Socio-economic characterization of Portuguese kiwi growers: Facing current social and sustainability challenges 185Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.73.2.5 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 2024 (2) 185–201. Introduction The cultivation of Actinidia deliciosa, com- monly known as kiwifruit, has a rich his- tory dating back to the 12th century during the Song dynasty in China (Ward, C. and Courtney, D. 2013). Over time, this fruit spread from its native region to New Zea- land (Morton J.F. 2013), where it underwent commercial development, transforming into a significant agricultural commodity (Costa, G. et al. 1992; Bano, S. and Scrimgeour, F. 2012). The subsequent introduction of kiwi- fruit cultivation in Portugal during the 1970s marked a significant expansion of the indus- try (Antunes, M.D. et al. 2018), particularly in regions like Entre Douro e Minho and Beira Litoral (Moura, L. et al. 2015). However, despite its historical significance and growing importance, the Portuguese kiwifruit sector faces various challenges, particularly concerning sustainability and socio-economic factors. One of the most pressing issues is the decline in productivity due to the prevalence of Pseudomonas syrin- gae pv. actinidiae (Psa), which causes bacterial canker disease. This pathogen poses a signif- icant threat to both the viability of kiwifruit cultivation and the livelihoods of growers. While previous studies have shed light on aspects of kiwifruit production in Portugal (Cruz, L. et al. 2004; Antunes, M.D.C. et al. 2007; Antunes, M.D. 2008a; Antunes, M.D. et al. 2018; Castro, H. et al. 2021, 2022; Abreu, C.C. 2022), there remains a dearth of informa- tion regarding the socio-economic profiles of 1 Department of Social Sciences and Management, Universidade Aberta. Rua do Amial 752, 4200-055 Porto, Portugal. 2 Centre for Functional Ecology – Science for People & the Planet (CFE), TERRA Associate Laboratory, De- partment of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal. Corresponding author’s e-mail: diogoguedesvidal@hotmail.com Socio-economic characterization of Portuguese kiwi growers: Facing current social and sustainability challenges Fátima ALVES1,2, Diogo Guedes VIDAL1,2, João BICA2 and Paula CASTRO2 Abstract This paper reports a socio-economic characterization of the Portuguese kiwifruit sector. A survey was ap- plied between 2019 and 2020 to a sample of 94 kiwifruit farmers (males 76%, females 24%). 72 percent of the participants declare that kiwi cultivation is a complementary occupation characterized by an intergenerational pattern (25.6%). Almost 70 percent of the orchards are under 5 ha, and 26.8 percent declare that their company does not have a positive turnover. The labour force is mainly seasonal. Regarding the challenges, 21.1 percent struggle with disease control in their orchards and 19.0 percent have difficulty in finding workers. The findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of the socio-economic dynamics underpinning kiwifruit cultivation in Portugal, offering insights for policy interventions and sectoral development strategies. Keywords: kiwifruit growers, challenges, sustainability, socio-economic characterization, Portugal Received March 2023, accepted April 2024. Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.186 those involved in the industry. Understanding the challenges faced by kiwifruit growers is essential for devising strategies to enhance the sector’s resilience and sustainability. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by conducting a comprehensive socio-eco- nomic characterization of Portuguese ki- wifruit growers. Through a questionnaire survey, we seek to delve into the social and economic dynamics shaping kiwi produc- tion in Portugal, with a focus on the unique geographical, environmental, and social challenges encountered by growers. By ex- amining the interplay between geography, socio-economic factors, and sustainability challenges, this study not only contributes to the existing literature but also provides valuable insights for policymakers, stake- holders, and practitioners involved in the Portuguese kiwifruit industry. Rather than viewing geography as a deterministic factor, we employ relational thinking to unravel the complex web of influences, including natu- ral conditions, market relations, and policy frameworks, that mould kiwifruit cultivation practices and outcomes. Understanding the socioeconomic dynam- ics of the Portuguese kiwifruit industry ne- cessitates a multifaceted approach that tran- scends traditional disciplinary boundaries. At its heart, agricultural economics provides insights into the economic behaviour of kiwi- fruit growers, such as production decisions, input selection, and market interactions (Fuglie, K.O. 2012). The idea of farm size and its implications for economic performance, as demonstrated by the prevalence of small- scale kiwifruit farms in Portugal, is consis- tent with agricultural economics principles (Thirtle, C. et al. 2003). Furthermore, mar- ket structure and market power theories give light on the difficulties that producers con- front when negotiating appropriate prices for their produce in the face of volatile market conditions. Rural sociology complements the economic approach by providing useful insights into the social aspects of kiwifruit growing (Bebbington, A. 2000). The socio- graphic profile of Portuguese kiwifruit grow- ers, which is dominated by male, relatively young adults with high levels of education, mirrors broader demographic trends in ru- ral communities (Marsden, T. and Smith, E. 2005). Furthermore, familial involvement in kiwifruit growing demonstrates the intergen- erational transmission of agricultural knowl- edge and practices, emphasizing farming’s social embeddedness (Bebbington, A. 1999). Drawing on sociological theories of social capital and networks, kiwifruit growers’ strong associative linkages, as indicated by membership in industry associations, high- light the necessity of collective action and collaboration in tackling common challenges (Pretty, J. and Ward, H. 2001). In the context of sustainability research, the socioeconomic character of kiwifruit farming overlaps with broader environmental and societal concerns (Pretty, J. et al. 2005). In terms of sustainabili- ty, the emphasis on small-scale farming prac- tices and familial involvement in kiwifruit cultivation is consistent with agro-ecology and community-based natural resource man- agement ideas. Furthermore, the investiga- tion of problems connected to bureaucratic complexities and legal compliance highlights the necessity for institutional arrangements that enhance agricultural systems’ resilience and adaptive capacity (Lele, S. et al. 2013). In addition to these established disciplines, recent advances in