Abstract
Background: Food security is a global concern that many organisations and governments work to ensure that people have reliable access to food. The formation of the land restitution programme (LRP) by the South African government was to uplift the agricultural sector to generate employment and production growth to advance food security, and reduce poverty in rural areas.
Aim: This article investigates the impact of post-settlement support (PSS) on the food security level of land restitution beneficiaries.
Setting: The study focused on the land restitution beneficiaries in the rural areas of Limpopo province.
Methods: A stratified and simple random sampling was employed to collect data from 200 households’ beneficiaries using a structured questionnaire. An ordered logistic regression model was used to determine the impact of PSS on food security.
Results: The results reveal that 71% of smallholder farmers under the LRP were food secure. PSS plays a crucial role in influencing the level of food security among the beneficiaries. In addition, other factors influencing the level of food security were non-farm business, irrigation system availability, asset ownership, access to market information and farmer association membership.
Conclusion: The study demonstrated how crucial the PSS is in enhancing the food security of the beneficiaries. Strengthening and tailoring this support can lead to more sustainable farming and resilient rural livelihoods.
Contribution: The results of the article will contribute new knowledge to the literature, extending to policy recommendations or improvements that could improve and enhance the excellent performance and prosperity of the LRP in South Africa.
Keywords: dietary diversity score; food security level; land restitution programme; smallholder farmers; post settlement support.
Introduction
According to the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 (1994), the land restitution programme (LRP), which is a component of the land reform programme, aimed to increase land accessibility to rural smallholder farmers whose ancestors had been forcefully evicted from that land during the apartheid era. This has occurred in various ways and involves land ownership and leases to advance food security, income distribution and equality and to encourage participation in the agricultural economy (Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development [DALRRD] 2019).
Food security is an extensive phrase, defined in a distinct way by various organisations and research nationwide. It is a combination of four fundamental elements, namely food availability, accessibility, stability and utilisation. Food security is defined as a situation where everyone always has physical and financial access to satisfactory, harmless and healthful food (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2001). Food security is broadly viewed either at the macro level, which involves governments and regional bodies as role players, or at the micro level, which involves households (Zhou et al. 2019). Food availability is a dimension that involves the ability to produce one’s own food, while the food accessibility dimension involves the ability to have cash to purchase food items (Alexandra 2010). According to Mayekiso, Belete and Hlongwane (2023), food security is the existence of the necessary conditions for everyone to have financial and physical access to food that is harmless and healthy, while it conforms to their cultural preferences so that they can maintain an active lifestyle and meet their nutritional demands. The fundamental definition of food security is applied in this study.
Attaining food security is the main concern for all households and the government of South Africa. Section 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) states that ‘Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water’. However, in general, the world has not made any progress towards ensuring that households have sufficient nutritious and safe food throughout (FAO 2021). Because of the war in Ukraine, disruption of the supply chain, climate change and an increase in prices because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the number of people encountering severe food insecurity rose to 345 million in 2022 from 135m in 2019 (Charles Kalikoski & Macnaughton 2019; World Bank Group 2022). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), as referenced by Akbar et al. (2023), the COVID-19 pandemic caused a global food crisis, which has exerted food security effects on many nations, particularly the poor and developing ones. Charles et al. (2019) reported that climate change jeopardises the chances of achieving global food security and ending poverty by disturbing the system of food production. Furthermore, the strain on existing food production systems has increased, endangering the food security of emerging countries, because of conflicts, economic instability, high inequality, population growth and the intensity of environmental and dangerous weather events such as floods, heavy rains, temperature fluctuations and droughts (FAO 2021). The challenge of food shortage, apart from the inadequate supply of food, is also the shortage of buying power at the national and household levels. Thus, more people are starving, with the majority living in developing countries.
Various transformative approaches were developed differently by countries to achieve their zero-hunger goal. The South African State formed LRP to uplift the agricultural sector to generate employment and production growth in order to advance food security, diminish poverty and inequality. Although numerous studies have focused on the land reform programme in general (e.g. Antwi & Chagwiza 2018; Gandidzanwa, Verschoor & Sacolo 2021; Hull, Babalola & Whittal 2019), not much research has been done on how the programme affects rural development, specifically with regard to job creation and food security (Ghalieb 2018). Additionally, several studies investigated the overall state of food security and the factors determining it (Awoke et al. 2022; Mantsho 2018; Sithole et al. 2023). However, the argument about whether the LRP improved food security for rural people in South Africa or not still exists. Keswell and Carter (2014) reported that the living standards dipped initially but improved later, while Ghalieb (2018) indicated that few studies on the impact of land transfer have been conducted. Therefore, it is still necessary to investigate the influence of the post-settlement support (PSS) on the food security level of rural smallholder farmers under the programme. This investigation is driven by inadequate information about the PSS’s impact on the food security level among the beneficiaries.
