Characterising the diversity of smallholder farming systems and their constraints and opportunities for innovation: A case study from the Northern Region, Ghana

Abstract

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.

Diversity amongst farm households and achievements from multi-stakeholder innovation platform approach: lessons from Balaka Malawi

“…Firstly, a principal components analysis (PCA) is conducted, a technique which is necessary for data reduction (i.e. to summarise the data sets into smaller and non-correlated dimensions or components) [24]. After that, the study employed a two-stage cluster analysis (CA) technique to characterise the smallholder farmers in the district.…”

Determinant Analysis of Productivity on Rice Management in Indonesia

“…The profit from rice farming is determined by the number of inputs or production costs incurred and the amount of revenue that will be received by farmers. Kuivanen et al (2016) added a typology of structural and functional diversity of agricultural farming systems can be grouped by the size of household (household), utilization of land, labor, livestock and variable income. The grouping can be used for targeting and innovation interventions by institutions and governments to improve the performance of farmers in their farming.…”

“…The smallholder farming system, or what is called smallholder farmers (gum) (Syahyuti, 2013) has different characteristics from large-scale companies that are driven by profit. These characteristics include limited access to land, financial capital and financial inputs, high levels of vulnerability, and low market participation (Kuivanen et al, 2016). This cause inhibits in the progress of innovation.…”

Phosphorus acquisition by wheat from organic and inorganic sources labelled with 32P and 33P radioisotopes

“…Low-input agricultural systems typically result in low productivity and farm poverty, largely due to soil fertility constraints but also including limited access to land, low financial capital, high vulnerability and low market participation (Kuivanen et al, 2016;Jama et al, 2000). Phosphorus (P) is among the most intractable constraints on fertility, particularly in acid soils in the tropics which possess a high P fixation capacity (Withers et al, 2018;Rodrigues et al, 2016;Roy et al, 2016).…”