geography provide unique analytical frameworks for understanding the intricacies of kiwifruit production. Notably, the burgeoning fields of food geographies and economic geography of food provide new lenses through which to examine the intricate webs of commodity chains, labour geographies, and food system complexities (Kneafsey, M. et al. 2021; Joassart-Marcelli, P. 2022; Moragues-Faus, A. et al. 2023). By diving into the spatial features of agricultur- al operations, these pioneering publications shed light on the geographical complexities of kiwifruit cultivation and distribution net- works. Furthermore, the emerging area of more-than-human geographies provides a paradigm-shifting viewpoint on the interac- tions between human agents, non-human ac- 187Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. tors, and the environment in kiwifruit agro- ecosystems (Hinchliffe, S. and Whatmore, S. 2006; Lorimer, J. 2015; Aldeia, J. 2023). These interdisciplinary investigations chal- lenge standard anthropocentric narratives by emphasising the agency of non-human species and highlighting their critical role in changing agricultural landscapes (Aldeia, J. 2022, 2024). Set against this background, this paper is organized as follows: first, we provide an overview of the historical signif- icance and global spread of kiwifruit culti- vation, followed by an exploration of inter- national and Portuguese trends in kiwifruit production. We then delve into the associa- tive patterns of Portuguese kiwifruit farmers. Subsequently, we detail the materials and methods employed in our study, outlining our research question, objectives, and meth- odology. Next, we present our findings and engage in a comprehensive discussion of the socio-economic profiles of Portuguese kiwi- fruit growers, drawing implications for the sector’s sustainability and viability. Finally, we conclude with reflections on the broader implications of our research and avenues for future inquiry. International and Portuguese trends of kiwifruit cultivation The presence of Actinidia is not recent, since it exists in Chinese historical records for cen- turies (Huang, H. and Ferguson, A.R. 2001; Ferguson, A.R. 2004; Franco, J. 2008; Mein- gassner, L. 2011), but it was until the begin- ning of the 20th century, mostly found in the wild. Although in the 19th century, speci- mens of this plant already existed in Europe, they were very few and only intended for botanical study, with Actinidia being botani- cally classified in 1845 (Ferguson, A.R. 2004). Nevertheless, the taxonomic distinction be- tween the two main species of Actinidia – A. deliciosa and A. chinensis – is much more re- cent, accomplished in 1984 (Ferguson, A.R. 2004). The development of an agricultural sector devoted to the cultivation and com- mercialization of kiwifruit followed from the arrival of this species in New Zealand in 1904 (Ferguson, A.R. 2004). It was in the 1920s in New Zealand that the “Hayward” cultivar (A. deliciosa) was the world’s most widely planted female variety, becoming predominant in almost all countries with sig- nificant crop size (Huang, H. and Ferguson, A.R. 2001; Ferguson, A.R. 2004; APK, 2007; Antunes, M.D. 2008b; Neves, N. 2008), in- cluding Portugal (APK, 2007; Antunes, M.D. et al. 2018). The international success of the New Zealand kiwifruit industry led compa- nies from other countries including Portugal to enter this emerging sector from the 1970s onwards, planting orchards of Actinidia de- liciosa and, though on a smaller scale, of A. chinensis, with increasing expansion (Huang, H. and Ferguson, A.R. 2001; Ferguson, A.R. 2004; APK, 2007; Franco, J. 2008; Antunes, M.D. et al. 2018). From the 1990s, a commer- cial success history began in most national and transnational markets dedicated to the domestic commercialization and export of Actinidia, with a significant increase of the planted area, the volume of production and the volume of capital generated. According to FAOSTAT (2020) between 1988 and 2018, the world production of kiwifruit increased more than seven times, from 554,175 to 4,022,650 tons, representing a positive vari- ation of ca. 200 percent (Table 1). Portugal also followed this international trend. The global kiwifruit industry is controlled by a few primary producing countries, with annual production levels shifting depend- ing on climate conditions, market demand, and agricultural policies. According to the most recent data available from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), China produces the most kiwifruit, accounting 2,380,304.47 tons in 2022 (FAO, 2024). Iran is close behind, with 294,571.01 tons in 2022. Portuguese kiwi- fruit producers face competition from both domestic and international suppliers, par- ticularly in key markets such as Portugal and Spain. Understanding the competitive land- scape is essential for Portuguese producers Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.188 to strategically position their products and maintain market share. In Portugal, native kiwifruit production competes with imports from other kiwifruit-producing countries, particularly during the off-season or when domestic supply is low. Countries such as Italy are important kiwifruit exporters to Portugal, providing customers with a variety of alternatives throughout the year. Italian kiwifruit, in particular, is well-known for its quality and frequently competes directly with Portuguese kiwifruit on the Portuguese mar- ket (Testolin, R. and Ferguson, A.R. 2009). Portugal and Spain consume 95 percent of Portuguese kiwifruit production, which can be linked to historical preferences, market dynamics, and supply chain ties (Gallego, P.P. 2018). The dominance of Portuguese con- sumption in Portuguese kiwifruit production is determined by both historical and current market conditions. Historically, Portugal and Spain have been important kiwifruit eaters, with a predilection for locally grown cultivars (Antunes, M.D. et al. 2018). The proximity of kiwifruit-growing regions to consumer mar- kets in Portugal and Spain, combined with fa- vourable climatic conditions for production, has resulted in high domestic consumption rates. Furthermore, cultural considerations, nutritional choices, and culinary traditions may have influenced the appeal of kiwifruit in certain countries over time (Panagopoulos, T. and Antunes, M.D.C. 2011). According to FAOSTAT (2020), there were 247,109 ha planted with Actinidia worldwide in 2018, generating an aggregate produc- tion of 4,022,650 tons. Portugal was the 10th largest producer, with 1.1 percent of the world’s planted area (2,736 ha), and 0.85 percent of the world’s production, namely 34,057 tons (INE, 2019; FAOSTAT, 2020). This was the second year with the highest production of kiwifruit in the country, only surpassed by 2017. The Actinidia plantations are