The aim of this article was to investigate the impact of PSS on the food security level of LRP beneficiaries. The null hypothesis of the study states that ‘the PSS does not influence household food security’. The study aimed to solve the controversies indicated in previous studies by analysing the food security level among the smallholder farmers who are the beneficiaries of land restitution in Limpopo province. The results of the study will add new knowledge to the existing studies, extending to policy recommendations or improvements that could improve and enhance the excellent performance and prosperity of the LRP in South Africa.
Food security level and its determining factors
Numerous studies were conducted to assess the level of food security in relation to agriculture in Limpopo province (Masekoameng & Maliwichi 2014; Masekoameng & Molotja 2019; Mvelase 2017; Nesamvuni 2014; Sithole et al. 2023). According to Masekoameng and Maliwichi (2014), in the Sekhukhune District of Limpopo province, the majority of rural people purchase food rather than produce their own. This implies that with or without access to land, rural people should have money to supplement their own food production. Masekoameng and Molotja (2019) supported the latter opinion, arguing that agriculture contributes less to household food security because food is produced from backyard gardens and is insufficient to feed an entire family. Rural households are unable and unwilling to use a small portion of their income to produce food because most of them survive on social grants, which are not adequate to carry out agricultural activities to feed their families (Mvelase 2017). It was discovered that half of the households are directly involved in agriculture. Most of them rear chickens, cattle, goats and sheep. The main problem faced is a lack of knowledge and skills to turn their production into commercial production and to improve the status of food availability at the household level (De Cock et al. 2013). Moreover, agricultural production from small-scale farmers alone is not always sufficient to ensure food availability for all (Mvelase 2017). Almost all the households in the Vhembe district own land for food production, but the people continue to access non-nutritious food, which shows that the content of the food consumed was not only low fat, but it was mainly starch and lacked variety. The land was not used to its supreme potential because of the lack of agricultural knowledge; hence, food production did not contribute to household food security. The majority of households relied more on social grants to purchase food, but the grant alone is considered inadequate to meet the entire household’s dietary needs (Nesamvuni 2014). South Africa and other developing countries continue to experience increments of household food insecurity and although they are approved to be food secure nationally because of their ability to produce staple foods, export surpluses and import essential components in order to meet national food needs (Mantsho 2018).
Numerous studies have been conducted nationally and internationally to assess the determinants of household food security (Awoke et al. 2022; Mantsho 2018; Mayekiso et al. 2023; Sithole et al. 2023; Tambe et al. 2023). According to Tambe et al. (2023), women-headed households in Limpopo province are more food insecure than men-headed households because the majority are unemployed, some earn less income than men and some stay with large families. A larger family means more people to feed. It is directly related to a higher demand for food. Sithole et al. (2023) reported that household size positively influences food insecurity because households with large families require adequate resources and money to feed the family. A large family without the utilisation of available modern technology faces high chances of food insecurity (Yehuala, Melak & Mekuria 2018). On the other side, households with a larger family face a higher chance of being food secure because family members can share responsibilities such as agricultural activities and their ability to contribute money for household necessities. Moreover, they can produce more for the market as well as for household consumption (Zondi et al. 2022).
Because of their many years of farming experience, the household head’s age positively influences the food security status because old age is associated with an increase in agricultural productivity. The older the farmer, the more farming experience he or she acquires; hence, their output is greater, which will result in family food availability (Awoke et al. 2022). However, some literature argues that old people may face a decrease in productivity and efficiency, resulting in less food for family consumption (Sani & Kemaw 2019). The education variable is directly related to food security. This is regarded as a vital factor in assisting farmers to acquire access to information about marketing and production related to their agricultural practices. Through education, farmers can adapt new technologies and improve their production, which will result in surpluses and food for families (Bahiru, Senapathy & Bojago 2023; Fikire & Zegeye 2022; Rudolph, Muchesa & Sibanda 2024). A household without enough income relies on agricultural land for food production. Households with enough land for production are more likely to be food secure (Bahiru et al. 2023). On the contrary, Awoke et al. (2022) indicated that land size negatively influences household food security because the majority of farmers are unable to modernise or rather use their land for food production because of a shortage of resources.
