Methodological proposal

The proposal was developed taking into account a conceptual basis, the proposal of methodological phases and its application in a field work. In the literature review of the concepts and their respective authors, “peasant family agricultura” (^{Shanin, 1980}; Lamarch, 1993), “socioecological systems” (^{Gallopín, 2001}) and “complex systems approach” (^{García, 2008}) were included. For the design of the methodological phases, three works were taken into account: ^{Masera et al. (2000)}; ^{Sarandón (2002)}; ^{Cammaert et al. (2007)}, in which the agricultural systems are indeed described. For the application of the CSUF, the methodological proposal was validated with investigation activities in a family unit.

Conceptual foundation

The conceptual basis of family units of production and living in the countryside is in the middle of the debate on the concept of peasant family agriculture, because each agricultural production establishment in this field is in fact a unit of production and life in the countryside, that is to say that it is a dynamic unit that reflects the integrality, the complementarity and the complexity of the space where one lives and works with interactions with the environment.

According to ^{Lamarche (1993)}, family agriculture has been developed with reference to a “original model”, to a particular form of being a peasant farmer, based on a sociocultural collection from which decision making is oriented. However, family farming does not constitute a “bubble” because there are global demands that streamline the structure and functionality of the units. ^{Shanin (1980)} states that the characteristics of the peasantry are grounded in the nature and dynamics of the farm, as the basic unit of production and social life.

For the CSUF, it is especially necessary to understand the concept of socioecological systems, which for ^{Gallopin (2001)} represent a set of interactions between social systems and ecological systems. The first one contains everything referring to human aspects that include variables and characteristics of economic, social, demographic, cultural orders, etc., and in the second the biophysical variables and characteristics. For practical and methodological purposes, initially the CSUF adapts the social and ecological systems of ^{Gallopín (2001)} starting from the economic, cultural and environmental dimensions, whose further analysis is carried out in an integrative way. This methodological proposal describes the main characteristics of the system in light of the presupposition that the result of the intersection of the three dimensions is the social identity, that is, the ethos of the family.

In this context, the farming families are the subjects of study and their farms are the unit of analysis which form a complex system. It is important to mention that the systemic approach in science has been evidenced in the 1950’s as a critical response to the failures of the reductionist disciplinary approach (^{Pinheiro, 2000)}. For this author, this perspective has been applied in agriculture from different perspectives, initially with an approach of inputs and outputs control of the productive systems (hard-systems) and then from the intention to understand the inter and intra relations in the systems (soft-systems). In this sense, a continuous process of conceptual evolution is observed and, as ^{Pinheiro (2000)} affirms, the word system allows different interpretations. The concept of the system referred to in this paper has to do directly with the definition of complex systems developed by ^{García (2008)} which is a representation of a “cut” of this reality, conceiving it as an organized totality in which it is not possible to separate the elements in order to understand the structure and operation of said system from established relationships.

The CSUF proposes an approach to the analysis of the elements of the system from the multidimensionality implicit in the complex systems approach, a characterization that not only allows to define and describe the elements of the units but also allows the generation of reflective processes of the study subjects about their socioecological reality and future perspectives.

Methodological phases

The methodological proposal for the CSUF is composed of five phases that are described below, supported by a bibliographical search of the study area to identify general biophysical and sociocultural aspects in order to contextualize the research and, in addition to a sociodemographic questionnaire for the collection Information on family structure, age, gender, schooling.

Phase 1. Collective emergence of the sustainability concept. This phase reflects the process of individual and family idealization of the concept and scope of sustainability in the field, for which it is necessary to take into account what sustainability means for the family. At first sensitization and rapprochement, family members are asked to freely think and imagine what the researcher describes below:

“You are going to make an exchange trip, here in the region, with a family unit that is dedicated to agriculture. This family unit is known for its high level of sustainability. You all agreed to go and meet it. Remember that we are imagining and therefore, there is no limit for a ‘dreamer’. Then I ask you: when getting off the bus and going to know the most sustainable family unit that may exist, what do you think you will see and know on this exchange day?” (Interviewer).

In addition to the oral description, the written record of the participants’ responses to sustainability is important, which, using social cartography, is represented by short words on strips of paper, and from this analysis exercise the next phase begins.

Phase 2. Collective construction of socioecological indicators of local importance. According to ^{Sarandón (2002)}, in order to “measure” progress in sustainability, it is necessary to “simplify” the complexity to concrete values such as indicators, since this not only provides a better description of the systems but also facilitates the communication of findings and it is easier to identify critical points.