mainly concentrated in two agrarian regions: Beira Litoral (central region) and, above all, Entre Douro e Minho (north of Portugal). According to the agricultural sta- tistics published by Statistics Portugal (INE, 2019), in 2018, of the 2,736 ha occupied by this agricultural crop, 1,916 ha (70.0%) were located in the north, and 799 ha (29.2%) in the central areas, representing 99.2 percent of the total national area planted with Actinidia. The same pattern was already observed in 2006 (INE, 2007), where 76.9 and 20.7 percent of the national area planted with Actinidia were located in the Entre Douro e Minho and Beira Litoral regions, respectively. These two agrarian regions are also responsible for almost the entire national production of kiwifruit. Of the 34,057 tons produced in Portugal in 2018, 27,097 tons came from orchards located in the northern area of the country (79.6%) and 6,711 tons in the central area (19.7%). Together, these two areas are responsible for 99.3 percent of national pro- duction this year (INE, 2019). Most Portuguese kiwifruit farmers manage small orchards (INE, 2011). Therefore, and also because of the low profitability of these small-scale orchards, most of the kiwifruit farmers do not have the required logistical conditions to store their production after har- vesting (e.g., refrigerated chambers) during the period necessary for the fruit to ripen to the point where it can be consumed (APK, 2007; Antunes, M.D. 2008c). The warehouses are, thus, central actors in this sector, receiv- ing the annual harvest from various produc- ers, storing it and controlling its maturation. There are six largest Portuguese warehou- Table 1. Evolution of kiwifruit plantation area with Actinidia and percentage change, 1988–2018 Area Cultivated area, ha Change of cultivated area, % 1988 1998 2008 2018 1988–l998 1998–2008 2008–2018 World Portugal 51,282 600 53,901 1,133 162,037 1,464 247,109 2,736 +5.1 +88.8 +200.6 +29.2 +52.5 +86.9 189Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. ses3, that receive most of the national produc- tion. Most companies do not sell directly to retail, to major international brands or other production destinations but rather sell their annual production to warehouses, which subsequently sell the stored production. As in most other kiwifruit-producing countries, the cultivar ”Hayward” (Actinidia deliciosa) is the predominant female cultivar in Portuguese orchards (APK, 2007; Franco, J. 2008; Antunes, M.D. et al. 2018), although farmers have diversified the planted culti- vars, either with Actinidia deliciosa or other varieties (especially Actinidia chinensis, but also a small amount of Actinidia arguta). Slightly less than half of the national produc- tion of kiwifruit is exported. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of this fruit is also imported. According to INE (2019), in 2017, the year in which the sector produced 35,411 tons of kiwifruit, of which 15,751 tons (44.5%) aimed at the international market. In 2018, this value reached 49.2 percent, correspond- ing to 16,747 tons. To meet Portugal’s domes- tic market demand, 9,466 and 9,706 tons of kiwifruit were imported in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Although almost half of the national production of kiwifruit is exported, according to Antunes, M.D. et al. (2018), 95 percent of the production is intended for the Portuguese and Spanish markets, the lat- ter being the main destination of exports. Portuguese kiwifruit farmer’s associative patterns The kiwifruit market has grown both na- tionally and internationally. According to the available data, the Portuguese sector has consistently managed to be responsible for more than 1 percent of the world’s kiwifruit production’s gross value, approaching or surpassing the 2 percent barrier in several 3 Frutas Douro Ao Minho, S.A.; Kiwicoop – Coope- rativa Frutícola da Bairrada CRL; Kiwi Greensun – Conservação e comercialização de Fruta, S.A.; Kiwi Life, Lda.; Prosa – Produtos e serviços agrícolas, S.A.; e Terras de Felgueiras – Caves de Felgueiras CRL. years, decreasing to only 1.3 percent in 2016 (APK, 2007). The growth of kiwifruit production in Portugal has been economically positive for the actors in the sector. Some farmers fear that this upward trend, especially when framed within the world’s growing trend in kiwifruit production, may saturate the Portuguese market, as well as Portugal’s export markets for this fruit, leading to a drop in the price. In this scenario, the activ- ity in the sector could become less profitable, especially the most recent business actors, who would have more significant difficul- ties in recovering the relatively high invest- ment necessary to start their activity, since an orchard can take about three years post- planting to become commercially productive. In light of this, the Kiwifruit from Portugal Association (APK) was created in 2004 to promote the national kiwifruit sector (APK, 2007). By the end of 2020 APK had about 200 associates and it develops various activi- ties to promote the sector, from participating in scientific research projects on the culture of the Actinidia to developing commercial strategies that bring together the actors in the sector, highlighting the creation of the brand “kiwifruits from Portugal”. Together with several kiwifruit farmers and warehouses, APK has sought to develop commercial strategies that ensure the eco- nomic sustainability of the sector. Among these strategies is the diversification of plant- ed cultivars, such as A. deliciosa, A. chinensis, or A. arguta (on a smaller scale). This diver- sification of cultivars is accompanied by a commitment by several farmers to obtain agricultural and commercial certifications for their activity, such as the GLOBAL G.A.P. (a global reference framework for good agri- cultural practices) or the organic production method. Alongside these strategies, there is also emphasis on exporting national produc- tion, strengthening its presence in markets where it is already present, and entering new markets. Among other communication and marketing strategies, the brand “Kiwis de Portugal” was created by APK, intended to Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.190 be a common banner under which the sec- tor can organize itself with business success in national and international markets. While these efforts have been instrumental in ad- vancing the interests of Portuguese kiwifruit producers, the role of European guidelines and frameworks have been pivotal in shap- ing this market. The European Union’s (EU) agriculture regulations and policies have a significant impact on the operating environment for Portuguese kiwifruit farmers. These policies include a wide range of issues, including agricultural subsidies, market access, envi- ronmental standards, and food safety