Other literature revealed that access to extension services, land size, livestock and off-farm income are the major factors that positively influence food security at the household level (Awoke et al. 2022; Yehuala et al. 2018).
Research methods and design
Study design
The study adopted a cross-sectional design to assess the food security level and its determining factors among the smallholder farmers under the LRP in Limpopo province. The cross-sectional design was a perfect fit for this study because the selection of participants was based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (Setia 2016). The researchers selected participants only from among those who were under the LRP. This involved farmers who had their land restored under the programme according to the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 22 of 1994.
Study area, sampling procedure and data collection
The study took place in Limpopo province (Figure 1). The study area is characterised by many rural households engaged in farming activities. Limpopo province produces 285 000 tons of potatoes as well as the following percentages of the national production: papaya, 65%; avocados, 60%; mangoes, 75%; papayas, 65%; tea, 36% and citrus, 25% (Limpopo Provincial Government 2022). Many rural areas in Limpopo province are designated for cattle and game ranching. The list of smallholder farmers covered by the LRP in the province’s three districts (Sekhukhune, Capricorn and Waterberg districts) was provided by the DALRRD. Then, 200 beneficiaries of LRP who are smallholder farmers were selected using stratified and simple random sampling methods.
 |
FIGURE 1: Map of Limpopo province and its districts. |
|
The Capricorn district had 23 Communal Property associations (CPAs) with about 9053 members, the Waterberg district had 41 CPAs with about 9418 members and the Sekhukhune district had 31 CPAs with about 5093 members. Using stratified sampling, two groups of CPAs in the Capricorn district and one group of CPA in Waterberg and Sekhukhune districts were selected. From each group, 50 smallholder farmers were randomly selected, making a total of 200 respondents. The initial calculated sample size was 393; however, only 200 were chosen because of COVID-19 restrictions and the limited budget. The initial sample was calculated using the Yamane (1967) formula because the population was known. The formula is expressed as Equation 1:
Where n is the sample size, N is the population size and e is the acceptable margin of error (Equation 2):
The data were garnered by employing a pre-tested structured questionnaire administered between January 2021 and January 2022. The qualified and experienced enumerators, who could speak the regional Sepedi language, conducted the survey. Every enumerator received Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they observed the required 1.5 m social distancing. The questionnaire captured information pertaining to demographic characteristics, farmers’ characteristics and institutional factors.
Conceptual framework
The study utilised the food security conceptual framework (Figure 2) to analyse the significant contribution of the PSS towards the food security level while assessing the drivers of food security of the smallholder farmers under the LRP. Thus, PSS received was considered in the study (1 if the farmer received PSS; 0 otherwise) but was not limited to funding, machinery and implements, training, seeds and feeds and livestock. The framework displays the linkage between the LRP, PSS, various factors (demographic characteristics, institutional factors and farmer characteristics) and food security levels among the farmers.
 |
FIGURE 2: Food security conceptual framework for the study. |
|
The framework is based on the definition of food security, which occurs where everyone always has physical and financial access to satisfactory, harmless and healthful food (FAO 2001). This method has been accepted by numerous studies (Bahiru et al. 2023; Woleba et al. 2023). Food security consists of four pillars. The quantity of food that is available to the household (extent of production, distribution and exchange) is referred to as food availability. Food stability is the capacity to acquire food over an extended period, and food utilisation refers to the nutritional benefits utilised by the body from the food. Food access refers to the affordability, allocation and preferences of food (Disabled World 2022). The study used the Dietary Diversity Assessment (DDA) to create a food security proxy. This proxy has been used by several studies to assess household food security (Awoke et al. 2022; Gassara et al. 2023; Sithole et al. 2023; Yohannes et al. 2023).
The DDA concentrates on the quantity of food consumed by households. Achieving DDA is calculated by adding the quantity of foods taken by households across a preferred time, during the past 24 h (FAO 2010; Gassara et al. 2023). Dietary diversity serves as a proxy indicator for food access at the household level and a perception of diet quality on an individual basis (International Food Policy Research Institute 2003; Nandi, Nedumaran & Ravula 2021). The study evaluated the dietary diversity of the smallholder farmers using a scale of 14 food groups. Each food group received 1 point if eaten or taken based on 1 day preceding the interview, resulting in a maximum total of 14 points of the Dietary Diversity Score (DDS) if all the food groups were eaten or taken (Gassara et al. 2023). Values 0–4 points meant low DDS, while 5–8 points indicated medium DDS and 9–14 points meant a high DDS. The ordered logistic regression (OLR) model used the DDSs as dependent variables to estimate the factors determining the food security levels among the smallholder farmers.
