Functional farm types and system states
Performance (well-being)
T2
T1
‘Stepping out’
P’’
‘Stepping up’
T3
P’
T4
‘Hanging in’
T5
R’’ R’
Resources (natural, social, human)

11. 100 40
Total hous
Income
Indicators of ‘resources’ and ‘performance’
Total household income (kSh yr )
-1 120 300
Household type 1
Income per capita (kSh yr )
50 20
-1
Household type 2
250 100
Household type 3
Household type 4
200 80 Household type 5
0 0
300 120
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 0.4
Total household income (kSh yr )
150 60
System state II
-1
Income per capita (kSh yr )
-1
6 250 1.0 100
2 t ha-1 40
Food production per capita (t dm)
100
Stepping out
Food production (t dm farm-1)
1 us$ day-1
50 5 20
200 0.8 80
0 1 t ha-1
0
0 4 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
150
0.6
60
6 -1
2 t ha
120 1.0
Food production per capita (t dm)
3 Household type 1
Food production (t dm farm-1)
100 40
come per capita (kSh yr )
5
-1
0.8 Household type 2
100-1 0.4
1 t ha Household type 3
4 2
50 0.6 20
Household type 4
3 80 0.2 Household type 5
1
0.4
0 0
2
System state 1
0 I 602 3 4 5 0.0
0 0.0
0.2
1 0 1 2 Cropping land (ha)
3 4 5 0.0 0.4
Self-sufficiency
6 -1
1.0
Cropping landt (ha)
40 2 ha
(t dm)
0 0.0 Land
rm-1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
5 Cropping land (ha) Land:labour ratio 1 us$ day-1
0.8
20

12. Testing across a wider range of systems
(Market orientation)
% % area allocated to cash crops
(Market orientation)
area allocated to cash crops
Meru S.
Meru S.
Vi
ab
le
Mbale f ar
Mbale m
siz
e s
Desirable effect
of intensification
Agroecological potential
Population (People per Km2) Mi Mbeere
0-2 nim Mbeere
3 - 10
um
far
11 - 20 Vihiga m Mbale
siz Tororo
21 - 50
Vihiga es
51 - 100 Siaya Tororo
101 - 200 Siaya Meru S.
201 - 500
501 - 1000
Vihiga
>1000
% area under fallow
% area under fallow
(Traditional management)
Siaya
(Traditional management)
Tororo
Mbeere
Mark
opport et
unities
ion
lat y
pu t
Po ensi
Tittonell et al., AgSys 2010 d TSBF, 2007

13. Concluding remarks
• There is ample potential to bring ‘down to earth’ the attractive
concepts around resilience thinking for use in the context of farming
systems research
• A promising entry point: Farm typologies seen as alternative states of
a given rural livelihood system
•This challenges a few assumptions: the existence of thresholds,
continuity, reversibility, and the use of classical socio-economic
indicators to cluster similar groups out of large household surveys
• Poverty traps become evident: improving livelihoods (i.e. facilitating a
shift upwards) does not necessarily imply more ‘resources’ (e.g.
agricultural inputs, livestock or more efficient technologies)
• Will this always work? Where not, why? More research is needed…
Pablo.tittonell@cirad.fr
Thanks for your attention