laws, all of which have a substantial impact on the kiwifruit industry. The EU’s agricultural subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (European Commission, 2024a) have a direct impact on the financial viability of Portugal’s kiwifruit farms, namely in in- fluencing production decisions, investment strategies, and overall farm profitability. However, the distribution of subsidies across different agricultural sectors and locations in Portugal may not always reflect the special requirements and goals of kiwifruit farmers, providing hurdles to sectoral development (European Commission, 2024b). Alongside, market access is another important factor controlled by EU rules. The EU’s internal market and trade agreements with other na- tions govern the circumstances under which Portuguese kiwifruit can be sold domestical- ly and exported internationally. Tariffs, quo- tas, and sanitary and phyto-sanitary regula- tions set by the EU and its trading partners can have an impact on the competitiveness of Portuguese kiwifruit in foreign markets, as well as the sector’s export plans. Materials and methods Research question and objectives This study was guided by the following re- search question: What are the socio-economic dynamics shaping kiwifruit production in Portugal, and how do they impact the sus- tainability and viability of the kiwifruit sec- tor? To answer this research question, the following objectives were established: – To comprehensively characterize the socio- economic reality of the kiwifruit sector in Portugal; – To elucidate the key socio-economic fac- tors influencing kiwifruit production in Portugal, including but not limited to land tenure, farm size, labour force char- acteristics, income sources, and marketing strategies; – To assess the challenges and opportunities faced by Portuguese kiwifruit growers in the current socio-economic landscape, with a particular focus on issues such as disease control, labour availability, market access, and sustainability practices. With these objectives it is expected to pro- vide a comprehensive understanding of the socio-economic characteristics of Portuguese kiwifruit growers and to identify key chal- lenges and opportunities faced by kiwifruit growers in Portugal, along with recommen- dations for addressing these issues and en- hancing the sustainability of the sector. Methodological approach To meet these objectives, a questionnaire survey was applied to producers/farm- ers and companies that planted Actinidia orchards. The questionnaire survey drew upon a combination of previous research, field observations, and expert input to en- sure its comprehensiveness and relevance to the study objectives. Initially, before fi- nalizing the questionnaire, we conducted an extensive review of existing literature on kiwifruit farming practices, socio-economic factors influencing agricultural activities, and the broader context of Portuguese ag- riculture. This literature review served as the foundation for identifying key themes and topics that warranted exploration in our study. Several significant topics concerning kiwifruit farming practices, socioeconomic 191Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. factors influencing agricultural activities, and the broader environment of Portuguese ag- riculture were identified: socio-demographic characteristics of growers; farm manage- ment practices and infrastructure; economic aspects such as income sources and market access; environmental considerations and sustainability practices; and social dynam- ics including family involvement and com- munity networks Moreover, we supplemented our litera- ture review with field observations and in- formal discussions with kiwifruit growers, industry experts, and agricultural extension officers. These interactions provided valu- able insights into the day-to-day realities and challenges faced by kiwifruit farmers, help- ing us to refine and prioritize the themes to be addressed in the questionnaire. We con- ducted direct observation during the win- ter and summer of 2018 to gain insights on relevant practices in the kiwifruit industry. Specifically, we attended a number of occa- sions where Portuguese kiwifruit growers met with the APK to address the obstacles of marketing their products. We also visited ki- wifruit orchards in Entre Douro e Minho and Beira Litoral, Portugal’s two key agricultural regions for the kiwifruit sector. During these visits, we accompanied specialists working in the orchards, obtaining first hand knowl- edge of their operations and witnessing the subtleties of kiwifruit production proce- dures. These direct observations provided vital insights into the daily reality and issues faced by kiwifruit growers, supplementing the quantitative data gathered through our questionnaire study. While the exact num- ber of stakeholders who participated in these informal discussions was not systematically recorded, our goal was to collect a variety of viewpoints and experiences from the kiwi- fruit industry. While existing research gave useful insights into these problems, our study sought to fill gaps and address unresolved issues. For example, there has been little research into the specific socioeconomic dynamics affecting kiwifruit production in Portugal, particularly in terms of land tenure arrangements, labour force charac- teristics, and marketing techniques unique to the Portuguese context (Eurostat, 2017). Furthermore, there was a paucity of de- tailed assessments of the challenges and opportunities faced by Portuguese kiwifruit growers, particularly in light of changing market conditions and sustainability con- cerns (Malla, S. et al. 2022; Zhang, X. et al. 2023; Gurbuz, I.B. et al. 2024). We conducted a preliminary pilot survey with a small sample of kiwifruit growers to test the clarity, relevance, and feasibility of the questionnaire items. During this phase, numerous changes were made based on their feedback, including clarifying language, sim- plifying complex questions, removing rep- etition, rephrasing for clarity and precision, providing response choices, such as explana- tory comments or examples, and improving visual layout and structure. For example, the term ”sustainability practices” underwent re- finement to delineate whether it pertained to environmental, economic, or social sus- tainability, thereby ensuring respondents understood the intended scope of inquiry. The feedback received from participants dur- ing this pilot phase allowed us to fine-tune the wording of questions, identify potential ambiguities, and ensure the comprehensibil- ity of the survey instrument. Questionnaire development and application Drawing on this multi-faceted approach, the finalized questionnaire was designed to capture a comprehensive range of themes deemed crucial for understanding the socio- economic dynamics of Portuguese kiwifruit farming. These themes included but were not limited to: 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of growers; 2. Farm management practices and infra- structure; 3. Economic aspects such as income sourc- es and market access; Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.192 4. Environmental considerations and sus- tainability practices; 5. Social dynamics including family in- volvement and community networks. Between the summer of 2019 and the spring of 2020, the questionnaire was available for an online response, duly anonymized, through the Google Forms platform. