Adapting to climate change: disjunction between two ways of thinking and doing science

The study of adaptation to climate change, until the 1990s focused on the availability and access to resources needed to perform this adaptation (^{López-Marrero, 2010}). However, little research had adopted a perspective that would allow identifying and understanding the limits and sociocultural barriers in adapting society to this phenomenon (^{Jones and Boyd, 2013}). The origin of this apparent neglect is related to the history of climate change research mainly associated with scientific work from climatologists and meteorologists, and scarce or null resonance that societies have on national policy agendas by excluding them from the definition of development processes and considered by researchers only as objects of study.

Also, a reduced number of researches on climate change from the sociocultural point of view has also been substantially influenced by the global scientific agenda led by the IPCC, the organization that defines the types of adaptation, impacts exposure and even the concepts used to refer to this phenomenon. This means an unambiguous agenda leaded by scientific knowledge derived from models and forecasts (^{Lampis, 2013}). Models that try to represent the inherent complexity of climate associated with emergent behavior of society, being partial representations of reality made based on simplified versions of atmosphere, oceans and society behaviors (Yearley, 2009). The knowledge obtained is certainly valuable, but limited.

These models are the result of joint work from researchers and lot of resources, so that research is performed in few research centers in the world, among which are: The Institute of Meteorology of Max Planck in Germany, the Canadian Climate Modelling and Analysis Center, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in England and The National Center for Atmospheric Research in the United States of America (^{Yearly, 2009}). This causes that scenarios created by this scientific work responds more to a particular economic and social context. However, this information is what the IPCC declare and uses to define policies to mitigate and adapt, main lines of action that should be considered by its member countries (^{Hulme et al., 2007}).

This scientific agenda turned into a political agenda, conceptualizing adaptation to the effects of climate change as a process that involves solving the causes of vulnerability from a biophysical perspective, bypassing the importance of socio-cultural dynamics of the societies in which want to implement. It also does not consider climate change as a result of environmentally unsustainable development model whose effects are exacerbating the existing deep social and economic inequalities (^{Lampis, 2013}). Critical aspect when known that climate change is a global phenomenon but with differentiated local effects; being the tropics, one of the most vulnerable regions of the planet and where are located many of the poorest countries in the world (^{IPCC, 2007}).

Consequently, the role of science in the adaptation process of society to climate change is biased because the knowledge generated by the IPCC agenda from a predominantly positivist epistemological position are not enough to reflect on the economic, political and power relationships that underlie its origins; also, do not favor the understanding of how our societies are responding at local level and what is the rationality beneath it (^{Timmons, 2010}). In other words, the bias of their contributions has not been allowed to recognize climate change as a result of economic, political, legal and technological processes generated by society itself.

The misunderstanding of these social processes would in turn prevent the generation of knowledge that could assist other adaptive processes for the benefit of society itself. This leads to think that the production of knowledge on climate change cannot be understood outside the political and economic history of the origin and functioning of the IPCC, which by being a reference organism as for the study of this phenomenon has the ability to influence local scientific agendas. Contrary to this agenda, it is necessary to conduct studies of climate change from unexplored points of view such as sociocultural. To address this aspect requires the positioning of alternative paradigms with theoretical and conceptual approaches that facilitate the understanding of the complexity of climate change as a social and environmental problem.

So far most of the studies considered as a contribution from social sciences, are basically economic studies of the impacts of climate change (^{Bjurström and Polk, 2011}). Therefore it is necessary research that generates understanding and promotes social debate on the underlying power related to the problem, process that can facilitate the questioning of the ethics and the will of decision-makers and lead to adaptation actions that are not always has as priority the benefit of society. This approach is essential when it comes to design and establish actions towards agriculture adaptation, activity of economic importance, especially social, that has develop in a historical perspective and expresses the culture of those who carry it out.

Adapting agriculture to climate change: possible contribution from the sociocultural point of view

The adaptation of society to climate change involves the adaptation of agriculture to this phenomenon (^{Fowler, 2008}), because this is the basis of global food and generate raw materials used to satisfy other needs from the globe. However, studies on its adaptation are relatively recent, process that was strengthened by the statements of the experts in the Fourth Assessment Report from IPCC in 2007; which proposed adaptation as a priority when considering that the effects of climate change would have an impact on economy, health, nutrition and safety population, especially in developing nations (^{Lara, 2013}).

This remark justified, officially, the effort of scientists around the world interested in understanding the adaptation processes other dimension of study and recognition of the existence of a knowledge gap regarding the identification and understanding of socio-cultural barriers in the implementation of adaptation actions. In this regard, recent research has concluded that any response to climate change is influenced by culture (^{Adger et al., 2013}; ^{Jones, 2013}; ^{Leonard et al., 2013}).

The latter essential when it comes to agriculture, activity that expresses the complex relationship between society and nature, for being associated with multiple dimensions: sociocultural, economic, political and technological; as well as, non-linear responses of the climate (^{Ojeda et al., 2010}). Climate change has meant a gradual modification of the behavior of the main agro-climatic variables: temperature and precipitation (^{Howe et al., 2013}), affecting species and local varieties developed from several thousand years ago under relatively stable climatic conditions (^{Kostel, 2009}). In this situation, some producers have begun to make decisions that are expressed in changes on management practices in their agroecosystems. The knowledge generated by this process is valuable and should be incorporated into the design of adaptation strategies for agriculture in the medium and long term (^{Habiba et al., 2012}).

Therefore, the research of the adaptation processes of agriculture to climate change from a sociocultural perspective is urgent, as knowledge is required for the design and establishment of socially and culturally acceptable strategies. It is also necessary to perform multi, inter and transdisciplinary studies involving social sciences, especially sociology. The resulting knowledge can contribute to the continuity of productive activities, in order for agriculture to fulfill its social function in the supply of food and raw materials, and eventually the generation of environmental services.

This implies the need to understand various aspects, for example, why the willingness and access to economic resources are not enough for a farmer to adapt to climate variability (^{López-Marrero, 2010}). Moreover, to interpret the rationality that underlies the responses from producers, which can be varied and considered by decision makers and "experts" as dissimilar and irrational; especially when these actions are framed in a model of regulatory technical development, in which agriculture is not considered as a strategic sector (^{Matus, 1989}).

Study the process of adapting agriculture to climate change from the sociocultural perspective also involves considering the producers as subjects to agricultural development with different needs, product of its history and culture, whose work affects the whole effect of environmental and economic crisis, including climate change and economic globalization. This approach would explain why the disposition of weather information systems as a useful tool in making decisions agints the effects of climate change and the construction of the hydroagricultural infrastructure, seen from the government sphere as ways to achieve this adaptation, are inadequate and are wasted depending on the type of producer, becoming costly and ineffective strategies (^{Coles and Scott, 2009}).

Consequently, if the study of the sociocultural dimension of climate change remains ignored or marginally addressed, the responses to adaptation will probably not be the most appropriate. This is because culture is expressed in each of the dominant modes of production (^{Adger et al., 2013}) and agriculture is no exception. Culture is dynamic and transforms by the events in politics, economy, and technology, even by the same effects of climate change (^{Barnes et al., 2013}). If science does not respond to the needs of those engaged in agricultural labor with knowledge that allows designing and establishing strategies in the medium and long term, the effects of climate change will threaten food security of the most vulnerable sectors, which may be an omen of social conflicts (^{Postigo, 2013}). However, it is imperative to note that the creation of such knowledge is not enough to achieve adaptation, without the will and ethics of decisionmakers (^{Lara, 2013}).