Ordered logistic regression
The study adopted OLR to overcome the weakness of binary and linear models utilised by the preceding studies (Abdullah et al. 2019; Awoke et al. 2022; Mayekiso et al. 2023). The OLR was utilised to model the connection between the food security level and the explanatory variables, as the dependent variable (DDS) is an ordinal factor classified as 1 = low food security level, 2 = medium level and 3 = high level. The dependent variable allows the use of OLR rather than a binary or linear model where the dependent variable is (1 = food secure; 0 = food insecure) or continuous, uncategorised DDS. The methodological challenges presented by binary or linear models are that they omit very important information about food (in)security in the households (Kolog, Asem & Mensah-Bonsu 2023). Hence, OLR was used to reveal more information about the food security level of smallholder farmers under LRP.
The OLR model is described by Mphekgwana (2022). Let C signify the dependent variable with v classifications. Equation (2) classifies the odds ratio for less than or equal to the exact v classifications (Equation 3):
Considering the ordered logit function (Equation 4):
The OLR is defined as follows (Equation 5):
where Φ is the OLR slope, φ is the OLR coefficient, i is the independent variable and v is the post-settlement support. Thus, φ is expected to be the same for all the independent variables. Table 1 presents the variables used in the study.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Tshwane University of Technology Faculty Committee for Research Ethics and Science (reference no: FCRE 2020/10/012 [FCPS 02] [SCI]) on 12 November 2020, in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. Each participant signed a consent form granting permission to participate.
Results
Descriptive results of the smallholder farmers in the study
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the sampled beneficiaries under the LRP. The results show that, on average, smallholder farmers under the LRP were 47 years old, and 58% of them were male with a high school level of education (56%). The consumption expenditure per capita was R387.00 per month. The farmers typically own on average two hectares of land, and 98% of them indicated that they owned various farm assets, including irrigation systems (IRRIG) (41%). Most of the smallholder farmers received PSS (70.5%) and very few had access to market information (21%) and credit (36%), while a few were members of farmer associations (25%).
| TABLE 2: Descriptive results of the sampled smallholder farmers. |
Household dietary diversity score of smallholder farmers in the study
Table 3 portrays the DDS of the beneficiaries. The result revealed that 71% of the smallholder farmers had a higher DDS, which implies that they were food secure, 25% had a medium DDS and were reasonably food secure, while a few (5%) were found to be food insecure. This implies that the LRP positively impacted the food security status of the beneficiaries.
| TABLE 3: Household dietary diversity assessment. |
Determinants of food security level among smallholder farmers under the land restitution programme
The results of the OLR analysis of the food security determinants are shown in Table 4. The mean Variance Inflation factor (VIF) (mean = 1.76) was estimated to discover the multicollinearity problem, and there was no problem detected among the variables. The marginal effects of the three models are investigated because the coefficient values rarely show the magnitude of the explanatory variables’ impact. The interpretation of the results is focused on the sign of the dependent variable of the study. A negative marginal effect of any food security group would mean that an additional unit of that variable would decrease the chances of falling under that group, while a positive marginal effect implies that an additional unit of that variable would increase the chances of falling under that category.
| TABLE 4: Determinants of food security among the smallholder farmers. |
The results showed that smallholder farmers owning non-farm businesses (NFBIZ), Irrigation (IRRIG) and farm assets (ASSET) had a lower chance of falling under the low to medium food security categories and were more likely to fall within the high group. Moreover, the findings showed that market information accessibility (MARKINFO) decreased the chances of the farmers falling within the low to medium group and increased the likelihood of falling within the high food security category. Similarly, there is a lower chance of the farmer association members (ASSOC) falling in the low to medium food security category and a greater chance of falling within the high category. The level of food security was positively influenced by PSS among the smallholder farmers under the LRP. The smallholder farmers who received support after land restoration were less likely to fall in the low to medium category and had a higher chance of falling within the high food security category.