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethi- cal standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964. There was informed consent, the study aims were explained to participants, and they received guarantees of confidentiality and anonymity. The email address was made available to representatives of the kiwifruit companies and farmers thanks to the help of the six national warehouses (mentioned earlier), and APK. The same questionnaire survey was also made available in a printed version (also anonymized) and distributed to farmers who preferred to fill it in this way. A convenience sample was used to obtain as many responses as possible (Parker, C. et al. 2019). This was the best possible way to charac- terize socio-economically the kiwifruit farmers in Portugal, especially given the lack of reliable aggregate data on their numbers (Bornstein, M.H. et al. 2013), and also the actual numbers. In 2019 the data available regarding this sector was most likely outdated by the 2009 Agricultural Census (INE, 2019) (the latest public data available at the time of the study), given the growth that the sector had been ex- periencing. An exhaustive agricultural census operation is held every 10 years and since the Covid-19 outbreak delayed the application of the 2019 Agricultural Census it was impossible at the time to secure the necessary figures by a representative sampling of the kiwifruit farm- ers. Thus, the search for the greatest possible number of answers appeared to be the best methodological alternative to carry out the socio-economic characterization of the sector. Although it cannot be considered a repre- sentative sample of the kiwifruit producers’ sector, this study makes a first attempt to provide some insights and trends in the sec- tor based on producers’ opinions about their activity and some of the main problems in the sector. From 100 answers, 94 were obtained online, and 6 were in printed format. Only 94 answers were considered valid since six were answered by non-owners of the com- panies in the sector (i.e., employees of these companies) or because the respondent did not explicitly consent to the processing of data (1 answer). It was considered more relevant for the socio-economic characterisation to work only with data from these 94 questionnaires answered directly by business owners. Some reasons may be pointed out for the small number of answers: (i) the first may be re- lated to the length of the questionnaire, whose 57 questions took at least about 20 minutes to answer; (ii) secondly, this questionnaire survey began to be made available at a time close to the harvest season, which is an unfavourable pe- riod to answer requests like this questionnaire because of the high workload that character- izes the season for the farmers; (iii) the third and, perhaps, most relevant, is that this study was conducted, in part, at the beginning of the current outbreak of Covid-19, which limited the possibilities of meeting face-to-face with na- tional kiwi growers to make them aware of the importance of their participation in this study. After the anonymization of the answerers, they were subsequently processed using the IBM SPSS Statistics ® software (IBM, 2018) through descriptive analysis. Although our study attempted to cover some of these gaps with a questionnaire survey and descriptive analysis, certain subjects were left unaddressed due to methodological con- straints and limitations. For example, the im- pact of EU agricultural policy on kiwifruit pro- duction in Portugal is an interesting subject of future research. While this topic was somewhat uncovered throughout the literature analysis, it was outside the scope of the current study to investigate further. Future research could investigate the connection between EU poli- cies, socioeconomic dynamics, and the sustain- ability of Portugal’s kiwifruit sector, providing additional insights into policy implications and prospective sectoral growth strategies. 193Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. Results and discussion Sociographic profile Regarding the sociographic profile of the sam- ple, where males prevailed (76%), it reflects the typical gender composition of the agricultural sector. Agriculture has historically been seen as a male-dominated profession due to cultur- al norms and traditional gender roles, which may explain why males are overrepresented in kiwifruit production (Maman, M. and Tate, T.H. 2012). 64.9 percent are under 50 years old, which expresses a trend of a younger popu- lation since they are mainly concentrated in the 30–39 (33%) and 40–49 (26.6%) year-old age groups (Figure 1). At the time of the ques- tionnaire survey application, the youngest respondent was 24 years old, and the oldest was 87 years old. Despite this youthfulness of the sample, it should be made explicit that some companies have more than one business partner and that only one was responding to this questionnaire on behalf of the other. Also, this trend can be ascribed to a number of fac- tors, including generational succession within family-owned farms, greater interest among younger people in sustainable agriculture, and the adoption of contemporary agricultural techniques that appeal to a younger audience (Widiyanti, E. et al. 2018; Girdziute, L. et al. 2022; Srinivasan, S. and White, B. 2024). Re- garding marital status, 81.9 percent are mar- ried or in de facto union, followed by single (12.8%), divorced (3.2%), and widow (2.1%). Of the 94 respondents, 61.7 percent were APK associates (N = 58), and 90.4 percent were associates of one of the national warehouses (N = 85), revealing that the actors of the Portuguese kiwifruit sector have strong associ- ative links, which can be explained by the cen- trality of the warehouses as mediators between producers and retailers. Since the APK had 189 members when this survey was applied, this study sample represents 30.7 percent of its members. The sample revealed a high lev- el of education (Table 2), with approximately 60.7 percent of the respondents having com- pleted at least one degree in higher education, to which must be added 8.5 percent of re- spondents who have attended higher education without completing any