Search

Typologies may be used as tools for dealing with farming system heterogeneity. This is achieved by classifying farms into groups that have common characteristics, i.e. farm types, which can support the implementation of a more tailored approach to agricultural development. This article explored patterns of farming system diversity through the classification of 70 smallholder farm households in two districts (Savelugu-Nanton and Tolon-Kumbungu) of Ghana’s Northern Region. Based on 2013 survey data, the typology was constructed using the multivariate statistical techniques of principal component analysis and cluster analysis. Results proposed six farm types, stratified on the basis of household, labour, land use, livestock and income variables, explaining the structural and functional differences between farming systems. Types 1 and 2 were characterized by relatively high levels of resource endowment and oriented towards non-farm activities and crop sales respectively. Types 3 and 4 were moderately resource-endowed with income derived primarily from on-farm activities. Types 5 and 6 were resource constrained, with production oriented towards subsistence. The most salient differences among farm types concerned herd size (largest for Type 1), degree of legume integration (largest for Types 2–4), household size and hired labour (smallest household size for Types 4 and 6, and largest proportion of hired labour for Type 4), degree of diversification into off/non-farm activities (highest for Type 1 and lowest for Type 5) and severity of resource constraints (Type 6 was most constrained with a small farm area and herd comprised mainly of poultry). It was found that livelihood strategies reflected the distinctive characteristics of farm households; with poorly-endowed types restricted to a ‘survival strategy’ and more affluent types free to pursue a ‘development strategy’. This study clearly demonstrates that using the established typology as a practical framework allows identification of type-specific farm household opportunities and constraints for the targeting of agricultural interventions and innovations, which will be further analysed in the research-for-development project. We conclude that a more flexible approach to typology construction, for example through the incorporation of farmer perspectives, might provide further context and insight into the causes, consequences and negotiation of farm diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Typologies are often used to understand and capture smallholder farming system heterogeneity, and may be derived using different approaches and methods. This article aims to compare a quantitative, statistical typology based on a survey dataset and multivariate analysis, with a qualitative participatory typology based on informal group sessions and activities with local stakeholders from three communities in Northern Ghana. The statistical typology resulted in six clusters, with farm households categorized on the basis of their structural (resource endowment)- and functional (production objectives/livelihood strategies) characteristics. The participatory typology identified five farm types, based primarily on endowment (farm size, income investment), gender and age-related criteria. While the entire household was adopted as the unit of analysis of the statistical typology, the participatory typology provided a more nuanced differentiation by grouping individual farmers; with possibly several farmer types per household ( e.g . ‘small’ and ‘female farmers’) as well as ‘farm-less’ individuals as a result. Other sources of dissimilarity which contributed to limited overlap between the typologies included changes that occurred in the communities between the two data collection efforts and inaccuracies in the data. The underlying causes of the latter seemed to mainly relate to socio-cultural issues that distorted information collection in both typologies; including power and status differences between both the researchers and farmers, as well as the farmers themselves. We conclude that although statistical techniques warrant objectivity and reproducibility in the analysis, the complexity of data collection and representation of the local reality might limit their effectiveness in selection of farms, innovation targeting and out-scaling in R4D projects. In addition, while participatory typologies offer a more contextualized representation of heterogeneity, their accuracy can still be compromised by socio-cultural constraints. Therefore, we recommend making effective use of the advantages offered by each approach by applying them in a complementary manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family farms are defined by two criteria: the importance of family labour and the transfer of ownership, land tenure or management to the next generation. Most farms across the globe are family farms, and they vary in size from <1 ha to >10,000 ha. Trends in farm size (small farms getting smaller and large farms getting larger) are not directly related to farm ownership and do not necessarily impact global food security. Rather, both the causes and effects of farm size trends depend on the availability of farm resources and off-farm employment opportunities. Similarly, environmental sustainability, though impacted by agriculture, cannot be linked directly to family ownership or farm size. To address issues related to environment, social conditions and food security, focus should not be on the preservation of family farms but on transformations to strive for environmental, social and economic sustainability of farming in all its shapes and forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We analysed decisions on sustainable intensification (SI) of farmers in Tanzania and Malawi. • The smallholder farmers are driven by motivations on a gradient of internalization. • Adoption of SI practices was affected by both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. • Despite perceived benefits of SI practices, the lack of financial resources is a constraint. • Analysis of motivations with bio-economic factors is needed in research and development projects. Agricultural techniques and technologies that could foster sustainable intensification of farming (hereafter: SI practices) can originate from existing farm practices, from the adoption of externally suggested new practices, or from an adaptation of existing or new practices. The rate at which farmers use SI practices is often low and influenced by on-farm biophysical and socio-economic conditions. There is a narrow understanding of the role of motivations and the balance between external incentives and intrinsic motivations for use of SI practices. We analysed the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations among 246 sampled households alongside the perceived benefits and constraints from SI practices in five districts of Malawi and Tanzania. Our results showed that farmer decisions were not exclusively dependent on external incentives, but also on intrinsic values which farmers attach to their production resources and farming practices. Despite various benefits perceived, farmers highlighted the lack of financial resources as a major constraint to the use of externally proposed SI practices. While we hypothesized that intrinsic motivation would be much stronger than extrinsic in influencing decisions to use SI practices, our results demonstrated equal importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in influencing the number of SI practices which smallholder farmers used. We suggest explicitly addressing both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in further research in combination with socio-economic and biophysical variables to give a better reflection of what drives farmers' decisions to use more sustainable farming practices. We argue that the design of SI research programs should support motivations of diversified farmers to participate in such programs. Emphasising farmers' autonomy, a key to intrinsic motivation, can stimulate ownership of SI projects and smoothen the process of adoption, adaptation and use of SI practices by farmers, and is expected to reduce the mismatch between proposed practices and farmers' expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]