In this phase begins the construction of indicators based on the parameters (words on the strips) that each family member identified in phase 1 inwhich they defined the model of a sustainable family unit. The established parameters must be inscribed in one of three dimensions: economic, cultural and environmental. This causes people to identify not only the parameter but also the dimension to which it belongs, however it is necessary to reiterate that the analysis must go beyond the dimensions, which is undoubtedly achieved by relating the parameters.

From the above, family members assign a value to each of the parameters, collectively and by consensus, in an exercise in which it becomes evident the importance they assign to each one for sustainability of the units, in the specific context in which they live. According to ^{Sarandón and Flores (2009)} each parameter has its weight within each dimension, but these have the same value. From the classification in dimensions and weighting of the parameters according to their importance for the family, the researcher constructs the indicators with the family members, meaning that each parameter is broken down into qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess the situation. In addition, the ideal values of each indicator are established to represent the local reality. When performing this exercise with more families, this representation system would become more reliable.

Phase 3. Family role. In this phase, as its name suggests, families are the main actors in the process when evaluating their family unit. In fact, the family members reflect on their own reality, and although the indicators do not account for all the socioecological conditions that affect them, it is clear that there are some relevant factors from the family perspective to evaluate. It was observed that in this phase the final objective is not the parameter or the indicator and neither its value but the (re)actions before the process of self-evaluation of the participants.

The starting point of this phase is the evaluation of the indicators with the family and the comparison with the ideal values established for the locality. Next, the “traffic light method” is used, with which the members of the family make the qualification of each indicator using the green, yellow and red colors, which correspond, respectively, to three levels of favorable/desired situations, intermediate/regular and unfavorable/unwanted (^{Cammaert et al., 2007}). In order to facilitate analysis, all evaluation results, regardless of its origin unit, should be standardized using a scale (^{Masera et al., 2000}). The numerical scale corresponds to the colors of the traffic light as seen in the following (Table 1).

*= 8 equivale a la mejor situación y 0 a la peor.

Table 1 Scheme for the evaluation of indicators used in the socioecological characterization of family units.  

Even at this stage, family members are asked to draw collectively on a paper their unit (map) evidencing management systems. The evaluation and the map will allow a general visualization of the familiar perception about sustainability and the reflection of its actions as farmers in its productive unit.

Phase 4. Synthesis. In order to facilitate the analysis and to synthesize the results found with the indicators, in this phase it is suggested the calculation of three indexes, one per dimension: economic (Ik), cultural (Ic), and environmental (Ia). According to the methodology of ^{Sarandón and Flores (2009)}, in each dimension the results are placed in the numerical scale for each indicator multiplying the value by a stipulated coefficient according to the importance of each parameter, according to the perception of each family. Then, by summing the values, a general index (GI) is obtained through the following formula.

The construction of indicators and indices for the evaluation of quantitative and qualitative variables is a didactic tool for the analysis, but is not enough to characterize the units, because to do this it is necessary to include the analysis of all the information collected during the different phases of the methodology proposal, which also has qualitative analysis in specific software. The analysis is performed with a description based on all the information collected, indicators, indexes and comparison of the map made by the family with satellite image, which is often available on the web with free access.

Phase 5. Feedback. In this phase the results of the analysis are shown aiming to validate the socioecological characterization with the family and to perform a feedback process. There are three possibilities that are: acceptance of the analysis, acceptance with clarification, or non-acceptance. In the first case, based on its integral vision of the phenomenon, the family feels and is reflected effectively in the characterization that has been obtained through the proposed methodology. In the second case, the family identifies with the characterization and complements the analysis by expanding the information. In the third, the family does not feel reflected in the results. The feedback based on the possible answers allows to verify the sensitivity of the indicators and the analysis performed.

Application in field

Study area. The proposal was developed in the unit of the Dalzochio’s family, that has its main economic activity in the production of bovine milk. The unit is located in the South of Brazil, in the West region of the department of Santa Catarina, rural area of the municipality of São Lourenço do Oeste (latitude 26º 21’ 33” S, longitude 52º 51’ 04” W, altitude 893 m). According to the climatic classification of ^{Köppen and Geiger (1936)} the climate of this region is wet meso thermal, without dry season, Cfa type; that is, subtropical (hot and humid) with well distributed rainfall in the summer, and has areas of warm temperate rainforest and very warm temperate rainforest, according to the classification of life areas (^{Holdridge, 1967}).