degree which may be related to the youth of the sample. Literature reveals that educated growers are likely to be more keen to adopt innovative technologies, implementing sustainable farming practices, and adapting to changing market dynamics, thereby enhancing the overall productivity and competitiveness of the kiwifruit sector (Klerkx, L. and Leeuwis, C. 2009). Regarding the income from this activity, it can be stated that it represents a comple- mentary economic activity and that, in most cases (72.3%), it accounts for half or less of the respondents’ annual income. In fact, 26.6 percent of the respondent stated that their complementary occupation is related to intellectual and scientific activities, and 12.8 percent represents legislators, execu- tive bodies, officials, directors, and executive managers. The complementary occupations of the sample is somewhat linked with the highly educated level of those working in the kiwifruit sector. This diversification of revenue sources may act as a risk mitigation technique, protecting growers from volatility in kiwifruit prices or yields and increasing their overall economic resilience (Lagerkvist, C.J. et al. 2007). The intergenerational profile of this activity shows that although not the majority, many of the respondents have fam- ily members who are also dedicated to kiwi- Fig. 1. Sample distribution of kiwifruit produc- ers by age group. Dnk/Dna = Do not know / Do not answer.Source: Authors’ own elaboration. Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.194 fruit culture (43.6%). This study also finds couples where both spouses are kiwi growers (25.6%). These familial links not only allow knowledge transmission and skill develop- ment, but also help to ensure the sustain- ability and continuity of kiwifruit farming practices throughout generations (Chiswell, H.M. 2018; Sheridan, A. et al. 2021). In exam- ining the sociographic profile of our sample, it’s essential to recognize the multifaceted na- ture of kiwifruit farming. While traditional metrics such as age distribution and marital status offer insights into the demographics of growers, relational thinking prompts us to delve deeper into the intergenerational patterns and familial ties that underpin ki- wifruit cultivation. Our findings reveal not just individual farmers, but families and communities engaged in this agricultural endeavor, shaping and shaped by socio- economic forces. Socio-economic profile Because kiwifruit production is concentrated in the Portuguese agrarian regions of Entre Douro e Minho and Beira Litoral (INE, 2019), most company headquarters are located here (97.8%). Based on the respondents’ answers, the majority claim to work in kiwifruit cul- ture either as an individual entrepreneur (58.5%) or as part of a limited liability com- pany (29.8%). Figure 2 shows that most re- spondents started producing kiwifruit in re- cent years, with 69.1 percent starting in the last decade (2010–2018), which is aligned with the youth of the sample. In relation to the progressive increase of the area planted with Actinidia in Portugal, it appears that this significant number of recent beginners to ki- wifruit culture supports the growth of the sector in the last decade. Concerning the size of the farms, the sam- ple confirms the profile of the kiwifruit sec- tor already identified by FAOSTAT (2020), Statistics Portugal (2019), and Antunes, M.D. (2008c). Almost 70 percent of these companies exploits farms under 5 ha, and 87.2 percent exploit up to 10 ha. In the entire sample, only two farms are bigger than 30 ha. This confirms the small scale of the farmers (97.9%), who do not have the conditions to store and mature their production after har- vest. The predominance of small-scale farms in the kiwifruit sector reflects historical land distribution patterns, land availability, and economic considerations, but also sociocul- tural characteristics since small farms are characteristic of family-based agriculture and Table 2. Sample distribution of workers by educational level Educational level Number % Educational level Number % 4th grade 6th grade, 2nd cycle 5th year of high school* 7th year of secondary school** 12th year of secondary school Higher education*** 3 5 2 7 11 8 3.2 5.3 2.1 7.4 11.7 8.5 University degree Post-graduate Master’s degree Doctorate Other levels of education Total 39 4 12 2 1 94 41.5 4.3 12.8 2.1 1.1 100.0 *9th grade, 3rd cycle, **11th year, secondary, *** But not completed. Fig. 2. Year of the beginning of the profes- sional activity of respondents in kiwifruit producing. Source: Authors’ own elaboration. 195Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. may face challenges in accessing resources and markets compared to larger operations (Antunes, M.D. 2008a). Observing companies’ annual sales in 2018 reveals a significant number did not invoice or presented a reduced invoicing, in some cases, insufficient to cover the company’s operating costs and/or to recover the invest- ment made to start the activity. About 27 per- cent of the companies did not have a positive turnover (at least +1 EUR) in 2018. It was also found that half of the companies in the sam- ple (52.4%) registered a turnover that did not exceed 5,000 EUR. The recent data on orchards plantations of several companies (the sample contains 29 companies whose orchards were planted be- tween 2016 and 2019) shows that a significant percentage of companies in the sector have reduced or non-existent turnover (INE, 2019). Furthermore, the small size of the farms in the sample demonstrates the difficulty in generating better turnovers unless these orchards were extraordinarily productive, which they are not. Despite this, it was found that some companies presented a turnover of several hundred thousand euros in 2018. Only 7 companies indicate that they have ex- ceeded 100,000 EUR in their turnover for that year. Moving beyond surface-level measure- ments, our analysis reveals the complex so- cioeconomic framework in which kiwifruit growers operate. Rather from viewing farm size and turnover as discrete indicators, this analysis identified the underlying structures and power dynamics that shape these out- comes. A more comprehensive knowledge of the constraints and opportunities that ki- wifruit growers face by contextualizing farm sizes within broader economic frameworks and investigating turnover in light of market changes and policy interventions is provided (Mishra, A.K. et al. 1999). Since the companies are small, most farm- ers do not have permanent workers or only have one or two, and farming companies with 15 and 21 permanent workers are sta- tistically rare in the sample (2 companies). The respondents reported considerable variations in the use of seasonal workers (Figure 3): 81.9 percent had, in 2018, a maxi- mum of 10 seasonal workers. Some compa- nies