南非土地改革:沃特伯格地区受益者参与及其对土地使用的影响

Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Avhafunani J. Netshipale , Simon J. Oosting , Edzisani N. Raidimi , Majela L. Mashiloane , Imke J.M. de Boer
{"title":"南非土地改革:沃特伯格地区受益者参与及其对土地使用的影响","authors":"Avhafunani J. Netshipale ,&nbsp;Simon J. Oosting ,&nbsp;Edzisani N. Raidimi ,&nbsp;Majela L. Mashiloane ,&nbsp;Imke J.M. de Boer","doi":"10.1016/j.njas.2017.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>National challenges of food insecurity and unemployment in South Africa prompted an increase in expectations for agricultural land acquired through land reform programmes to make meaningful contributions. Embedded in these expectations is the need for understanding the situation in reformed farms. This study reviewed policies and literature on land reform, and analyzed beneficiary participation in reformed farms and the impact of land reform on land use in land restitution and land redistribution farms in the Waterberg District Municipality. Data were collected through individual surveys, key informants interviews and stakeholder workshop. Beneficiary participation levels were significantly lower in restitution farms (18% per farm) than in redistribution farms (65% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in beneficiary participation among land redistribution models, with participation levels increasing with time. Land redistribution model SLAG had the lowest beneficiary participation level (19% per farm) while the latest model PLAS had the highest (100% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in extent of land used among land redistribution models, though the trend was not systemic. On average, redistribution farms under SLAG and LRAD2 models used ≤70% of the farm land, while farms under LRAD1 and PLAS models used more than 90% of the farm land. The research approach used in this study found similar results in beneficiary participation to those in literature where case studies approach was used in restitution farms. On the contrary, in redistribution farms the research approach resulted in findings that differed from case study literature and revealed the needs for representative sample and time if conclusive recommendations were to be reached.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49751,"journal":{"name":"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences","volume":"83 ","pages":"Pages 57-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.njas.2017.07.003","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Land reform in South Africa: Beneficiary participation and impact on land use in the Waterberg District\",\"authors\":\"Avhafunani J. Netshipale ,&nbsp;Simon J. Oosting ,&nbsp;Edzisani N. Raidimi ,&nbsp;Majela L. Mashiloane ,&nbsp;Imke J.M. de Boer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.njas.2017.07.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>National challenges of food insecurity and unemployment in South Africa prompted an increase in expectations for agricultural land acquired through land reform programmes to make meaningful contributions. Embedded in these expectations is the need for understanding the situation in reformed farms. This study reviewed policies and literature on land reform, and analyzed beneficiary participation in reformed farms and the impact of land reform on land use in land restitution and land redistribution farms in the Waterberg District Municipality. Data were collected through individual surveys, key informants interviews and stakeholder workshop. Beneficiary participation levels were significantly lower in restitution farms (18% per farm) than in redistribution farms (65% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in beneficiary participation among land redistribution models, with participation levels increasing with time. Land redistribution model SLAG had the lowest beneficiary participation level (19% per farm) while the latest model PLAS had the highest (100% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in extent of land used among land redistribution models, though the trend was not systemic. On average, redistribution farms under SLAG and LRAD2 models used ≤70% of the farm land, while farms under LRAD1 and PLAS models used more than 90% of the farm land. The research approach used in this study found similar results in beneficiary participation to those in literature where case studies approach was used in restitution farms. On the contrary, in redistribution farms the research approach resulted in findings that differed from case study literature and revealed the needs for representative sample and time if conclusive recommendations were to be reached.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences\",\"volume\":\"83 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 57-66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.njas.2017.07.003\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157352141730009X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157352141730009X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

南非全国粮食不安全和失业的挑战促使人们对通过土地改革方案获得的农业用地作出有意义的贡献的期望增加。在这些期望中,有必要了解改革后农场的情况。本研究回顾了有关土地改革的政策和文献,分析了沃特伯格区改革农场的受益者参与情况,以及土地改革对土地归还和土地再分配农场土地利用的影响。通过个人调查、关键举报人访谈和利益相关者研讨会收集数据。补偿农场的受益人参与率(每个农场18%)明显低于再分配农场(每个农场65%)。随着时间的推移,土地再分配政策的变化导致不同土地再分配模式的受益者参与程度存在显著差异,且参与程度随着时间的推移而增加。土地再分配模式SLAG的受益人参与率最低(每个农场19%),而最新模式PLAS的受益人参与率最高(每个农场100%)。随着时间的推移,土地再分配政策的变化导致各土地再分配模式的土地利用程度存在显著差异,但这种趋势并非系统性的。平均而言,SLAG和LRAD2模式下的再分配农场耕地利用率≤70%,而LRAD1和PLAS模式下的再分配农场耕地利用率超过90%。本研究中使用的研究方法发现,在受益人参与方面的结果与在赔偿农场中使用案例研究方法的文献中发现的结果相似。相反,在再分配农场,研究方法得出的结果与个案研究文献不同,表明如果要达成结论性建议,需要有代表性的样本和时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Land reform in South Africa: Beneficiary participation and impact on land use in the Waterberg District

National challenges of food insecurity and unemployment in South Africa prompted an increase in expectations for agricultural land acquired through land reform programmes to make meaningful contributions. Embedded in these expectations is the need for understanding the situation in reformed farms. This study reviewed policies and literature on land reform, and analyzed beneficiary participation in reformed farms and the impact of land reform on land use in land restitution and land redistribution farms in the Waterberg District Municipality. Data were collected through individual surveys, key informants interviews and stakeholder workshop. Beneficiary participation levels were significantly lower in restitution farms (18% per farm) than in redistribution farms (65% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in beneficiary participation among land redistribution models, with participation levels increasing with time. Land redistribution model SLAG had the lowest beneficiary participation level (19% per farm) while the latest model PLAS had the highest (100% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in extent of land used among land redistribution models, though the trend was not systemic. On average, redistribution farms under SLAG and LRAD2 models used ≤70% of the farm land, while farms under LRAD1 and PLAS models used more than 90% of the farm land. The research approach used in this study found similar results in beneficiary participation to those in literature where case studies approach was used in restitution farms. On the contrary, in redistribution farms the research approach resulted in findings that differed from case study literature and revealed the needs for representative sample and time if conclusive recommendations were to be reached.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 农林科学-农业综合
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, published since 1952, is the quarterly journal of the Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences. NJAS aspires to be the main scientific platform for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research on complex and persistent problems in agricultural production, food and nutrition security and natural resource management. The societal and technical challenges in these domains require research integrating scientific disciplines and finding novel combinations of methodologies and conceptual frameworks. Moreover, the composite nature of these problems and challenges fits transdisciplinary research approaches embedded in constructive interactions with policy and practice and crossing the boundaries between science and society. Engaging with societal debate and creating decision space is an important task of research about the diverse impacts of novel agri-food technologies or policies. The international nature of food and nutrition security (e.g. global value chains, standardisation, trade), environmental problems (e.g. climate change or competing claims on natural resources), and risks related to agriculture (e.g. the spread of plant and animal diseases) challenges researchers to focus not only on lower levels of aggregation, but certainly to use interdisciplinary research to unravel linkages between scales or to analyse dynamics at higher levels of aggregation. NJAS recognises that the widely acknowledged need for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, also increasingly expressed by policy makers and practitioners, needs a platform for creative researchers and out-of-the-box thinking in the domains of agriculture, food and environment. The journal aims to offer space for grounded, critical, and open discussions that advance the development and application of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research methodologies in the agricultural and life sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信