Discussion
This study investigated the impact of PSS on food security. The results show that most of the beneficiaries are food secure, meaning that they can afford healthy and nutritious food. Similarly, Mantsho (2018) reported that most of the households under the LRP in the Waterberg District were food secure. Moreover, Netshipale et al. (2020) reported an optimistic correlation between land reform and farm livelihood contribution.
The study adopted the DDS as the food security proxy. Even though it is useful in assessing food security, it has some limitations. Dietary diversity Assessment shows the different foods consumed by households, not the amount of food consumed and the nutritional value. Therefore, the high DDS does not imply that a household consumed an adequate nutritional diet (Ngome et al. 2019). Additionally, DDS does not take into consideration the dietary diversity within households; thus, a high DDS does not imply an improved household food security (Manikas, Ali & Sundarakani 2023). The OLR was used to estimate the factors influencing household food security. The results indicated that being involved in NFBIZ increases the probability of being food secure by 23% level. This finding is expected because having various income sources would allow the rural households to improve their purchasing power and their ability to afford a variety of foods. These households would have sufficient resources to enable them to diversify their diets and increase the amount of nutrition they consume each day. Furthermore, income diversification is crucial for rural households because many smallholder farmers are incapable of growing their own food, and they view off-farm income as a replacement for the primary farming income to increase their purchasing power (Mantsho 2018). Additionally, agricultural commodities take time to be harvested, and they may not perform as expected because of unforeseen risks and uncertainties faced by this sector. Hence, participating in other non-farm activities is vital to constantly improve household food availability. This finding concurs with the discoveries of Djangmah (2016), Mulugeta, Tiruneh and Alemu (2018) and Awoke et al. (2022).
Smallholder farmers who own IRRIG had 39% higher odds of being food secure than their counterparts. The objective of an irrigation system is to enhance the growth of agricultural crops and vegetables. It supplies moisture and transports essential nutrients required by the plants to produce food for the human body. Moreover, IRRIG enhance sustainable agricultural production, resulting in sustainable food availability for households and sales. Variable assets ownership (ASSET) positively influenced the food security level, suggesting that households that own farm assets such as transport for agricultural product distribution or machinery and implements had 73% opportunities to be food secure. The findings are logical because owning various farm assets will grant the farmers an opportunity to reduce some of the production and marketing costs, such as costs pertaining to transportation, hiring machinery and implements. Thus, farmers would receive satisfactory returns from their sales, and they would have sufficient money to purchase food. The findings of Umar et al. (2017) support the notion that high transportation costs could possibly cause households to become food insecure; hence, households would be food secure if their costs were minimised.
Having access to market-related information (MARKINFO) increases the odds of being food secure by 24%. This result was expected because having market-related information, such as product demand and supply in the markets, market prices, sellers, buyers and market requirements, would allow farmers to identify which products to plant, when to plant them, how much to plant and where to sell them. Hence, they would receive sufficient income from their produce, improve their food purchasing power and diversify their diet. Being a member of a farmers’ association (ASSOC) increases the odds of being food secure by 19%. This might be because farmer groups are a platform to share ideas, agricultural information, build networks and gain exposure to new technologies and agricultural-related training. Several studies (Abdul-Rahaman & Abdulai 2020; Camara 2017; Wale, Unity & Nolwazi 2021) have shown the significant role that farmers’ associations play in the livelihood of the farmers. Lastly, smallholder farmers who received PSS had 31% higher odds of being food secure. According to the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2011), the objective of PSS was to enhance better land usage while improving the livelihood of the farmers. Through such types of support, smallholder farmers would have more opportunities to improve their production, profitability, agricultural-related knowledge and skills. The support further allows them to become more competitive and market oriented, while it would also assist them in developing a business mindset. As a result, the farmers would produce enough for the markets and household consumption. Furthermore, improved income distribution at the household level would thus increase household food purchasing power.
Although it was anticipated that variables including age, gender, education level, consumption expenditure per capita and credit availability would have a major influence on household food security, this was not the case in the current study. The possible explanations could be that the proxy DDS used to measure food security does not fully capture the real scenario of food access and availability at the household level. Another reason could be that the association between these variables and household food security is not linear. The study by Tambe et al. (2023) reported an indirect correlation between gender and food security. The assumption made by the study was that women usually earn less than men; hence, they experience food insecurity. Awoke et al. (2022) revealed the positive relationship between food security and age, while Sani and Kemaw (2019) reported the negative relationship between age and food security. It was assumed that because the elderly people are less productive and efficient than young people, the likelihood of food insecurity increases with the age of the family head. Rudolph et al. (2024) and Bahiru et al. (2023) reported the direct correlation between education level and household food security. Salima et al. (2023) indicated the positive correlation concerning access to formal credit and the negative correlation between informal credit accessibility and food security.