use comparatively high numbers of sea- sonal workers (three companies used 20, and one company used 30). Additionally, thirteen companies did not use any seasonal workers in 2018. In the case of the earnings received by the permanent workers, it was observed that the average wages of agricultural workers tend to be lower than those with administrative and/or management functions (Table 3). Of the 33 companies with permanent agricultur- al workers, most pay monthly salaries close to the national minimum salary (at that time), and 11 companies pay their permanent agri- cultural workers between 750 and 999 EUR. As for the 18 companies that indicate they have permanent workers with administrative and/or management functions (in addition to the owner/s), the latter continue to earn sala- ries ranging between 500 and 999 EUR. But, three companies indicate that workers with such functions earn salaries above 1,000 EUR, and in one case, above 1,500 EUR. Permanent workers with both types of functions receive less than 499 EUR (N = 2), assuming that, in such cases, these are part- time contracts, although this could not be confirmed by the respondents. On the other hand, more companies do not have perma- nent workers with administrative and/or management functions (N = 67) than com- Fig. 3. Relation between the maximum number of si- multaneous seasonal workers (axis y), and the number of companies (axis x). Source: Authors’ own elaboration. Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.196 panies that do not have permanent workers with agricultural functions (N = 50), indicat- ing that, in several of these companies, land- owners primarily perform administrative and/or management functions. The amounts paid per hour of work to seasonal agricul- tural workers in this sample vary between 3 and 9 EUR (Figure 4). 21 companies indicate that they paid these workers 5 EUR/hour (which is higher than the hourly wage corresponding to the national minimum wage). There were, however, compa- nies that, plausibly, due to difficulties in find- ing workers, paid significantly higher amounts per hour of work (5 companies indicate paying 8 to 9 EUR per hour). On the other hand, 9 companies in the sample indicated that they paid less than 4 EUR/hour to seasonal agricul- tural workers, which is lower than the national minimum wage. While traditional assessments may focus exclusively on wage rates and work- force demographics, the relational approach applied in this study requires us to include the larger socioeconomic context that influences labour availability and remuneration. Factors such as urbanization trends, societal attitudes of agricultural work, and seasonal fluctuations in employment demand all interact to shape labour dynamics in the sector. Exploratory mapping of the main current and future challenges One of the most relevant pieces of informa- tion for the sector is to know which current and future challenges are perceived by these actors. Therefore, each respondent was asked to identify their company’s top three chal- lenges (Table 4). It is significant, from the outset, that the most frequent response was disease control in the orchards (N = 50). When this problem is combined with the challenges (mentioned less frequently) that are weed control in orchards (N = 26) and/or pest control (N = 12), we see that, agriculturally and economically, kiwifruit farmers are notoriously concerned about these issues. It is also significant that the second most frequently mentioned challenge is to find work- ers (N = 45). Plausibly, this difficulty explains why most of the companies in the sample pay seasonal workers remunerations higher than Table 3. The average salary of permanent workers Salary, EUR The approximate average salary of permanent agricultural workers The approximate average salary of permanent workers with administrative and/or management functions Number % Number % No workers for the role other than the owner under 500 500–749 750–999 1,000–l,449 1,500 or more Do not know/Do not answer 50 2 20 11 0 0 11 47.0 1.9 18.8 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 67 2 7 6 2 1 9 63.0 1.9 6.6 5.6 1.9 0.9 8.5 Fig. 4. Approximate average salary of permanent workers in EUR per hour. Dnk/Dna = Do not know / Do not answer. Source: Authors’ own elaboration. 197Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. the national minimum wage (in the case of some companies, more than twice as high). A broad framework of the fluctuations of the Portuguese economy in recent decades would be necessary to adequately under- stand the difficulties of several companies in the sector to find workers. A discussion on employment in the primary sector would be necessary since this difficulty is extended to other agricultural sectors. The increasing ur- banization that the country has experienced in recent decades (Fernandes, J.A.R. and Seixas, J. 2018), as well as the dominant social repre- sentations of what agricultural work means (when comparing country and city life), causes a significant depreciation and critical evalua- tion (Naiff, D.G.M. et al. 2009; Bonomo, M. et al. 2017), and may be relevant factors in understanding this challenge. Promoting fair and attractive payments to farmers is essential to enhance their willingness to stay (May, D. et al. 2019). Despite these reasons, the seasonal nature and inconsistency of the work, and the labour intensiveness should be also consid- ered. The industry is perceived as low paying (despite it being found that these companies pay significantly higher amounts per hour of work to these workers) and is not particularly seen as safe (Hutchison, G. 2021). Still, the third most mentioned challenge is the significant concern with the price at which their companies can sell their agricultural pro- duction (N = 37). There are several companies whose turnover in 2018 indicates that they had financial losses in that year, despite consider- ing that there are other driving factors, such as the recent date of planting, which leads to the fact that they do not yet have marketable production. However, this does not invalidate that, for a significant part of the sample, kiwi- fruit culture was, in 2018, an activity that did not (yet) paid off the investments. The recent date of many of the plantations that are not yet productive does not allow us to understand why, for 37 respondents, one of the challenges was the selling price of fruit, which they consider to be lower than the amount needed for their business activity to be economically viable. Other firms with older and more productive orchards also indicate difficulty in ensuring financial viability. The national kiwifruit industry has gener- ated an increasing overall gross production, which has benefited many of its actors. This sample seems to indicate that these economic benefits are not experienced by all, with some companies claiming to be, or at least fearing to be, in financial difficulties. It is also signifi- cant that several respondents indicate that their companies experience difficulties in adminis- trative tasks, namely in situations where they must deal with bureaucratic and legal issues. 