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 , Simon J. Oosting , Edzisani N. Raidimi , Majela L. Mashiloane , 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 , Simon J. Oosting , Edzisani N. Raidimi , Majela L. Mashiloane , 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}
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.
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.