In the municipality of São Lourenço do Oeste there are Cambisols and Latosols with a clayey feature (^{IBGE, 2001}), the annual average temperature is 17 °C and the mean annual rainfall is 2 000 mm (^{EPAGRI, 2002}). According to the demographic census, the municipal population is 21 792 inhabitants (60 inhabitants km²) mostly of Italian and German origin product of the migratory process of the 1950s (^{IBGE, 2010}). Even according to the census, the municipal human development index (IDHM) is 0.749 and the main lines of the economy are in the services, industry and agriculture sectors.

Data collection and analysis tools

The method that was used for the application of the CSUF was the ethnographic in a descriptive cross-sectional study using mixed instruments during the months of October and November of 2013. The subject of study was a farmer family and the analysis unit was their farm in a case study as pilot test. The techniques used were social cartography, active participant observation, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, experiences reports and the recording of information from documentary sources (^{Sampieri et al., 2010}). In addition, direct observation in the field of environmental, technical and productive aspects was carried out and milk quality analyzes were included in accordance with the quality criteria established in Brazilian legislation (^{MAPA, 2011}). The calculation of the cost of milk production was done on ^{CONSELEITE (2013)} sheets.

Data collection and analysis were performed in parallel and interconnected in all phases of the study, but the final detailed analysis of the qualitative data had the following sequence: transcription, systematization, coding, categorization and analysis in the Atlas IT 6.0 program.

Regarding ethical aspects, the research followed the guidelines and regulatory norms of research involving human beings, through the use of informed consent, according to the protocol set forth in Brazilian Resolution num. 466 of December 12, 2012 (^{Brazil, 2013}).

Application of methodological phases

Phase 1. Collective emergence of the sustainability concept. The Dalzochio family is composed of the father, the mother and four children. In this first approach to the characterization, four members of the family were present, the parents, a son and a daughter. All expressed their willingness to collaborate and some curiosity about the methodology and purposes of the study. Initially the father was insecure when imagining the situation described by the researcher, because it reflected the productive systems of his unit and could not imagine them as the proposal suggests. However, as the study progressed and with the help of the women in the family, the father understood the methodology and participated in the creation and discussion of an ideal sustainable unity, taking into account milk production as the main economic activity.

Using paper strips each member of the family recorded in a few words their definition of “sustainable family unit”. The words written by the family at the beginning were “self-consumption”, “productivity”, “profitability”, “income diversity”, “planned management”, “labor”, “less external dependence”, “knowledge and innovation”, “participation”, “generational change”, “family dialogue”, “quality of life and satisfaction”, “milk quality”, “more natural management”, “garbage disposal”, “soil quality”, “environmental preservation”.

Phase 2. Collective construction of socioecological indicators of local importance. In the previous phase, family members wrote on paper strips words representing a sustainable family unit taking into account milk production as the main economic activity. From there, the family showed difficulties during the experience, because they had to agree on the words in the strips, so that the parameters would represent the whole family and not each individual. At this point in the exercise there were interesting reflections and discussions in search of such consensus. The paper strips with the words identified the parameters that were classified into three colored billboards, each representative of a dimension within the three suggested initially: economic, cultural and environmental.

Family members, by consensus, assigned a weight to each parameter within each dimension. Family members were asked to determine the degree of importance for each of the parameters by assigning one, two or three stars, considering that one star indicates the lowest level of importance and three the highest. After the strips were classified in their respective dimensions and weighted according to their importance for the family, the respective indicators, evaluation methods and ideal situations for the local reality were constructed. The weighting of the parameters and the description of collectively constructed indicators are shown below in their respective dimensions.

Economic (Ik)

A. Food self-sufficiency (weighting^***) estimated through two indicators (A1 and A2).

A1. Number of foods produced: (8 to 6) produces equal or more than 32 foods; (5 to 3) from 31 to 16; (2 to 0) to 15.

A2. Percentage of self-produced food for family consumption: (8 to 6) produces equal to or more than 70% of what is consumed; (5 to 3) from 69 to 36%; (2 to 0) to 35%.

B. Milk productivity (weighting^*) estimated through the production of liters of milk per hectare per year: (8 to 6) produces more than 2 478 L ha^-1 year^-1; (5 to 3) from 2 478 to 1 500 L ha^-1 year^-1; (2 to 0) less than 1 500 L ha^-1 year^-1.

