CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Family Business Performance and SuccessionAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchAgricultural Innovations and Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Which variables influence the succession process in family farms? A literature review

Open access
Rodriguez-Lizano, Víctor, Montero-Vega, Mercedes, Sibelet, Nicole·2020·Cahiers Agricultures
DOI 10.1051/cagri/2020040
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The decrease in family farm succession is a problem in many countries worldwide. However, no systematic compilation of relevant studies exists. The method of analysis described in this article enabled us to obtain descriptive statistical results such as: most-studied variables, least-studied variables, patterns in the effects of the variables on succession, new types of variables analyzed, and principal approaches of the qualitative studies. We conducted a literature search in four databases, which resulted in 59 papers relevant to the topic. Twenty-nine of them are quantitative and 30 are qualitative. The literature search in peer-reviewed journals in English resulted primarily in articles from developed countries. Due to this, the selection, analysis and results turned out to be focused on Global North countries. Likewise, the studies considered are focused mainly on the opinion of the principal farmer and disregard that of other family members. From the quantitative studies, we analyzed five groups of variables (farmer, farm, family, context and psychological variables). The farmer variables are the most studied and the context and psychological variables are the least studied. We identified four axes around which the qualitative studies focused: socioeconomic factors, communication between father and heir about the process of succession, integration in decision-making and trust in the heir, and training the successor. Adding new countries ( e.g. from Sub-Saharan Africa) and generating new models including psychological, context, and qualitative variables could lead to new ways of understanding such a complex issue.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1051/cagri/2020040