Conclusion and policy implications
The purpose of this article was to investigate the impact of PSS on the food security level. The null hypothesis in this study is rejected because PSS positively influenced food security levels. It was found that the food security level was determined by farmer characteristics and institutional factors but not demographic factors. The farm characteristics that influence the level of food security were found to be IRRIG and asset ownership, while institutional factors affecting food security level were NFBIZ, market information, PSS and farmer associations.
This conclusion calls for the revisiting of the policies of the LRP by the state, proper implementation and management of PSS, as well as individual allocation of land to the restitution beneficiaries to safeguard the continuous food security of the beneficiaries. Furthermore, the study recommends household income diversification as a key weapon towards food security. The study also recommends that smallholder farmers in rural areas be taught and encouraged to join farmer associations so that they can learn how to improve their farming practices to benefit from them.
The limitation of the study is that the primary data used were collected from three districts of the Limpopo province. This indicates that the data are not nationally representative. Moreover, the study used one food security proxy, which may not represent all four pillars of food security. Therefore, it is suggested that the same studies be carried out in other provinces to provide national evidence and adopt more than one food security proxy to cover all pillars.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the Limpopo DALRRD for their support of this project. They also appreciate the Tshwane University of Technology and NRF for the scholarships and financial assistance. This article is partially based on the author’s thesis titled ’Factors influencing farm entrepreneurship, household welfare food security level and market participation of the emerging farmers under the Land Restitution Programme in Limpopo Province, South Africa’ submitted for the PhD in Agricultural Economics and Extension in the Department of Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa, on October 25, 2023, under the supervision of Abenet Belete and Grany Mmatsatsi Senyolo.
Competing interests
The authors reported receiving funding from the University of Technology and the National Research Foundation, which may be influenced by the research presented in the enclosed publication. The author has fully disclosed these interests and has implemented an approved plan to manage any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
Authors’ contributions
L.M.M. contributed to data collection. L.M.M. also contributed to data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript writing, G.M.S and A.B contributed to manuscript review. G.M.S. and A.B. have each read the document and given their consent for publication.
Funding information
This research was funded by the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) Research and Innovation (R&I) Department for 1 year in 2020 and by the National Research Foundation (NRF) for 2 years from 2021 to 2022, under grant number 129999. The article processing charge (APC) was also funded by the TUT R&I Department.
Data availability
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author, L.M.M.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Abdullah, D.Z., Zhou, D., Shah, T., Ali, S., Ahmad, W., Din, I.U. et al., 2019, ‘Factors affecting household food security in rural northern hinterland of Pakistan’, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.003
Abdul-Rahaman, A. & Abdulai, A., 2020, ‘Social networks, rice value chain participation and market performance of smallholder farmers in Ghana’, African Development Review 32(2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8268.12429
Akbar, A., Darma, R., Fahmid, I.M. & Irawan, A., 2023, ‘Determinants of household food security during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia’, Sustainability 15(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054131
Alexandra, E., 2010, ‘Solving the food security crisis in South Africa: How food gardens can alleviate hunger amongst the poor’, MSc dissertation, University of Witwatersrand.
Antwi, M. & Chagwiza, C., 2019, ‘Factors influencing savings among land reform beneficiaries in South Africa’, International Journal of Social Economics 46(4), 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-06-2018-0309
Awoke, W., Eniyew, K., Agitew, G. & Mesere, B., 2022, ‘Determinants of food security status of household in central and north Gondar zone, Ethiopia’, Cogent Social Sciences 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2040138
Bahiru, A., Senapathy, M. & Bojago, E., 2023, ‘Status of household food security, its determinants, and coping strategies in the Humbo district, Southern Ethiopia’, Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100461
Cai, X., Magidi, J., Nhamo, L. & Van Koppen, B., 2017, Mapping irrigated areas in the Limpopo Province, South Africa, p. 37, (IWMI Working Paper 172), International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo.
Camara, A., 2017, ‘An analysis of welfare effect of market participation of smallholder farm households in Guinea’, Economic Research Guardian 7(1), 2–23.