C. Profitability of milk production (weighting^***), estimated through the average annual profit of each liter of produced milk: (8 to 6) with a profit greater than R $ 0.09 in Brazilian currency per liter of milk; (5 to 3) from R$ 0.09 to 0.5; (2 to 0) to R$ 0.4.

D. Diversification of production for sale (weighting^**) estimated through the number of commercially relevant productive activities: (8 to 6) with 4 or more commercially relevant productive activities; (5 to 3) with 3; (2 to 0) to 2.

E. Planning and management of productive systems (weighting^***) estimated through the existence of planning records and management of production systems: (8 to 6) there is planning and management through forms and records of all production systems; (5 to 3) there are scattered notes, but not an effective planning and management process; (2 to 0) there are no records and therefore there is no planning and management in an organized and clear way.

F. Work force (weighting^*) estimated through the existence of sufficient labor force for productive activities carried out: (8 to 6) sufficient; (5 to 3) poor but does not limit production activities drastically; (2 to 0) insufficient.

G. Use of internal inputs in production systems (weighting^**) estimated through the percentage of local (internal) production of inputs used in systems related to milk production: (8 to 6) produces 70% or more inputs; (5 to 3) buy and produce (50%); (2 to 0) buys more than 70%.

Cultural (Ic)

H. Knowledge of productive systems with innovation capacity (weighting^***) estimated through the familiar perception of ecological management knowledge and its innovation capacity: (8 to 6) a high level of knowledge of productive systems and innovation and experimentation power to make efficient the use of local resources; (5 to 3) median; (2 to 0) low knowledge level, with high dependence on technical assistance and external inputs.

I. Level of participation in organizations (weighting^*) estimated through two indicators (I1 and I2).

I1. Number of activities in which they participate: (8 to 6) equal to or more than 12 per year; (5 to 3) from 11 to 6 per year; (2 to 0) less than 6 per year.

I2. Number of organizations in which they participate: (8 to 6) equal or more than 4; (5 to 3) 3 to 2; (2 to 0) less than 2.

J. Generational relief (weighting^*) estimated through the family perception about the existence of generational relief: (8 to 6) surely there will be generational relief; (5 to 3) doubtful; (2 to 0) there will not be.

K. Dialogue and family participation (weighting^***) estimated through family perception about participation in decision-making processes: (8 to 6) high integration and family participation; (5 to 3) median; (2 to 0) low, since in general the decision comes from a head of the family.

L. Satisfaction with the quality of living conditions (weighting^***) estimated through the family perception of satisfaction with their life condition: (8 to 6) high satisfaction; (5 to 3) median satisfaction; (2 to 0) dissatisfaction.

Environmental (Ia)

M. Milk quality (weighting^*) estimated through four indicators (M1, M2, M3 and M4):

M1. Number of total bacteria: (8 to 6) less than 100 000 CFU mL^-1; (5 to 3) from 100 000 to 600 000 CFU mL^-1; (2 to 0) more than 600 001 CFU mL^-1.

M2. Number of somatic cells: (8 to 6) less than 480 000 CS mL^-1; (5 to 3) from 480 000 to 600 000 CS mL^-1; (2 to 0) more than 600 001 CS mL^-1.

M3. Percentage of total protein: (8 to 6) equal to or greater than 2.9%; (5 to 3) from 2.8 to 2.5%; (2 to 0) less than 2.5%.

M4. Percentage of total fat: (8 to 6) equal to or greater than 3%; (5 to 3) from 2.9 to 2.5%; (2 to 0) less than 2.5%.

N. Dairy cattle grazing management system (weighting^**) estimated by type of livestock feed system: (8 to 6) rational in plots; (5 to 3) rotating in more than 10 plots; (2 to 0) continuous in 10 or less plots.

O. Wastes disposal (weighting^*) estimated by percentage for recycling and composting or other method of reuse: (8 to 6) more than 70%; (5 to 3) from 70 to 50%; (2 to 0) less than 50%.

P. Soil conservation in pastures (weighting^***) estimated through two indicators (P1 and P2).

P1. State of decomposition of bovine excrement: (8 to 6) prevalence of well decomposed bovine excrement; (5 to 3) prevalence of partially decomposed bovine excrement; (2 to 0) prevalence of poorly decomposed or mummified bovine excrement.

P2. Percentage of land cover: (8 to 6) plant cover greater than 90% of the area, for more than 10 months of the year; (5 to 3) plant cover between 90 and 70% of the area, for at least 10 months of the year; (2 to 0) plant cover up to 70% of the area, for at least 10 months of the year.