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Aldanondo Ochoa, 2007, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 5, 214, 10.5424/sjar/2007052-241 · DOI
  2. Arowolo, 2017, Journal of Agricultural Extension, 21, 80, 10.4314/jae.v21i1.7 · DOI
  3. Berdegué J, Fuentealba R. 2011. Latin America: The state of smallholders in agriculture. In: IFAD Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture. Presented at the IFAD Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture, IFAD, Rome.
  4. Bertoni D, Cavicchioli D. 2016. Process description, qualitative analysis and causal relationships in farm succession. CAB Reviews − Perspectives in Agriculture Veterinary Science Nutrition and Natural Resources: 1–11. DOI: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201611043. · DOI
  5. Brandth, 2019, Agriculture and Human Values, 36, 49, 10.1007/s10460-018-9887-z · DOI
  6. Brandth, 2013, Sociologia Ruralis, 53, 95, 10.1111/soru.12003 · DOI
  7. Carolan, 2018, Land Use Policy, 79, 179, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.011 · DOI
  8. Cassidy, 2019, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 40, 238, 10.1080/02255189.2018.1517643 · DOI
  9. Cassidy, 2014, Sociologia Ruralis, 54, 399, 10.1111/soru.12054 · DOI
  10. Cavicchioli, 2019, Agricultural and Food Economics, 7, 10, 10.1186/s40100-019-0129-5 · DOI
  11. Cavicchioli, 2018, Journal of Rural Studies, 61, 73, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.06.002 · DOI
  12. Cavicchioli, 2015, Mountain Research and Development, 35, 152, 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-14-00107.1 · DOI
  13. Chiswell, 2018, Rural Sociology, 83, 630, 10.1111/ruso.12205 · DOI
  14. Conway, 2017, Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 60, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.007 · DOI
  15. Corsi, 2009, Rivista di Economia Agraria, 64, 13
  16. Creighton, 2016, Small-Scale Forestry, 15, 1, 10.1007/s11842-015-9301-2 · DOI
  17. Downey, 2016, Journal of Aging Studies, 38, 57, 10.1016/j.jaging.2016.04.007 · DOI
  18. Errington, 1998, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 5, 123, 10.1080/13892249885300241 · DOI
  19. Eurostat. 2016. Farm structure survey. [2019/11/09]. europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STAT-18-4298_en.htm.
  20. Fink A. 2010. Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper, 3era ed. Los Angeles, USA: SAGE.
  21. Firman, 2018, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 10, 176
  22. Fischer, 2014, Sociologia Ruralis, 54, 417, 10.1111/soru.12055 · DOI
  23. Glauben, 2009, Applied Economics, 41, 45, 10.1080/00036840601131722 · DOI
  24. Glauben, 2004, Review of Economics of the Household, 2, 443, 10.1007/s11150-004-5656-4 · DOI
  25. Graeub, 2016, World Development, 87, 1, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.012 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Grubbström, 2012, Journal of Historical Geography, 38, 329, 10.1016/j.jhg.2012.03.001 · DOI
  27. Hautaniemi, 2006, Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 844, 181
  28. Hennessy, 2007, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, 61, 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00078.x · DOI
  29. Ingram, 2011, Land Use Policy, 28, 917, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.04.001 · DOI
  30. Inwood, 2012, Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 107, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.07.005 · DOI
  31. Joosse, 2017, Journal of Rural Studies, 50, 198, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.018 · DOI
  32. Kazakopoulos, 2003, Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 397, 10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00022-6 · DOI
  33. Kerbler, 2008, Acta Geographica Slovenica, 48, 277, 10.3986/AGS48203 · DOI
  34. Kerbler, 2012, Agricultural Economics, 58, 285
  35. Kimhi, 2001, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52, 42, 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2001.tb00924.x · DOI
  36. Glover, 2014, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 6, 276, 10.1108/IJGE-01-2012-0006 · DOI
  37. Lequieu, 2015, Rural Sociology, 80, 39, 10.1111/ruso.12046 · DOI
  38. Lobley, 2010, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1, 49, 10.5304/jafscd.2010.011.009 · DOI
  39. Mann, 2007, Agriculture and Human Values, 24, 435, 10.1007/s10460-007-9087-8 · DOI
  40. Mann, 2007, Sociologia Ruralis, 47, 369, 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00442.x · DOI
  41. May, 2019, Land Use Policy, 82, 317, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.019 · DOI
  42. Mishra AK, El-Osta H. 2007. Factors affecting succession decisions in family farm businesses: evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers: 1–10. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.190674. · DOI
  43. Mishra, 2008, Review of Economics of the Household, 6, 285, 10.1007/s11150-008-9032-7 · DOI
  44. Mishra AK, El-Osta H. 2010. Succession decisions in U.S. family farm businesses. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 35. DOI: 10.2307/23243041. · DOI
  45. Morais, 2017, Land Use Policy, 68, 48, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.024 · DOI
  46. Morais, 2018, Land Use Policy, 71, 445, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.002 · DOI
  47. Nuthall, 2017, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 23, 39, 10.1080/1389224X.2016.1200992 · DOI
  48. O’Callaghan, 2017, Aging & Society, 37, 441, 10.1017/S0144686X1500118X · DOI
  49. Otomo, 2009, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie, 18, 79
  50. Pitts, 2009, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 59, 10.1080/00909880802592631 · DOI
  51. Rayasawath, 2018, Agriculture, 8, 109, 10.3390/agriculture8070109 · DOI
  52. Santhanam-Martin, 2019, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 40, 254, 10.1080/02255189.2018.1517302 · DOI
  53. Stiglbauer, 2000, Cahiers d’Economie et de Sociologie Rurales, 54, 5, 10.3406/reae.2000.1632 · DOI
  54. Suess-Reyes, 2016, Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 117, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.07.008 · DOI
  55. Tetteh, 2019, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 22, 429, 10.22434/IFAMR2018.0002 · DOI
  56. Tsutsumi, 2001, International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 10, 69, 10.1111/1475-6781.00008 · DOI
  57. Uchiyama, 2008, The Japanese Journal of Rural Economics, 10, 33, 10.18480/jjre.10.33 · DOI
  58. Wheeler, 2012, Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 266, 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.04.001 · DOI
  59. Zou, 2018, Land Use Policy, 77, 437, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.001 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 25

Metadata

Authors
Rodriguez-Lizano, V., Montero-Vega, M., & Sibelet, N.
Affiliations
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Cahiers Agricultures
Publisher
EDP Sciences
Published
2020
Volume
29
Pages
39
ISSN
  • 1166-7699 (ISSN-L)
  • 1777-5949
DOI
10.1051/cagri/2020040
OpenAlex
W3116387023
Cited by
25
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cahiers Agricultures (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Investigative News in Education (Universidad de Costa Rica) (acceptedVersion)
  • Agritrop (Cirad) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Family Business Performance and Succession
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture and Rural Development Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
Keywords
family farm succession, farm succession, family decision-making, successor training, father-son communication, socioeconomic factors, psychological factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Which variables influence the succession process in family farms? A literature review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1051/cagri/2020040
The paper
Rodriguez-Lizano, V., Montero-Vega, M., & Sibelet, N. (2020). Which variables influence the succession process in family farms? A literature review. Cahiers Agricultures. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2020040