Charles, A., Kalikoski, D. & Macnaughton, A., 2019, Addressing the climate change and poverty nexus: A coordinated approach in the context of the 2030 agenda and the Paris agreement, FAO, Rome, viewed 03 August 2023, from https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca6968en.
De Cock, N., D’Haese, M., Vink, N., Van Rooyen, C.J., Staelens, L., Schönfeldt, H.C. et al., 2013, ‘Food security in rural areas of Limpopo Province, South Africa’, Food Security 5, 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-013-0247-y
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), 2011, South African agricultural production strategy, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), Pretoria.
Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), 2019, Communal property association: Annual report 2018/19, DALRRD, Pretoria.
Disabled World, 2022, Food security: Definition and general information, Disabled World, viewed 03 August 2023, from https://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/nutrition/foodsecurity/.
Djangmah, G.M., 2016, ‘Comparative analysis of food security level of farming households in eastern and northern regions of Ghana’, MSc dissertation, McGill University.
Fikire, A.H. & Zegeye, M.B., 2022, ‘Determinants of rural household food security status in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia’, Scientific World Journal 12, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9561063
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001, The United Nations World food summit organised by the food and agriculture organization held in Rome in 1996, FAO, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2010, Guidelines for measuring household and individual dietary diversity, Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, United Nations, Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Food Programme (WFP) and World Health Organisation (WHO), 2021, The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021, Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all, FAO, Rome.
Gandidzanwa, C., Verschoor, A.J. & Sacolo, T., 2021, ‘Evaluating factors affecting performance of land reform beneficiaries in South Africa’, Sustainability 13(16), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169325
Gassara, G., Lin, Q., Deng, J., Zhang, Y., Wei, J. & Chen, J., 2023, ‘Dietary diversity, household food insecurity and stunting among children aged 12 to 59 months in N’Djamena—Chad’, Nutrients 15(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030573
Ghalieb, D., 2018, National land reform programme and rural development: Chapter 3. 2017/18 submission for the division of revenue, Parliamentary Monitoring Group, Pretoria.
Hull, S., Babalola, K. & Whittal, J., 2019, ‘Theories of land reform and their impact on land reform success in southern Africa’, Land 8(11), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8110172
International Food Policy Research Institute, 2003, IFPRI’s strategy: Toward food and nutrition security, food policy research, capacity strengthening and policy communication, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Keswell, M. & Carter, M.R., 2014, ‘Poverty and land redistribution’, Journal of Development Economics 110, 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.10.003
Kolog, J.D., Asem, F.E. & Mensah-Bonsu, A., 2023, ‘The state of food security and its determinants in Ghana: An ordered probit analysis of the household hunger scale and household food insecurity access scale’, Scientific African 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01579
Limpopo Provincial Government, 2022, About Limpopo: Provincial economy and investment, viewed 02 September 2022, from http://www.limpopo.gov.za/?page_id=3396.
Manikas, I., Ali, B.M. & Sundarakani, B., 2023, ‘A systematic literature review of indicators measuring food security’, Agriculture & Food Security 12(10), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00415-7
Mantsho, S.M., 2018, ‘Effect of land restitution programme on households’ food security in Limpopo province of South Africa’, MSc dissertation, University of Limpopo.
Masekoameng, M. & Maliwichi, L.L., 2014, ‘Determinants of food accessibility of the rural households in Sekhukhune district Limpopo Province, South Africa’, Journal of Human Ecology 47(3), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2014.11906762
Masekoameng, R.M. & Molotja, M.C., 2019, ‘The role of indigenous foods and indigenous knowledge systems for rural households’ food security in Sekhukhune district, Limpopo Province, South Africa’, Journal of Consumer Sciences 4, 1–15.