Q. Environmental preservation (weighting^***) estimated by percentage of area allocated to legal reserve: (8 to 6) minimum legal reserve of 20% of unit size; (5 to 3) from 19 to 15%; (2 to 0) less than 15%.

Phase 3. Role of the family. In this phase the 23 constructed indicators were evaluated with the family in order to reflect the current situation of their unit of production and life in the field, based on the parameters considered important for the subjects. The family evaluated the indicators, did the color classification and then standardized them. Then the standardized result in the proposed scale (Table 2).

OC= observación directa en campo; E= entrevista; C= cálculo; Q= cuestionario; L= laboratorio.

Table 2 Standardized results of the evaluation of the indicators constructed as part of the socioecological characterization of the Dalzochio family unit, with milk production as the main economic activity, in the West of Santa Catarina/Brazil.  

In this phase it was once again noted the need for the family to agree on divergent opinions, in line with the vision that each individual has of the world around them. There was a very valuable process of discussion and consensus of the family from the “reality” common to all, which is not always clearly evident. A tour was carried out with the objective of evaluating in the field the indicators that required it and of knowing and identifying the most relevant elements of the productive systems and having an overview of the management practices. During the tour the points were marked with a geographic positioning system (GPS), for its later review in the satellite image. Even in this phase, the family designed its productive unit of 67 hectares, identifying with different colors the different management systems as follows: green represented areas with ecological management, red the conventional ones and blue areas in transition.

Phase 4. Synthesis. In order to facilitate the analysis, the calculation of indices was carried out, which in a synthetic way reflects the results of the indicators in their respective dimensions (Table 3).

Fuente: elaboración a partir de la aplicación en campo (2013).

Table 3 Results of the indices calculated in the three dimensions for the socioecological characterization of the Dalzochio family unit, with milk production as the main economic activity, in the West of Santa Catarina/Brazil.  

To calculate the indices of the three dimensions, the results of the indicators were weighted. In the weighting of the indicators used in the economic dimension, indicators A, C and E with weight 3 were considered as the most relevant; the D and G with weight 2; and B and F with weight 1 as the least important. The calculation was made as follows.

In the weighting of the indicators used in the cultural dimension the indicators H, K, L with a weight of 3 were considered; the I and J with a weight of 1. The calculation was made as follows.

In the weighting of the indicators used in the environmental dimension, the indicators P and Q with a weight of 3 were considered; the N with a weight of 2; and the M and O with a weight of 1. The calculation was made as follows.

Finally, with the index data of each dimension, economic (Ik), cultural (Ic) and environmental (Ia), a general index (IG) of the unit situation was calculated, considering that the three previous indices had the same importance or specific weight. This calculation was made as follows.

In addition to the calculation of indices, the analysis of the qualitative information and the comparison of the satellite image of the area with the map that represented the family’s vision on the biophysical aspects of its unit was performed.

Phase 5. Feedback. In order to validate the characterization with the family and establish a feedback process, the results of the analysis for the family were presented in a simple and clear way. The results of the indicators and indexes were presented through “network” or “spider web” graphs, as according to ^{Sarandón and Flores (2009)} the network graphic representation synthesizes important information, allowing the detection of critical points with a global vision of the problem. Qualitative information was presented in a descriptive and oral manner. The comparison of the map with the satellite image of the area was done with the printed presentation of both images, with the consensus that the drawing with which the map was made was well detailed and very close to the satellite image, however with predominance of red color showing a conventional management that the family described as a consequence of the ease of purchase and use of agrochemicals.

With regard to strengths and weaknesses, there was discrepancy within the family. Most of the agreements and disagreements shown were related to past decisions taken by them on aspects of management of productive systems, such as agreement on the positive results with the beginning of the use of homeopathic medicines in livestock; and the disagreement in the decision to cultivate transgenic maize, against which there was no consensus in the family. These discussions were achieved through the use of the CSUF as a basis for collective reflection.

In making the return of the results, the family concluded that their reality is reflected in the analyzes carried out in the CSUF, which demonstrates the high sensitivity of the indicators and the great rapprochement to the reality of the family unit through the methodological proposal. It was even possible to see that the details about the data obtained and its practical significance aroused great interest in the family, so much so that on the last visit, their members requested a copy of the analysis and the data as they considered it a very important input for planning.