Author
Listed:
- Aart-Jan Verschoor
- Colleta Gandidzanwa
- Terence Newby
- Anneliza Collett
- Sonja Venter
Abstract
The paper presents a robust, scientific evaluation method to determine the potential viability of a farm, compared to its current performance. The comparison informs recommendations for sustainable farm development. The process entails a stepwise analysis of land suitability, enterprise potential, infrastructure status, operator capacity, inherent limitations and external risks of the farm. An expert panel considers quantitative and qualitative data to establish suitable development measures. Applied to a land reform initiative, ±2000 farms entailing 1.86 million hectares were evaluated, detailing corrective measures for each farm. Roughly 59% of the evaluated farms were potentially commercial, but only 7% performed accordingly. Correlations between farmer capability and farm performance, as well as between infrastructure and performance, were evident, indicating that post-settlement support is vital. As risk and limitation scores increased, farm viability tended to decrease. The tool accurately determined viability based on available resources (natural and physical), resulting in evidence-based policy advice. The evaluation informed land reform policy recommendations, proposing more coordinated support to improve access to services. The tool would also be useful for farmers to reflect on enterprise performance. The visual, sequential nature of the evaluation facilitates sound decision-making. The tool has potential as a valid agricultural development evaluation instrument.
Suggested Citation
Aart-Jan Verschoor & Colleta Gandidzanwa & Terence Newby & Anneliza Collett & Sonja Venter, 2023.
"Proposing a farm assessment toolkit: evaluating a South African land reform case study,"
Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(3-4), pages 215-227, October.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:ragrxx:v:62:y:2023:i:3-4:p:215-227
DOI: 10.1080/03031853.2023.2279159
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ragrxx:v:62:y:2023:i:3-4:p:215-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ragr20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.