## 2 Materials and Methods
### Data Collection  
The assessment of cocoa agroecosystem resilience in the Offinso Municipal and Adansi North Districts was carried out using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The data collection instruments employed for this study were focus group discussion (FGD) and semi-structured interviews.  
Two focus group discussions were conducted in each study area. There were five (5) experienced cocoa farmers (with more than 20 years of farming) in each group, with fair gender representation. Each group had at least a female cocoa farmer. The farmers were selected in consultation with the Cocoa Extension Officers in the respective Districts. During the FGD, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was explained to the respondents as a participatory data collection tool that accepts deliberated values (consensus) as scores and weights for the criteria, attributes and variables. All technical terms were broken down into simple, clear language to help the respondents' scoring process. Key informant interviews were conducted to clarify and improve the understanding of the resilience of the cocoa agroecosystem to climate change. The procedure for evaluating the resilience of the cocoa agroecosystem in the Offinso Municipal and Adansi North Districts using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) consisted of three phases: (i) selection and weighting of criteria, attributes and variables, (ii) scoring of variables, (iii) assigning quantified values to resilience. The use of AHP to evaluate cocoa agroecosystem resilience, modified from  
Figure 4: Hierarchical structure for the evaluation of cocoa agroecosystem resilience (AgRe).  
previous studies, proceeded by determining the hierarchical system for the goal, criteria, attributes and variables [9; 46] (Figure 4).  
Each focus group from the study areas was guided to complete the comparison matrix designed by SCB Associates ([[https://www.scbuk.com/ahp.html](https://www.scbuk.com/ahp.html)]([https://www.scbuk.com/ahp.html](https://www.scbuk.com/ahp.html)); accessed on 20 May 2023). At each level of the hierarchy, values were assigned to the criteria, attributes and variables in a comparison matrix. For each pair of criteria, attributes and variables, the farmers indicated which was the most important for enhancing resilience and to what extent, using a 1-9 ordinal scale. For example, under variables, if the preference of crop diversification over shade trees was absolute, then the entry (Crop Diversification, Shade Trees) of the matrix was set at 9, and the entry (Shade Trees, Crop Diversification) was set at 1/9. If crop diversification and shade trees were of equal importance, then (Crop Diversification, Shade Trees) and (Shade Trees, Crop Diversification) were set at 1, and so on. The preference for one variable over another can be \"absolute\" (9), \"very strong\" (7), \"strong\" (5), \"moderate\" (3) or \"equal\" (1). Intermediate values are possible (2, 4, 6, 8) [47].  
This methodological approach is mixed method and participatory since cocoa farmers are consulted to determine both qualitative and quantitative values of factors, criteria and variables. The participatory nature of the AHP allows the methodology to be applied to or reproduced in other territorial contexts because the variables are location-specific and are evaluated by persons well familiar with the study area and subject matter. The matrices developed by the cocoa farmers were scrutinised by experts who were predominantly Cocoa Extension Officers. The cocoa farmers and experts interviewed played a critical role in the planning and development of the methodology, as well as in the analysis and discussion of the results. To satisfy the ethical consideration of scientific research, the consent of the interviewees was sought and the aim of the research was explained before commencing the exercise. Interviewees were assured of the confidentiality of their views and the information given.