Mayekiso, A., Belete, A. & Hlongwane, J., 2023, ‘Analysing contribution and determinants of indigenous leafy vegetables (ILVs) to household income of rural households in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa’, Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 67(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.17306/J.JARD.2023.01473
Mphekgwana, P.M., 2022, ‘Influence of environmental factors on injury severity using ordered logit regression model in Limpopo Province, South Africa’, Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2022, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5040435
Mulugeta, M., Tiruneh, G. & Alemu, Z.A., 2018, ‘The magnitude and associated factors of household food insecurity in Fedis Woreda East Hararghe Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia’, Agriculture and Food Security 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0140-6
Mvelase, L.P.S., 2017, ‘Assessment of the contribution of smallholder agriculture to rural household food security in Sekhukhune District, Limpopo Province’, MSc dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Nandi, R., Nedumaran, S. & Ravula, P., 2021, ‘The interplay between food market access and farm household dietary diversity in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of literature’, Global Food Security 28, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100484
Nesamvuni, C.N., 2014, ‘Food safety indicators in household food security in the rural Vhembe district, Limpopo Province, South Africa’, PhD thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Netshipale, A.J., Oosting, S.J., Mashiloane, M.L., Van Reenen, C.G., De Boer, I.J.M. & Raidimi, E.N., 2020, ‘Agriculture in land reform farms: Impact on livelihoods of beneficiaries in the Waterberg district, South Africa’, Land Use Policy 97(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104710
Ngome, P.I.T., Shackleton, C., Degrande, A., Nossi, E.J. & Ngome, F., 2019, ‘Assessing household food insecurity experience in the context of deforestation in Cameroon’, Food Policy 84(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.02.003
Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, Government gazette of Republic of South Africa, Government Gazette.
Rudolph, M., Muchesa, E. & Sibanda, C., 2024, ‘The influence of education on women and food security’, South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 52(2), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2024/v52n2a15734
Salima, W., Manja, L.P., Chiwaula, L.S. & Chirwa, G.C., 2023, ‘The impact of credit access on household food security in Malawi’, Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100490
Sani, S. & Kemaw, B., 2019, ‘Analysis of household food insecurity and its coping mechanisms in Western Ethiopia’, Agricultural and Food Economics 7(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0124-x
Setia, M.S., 2016, ‘Methodology series module 3: Cross-sectional studies’, Indian Journal of Dermatology 61(3), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
Sithole, Z., Siwela, M., Ojo, T.O., Hlatshwayo, S.I., Kajombo, R.J. & Ngidi, M.S.C., 2023, ‘Contribution of fruits and vegetables to the household food security situation of rural households in Limpopo’, Nutrients 15(11), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15112539
Tambe, B.A., Mabapa, N.S., Mbhatsani, H.V., Mandiwana, T.C., Mushaphi, L.F., Mohlala, M. et al., 2023, ‘Household socio-economic determinants of food security in Limpopo Province of South Africa: A cross-sectional survey’, Agriculture & Food Security 12(19), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00424-6
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Section 27, 1996, As adopted on 8 May and amended on 11 October 1996 by the Constitutional Assembly.
Umar, I.M., Liu, Y., Muhammad, K.B., Muhammad, A. & Farhad, Z., 2017, ‘Level and determinants of small farming households’ food security and role of market access in enhancing food security in rural Pakistan’, PLoS One 12(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185466
Wale, Z.E., Unity, C. & Nolwazi, H., 2021, ‘Towards identifying enablers and inhibitors to on-farm entrepreneurship: Evidence from smallholders in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’, Heliyon 7(1), e05660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05660
Woleba, G., Tadiwos, T., Bojago, E. & Senapathy, M., 2023, ‘Household food security, determinants and coping strategies among small-scale farmers in Kedida Gamela district, Southern Ethiopia’, Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 12, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100597
World Bank Group, 2022, What you need to know about food security and climate change, viewed 20 June 2025, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/10/17/what-you-need-to-know-about-food-security-and-climate-change.
Yamane, T., 1967, Statistics: An introductory analysis, 2nd edn., Harper and Row, New York.
Yehuala, S., Melak, D. & Mekuria, W., 2018, ‘The status of household food insecurity: The case of West Belesa, North Gondar, Amhara region, Ethiopia’, International Journal of Scientific Research and Management 6(6), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i6.ah02
Yohannes, G., Wolka, E., Bati, T. & Yohannes, T., 2023, ‘Household food insecurity and coping strategies among rural households in Kedida Gamela district, Kembata-Tembaro zone, southern Ethiopia: Mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design’, BMC Nutrition 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40795-022-00663-z
Zhou, D., Shah, T., Ali, S., Ahmad, W., Din, I.U. & Ilyas, A., 2019, ‘Factors affecting household food security in rural northern hinterland of Pakistan’, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 18(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.003
Zondi, N.T.B., Ngidi, M.S.C., Ojo, T.O. & Hlatshwayo, S.I., 2022, ‘Impact of market participation of indigenous crops on household food security of smallholder farmers of South Africa’, Sustainability 14(22), 15194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