15 respondents mention a challenge to compli- ance with legislation, such as social security or Table 4. Main challenges the company faces Challenge Number % Disease control in the orchard Difficulties in finding workers Kiwi sale price lower than necessary to maintain the financial viability of the company Weed control in the orchard Difficulties with bureaucratic issues within the scope of investment projects Difficulties associated with complying with legislation* Pest control in the orchard Logistical issues** Day-to-day management difficulties of the company’s employees Competition from foreign companies Competition from Portuguese companies Other 50 45 37 26 26 15 12 8 4 4 2 8 21.1 19.0 15.6 11.0 11.0 6.3 5.1 3.4 1.7 1.7 0.8 3.4 *Social security, health and safety at work, etc. **Storage of production during harvest, transportation of production, etc. Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.198 health and safety at work. At the same time, 26 say that it is a challenge to deal with bureau- cratic issues in the scope of investment projects. At this level, two possibilities are unveiled: On the one hand, these difficulties may be motivated by the obligation to comply with extensive sets of rules, sometimes not very flexible and not always easily decipherable for those without legal training. On the other hand, dealing with bureaucratic-legal issues in a business context increasingly requires full-time professional dedication or the exist- ence of employees (or owners) permanently dedicated to administering such tasks. It is plausible that small companies, whose owners are not exclusively dedicated to the business activity and without administrative staff, as are many of the companies in the sample, experience more pronounced diffi- culties in this area. Finally, our examination of the constraints and opportunities facing kiwifruit growers demonstrates the need of relational think- ing in understanding complex socioeconomic events. Rather of addressing problems like disease control, labour shortages, and mar- ket prices as discrete issues, we see them as interwoven manifestations of larger socio- economic factors. Using a relational view, it was possible to uncover underlying systemic causes and devise targeted interventions to improve the resilience and sustainability of the kiwifruit sector. Conclusions Data on kiwifruit sector is stills scarce at national level which limits the possibility to design and implement tailored and effective policies. To fill this gap, we conducted the first socioeconomic analysis of the Portu- guese kiwifruit sector using a comprehensive questionnaire survey. While we recognise that our sample may not be statistically rep- resentative, our findings indicated tenden- cies consistent with indicators of the sector’s economic expansion in previous decades. Given the presence of respondents with these characteristics in the sample, the data shows that several companies in 2018 did not have commercial production or positive turnover (at least not with significant values and ca- pable of immediately ensuring the financial sustainability of these companies). Some challenges may be pointed out, be- ing the control of Actinidia diseases the cur- rently severe problem leading to losses of plants and fruits, as well as having negative financial impacts. Equally relevant are two other challenges: the difficulties in securing workers to carry out crucial tasks in the or- chards and the administrative complexities/ bureaucracy that must be addressed mainly associated with investment projects, and complying with legal requirements (e.g., social security, health and safety at work). Although these are distinct problems, none of them can be solved through the actions of individual companies but rather, require coordinated collective actions. Problem reso- lution requires the establishment of recurrent dialogues with actors and entities outside the kiwifruit chain, such as state agencies. It must also be stressed that several com- panies in the study sample declare to be con- cerned with their financial viability, stating that the price at which they sell their produc- tion may not be sufficient to guarantee the financial health of their companies. Even sup- posing that several of them will be in a more solid financial situation in a few years when their orchards have higher fruit production, the concern with the financial viability does not go unnoticed in the sample. It would also be relevant to obtain statistically representa- tive information about the sector that would al- low us to reach more reliable conclusions than those possible from this work and to conduct a more robust monitoring of the sector’s evolu- tion which could contribute to assure its so- cioeconomic and environmental sustainability. The sociographic picture of Portuguese kiwifruit growers provided in this study, in- cluding demographic trends, educational lev- els, and family involvement in kiwifruit grow- ing is uncommon in the previous research, which frequently focuses on larger agricul- 199Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. tural trends rather than specific subsectors such as kiwifruit cultivation. Our study fills a critical vacuum in the worldwide literature by providing researchers with a multifacto- rial understanding of the human components of kiwifruit farming, which may be applied to comparable studies in other geographi- cal situations, facilitating tailored policy in- terventions and stakeholder engagement. While similar assessments exist for other ag- ricultural sectors, our research provides fresh insights specific to the kiwifruit industry, such as disease management issues and labour lim- itations. By highlighting these sector-specific characteristics, our findings contribute to a better understanding of the socioeconomic landscape of kiwifruit production, expand- ing the international agricultural economics literature and informing comparative research across various agricultural sectors around the world, which may inspire similar analyses to uncover nuanced economic realities, inform- ing strategies for enhancing sectoral resilience and sustainability. Funding: This research was funded by ReNATURE– Valorization of the natural endogenous resources of the Centro region (project reference CENTRO- 01-0145-FEDER-000007) and i9Kiwi (PDR2020-101- 031204 I9K), hosted at the Centre for Functional Ecology (CFE) of the University of Coimbra (UC) and funded by CENTRO2020. This work was carried out at the R&D Unit Centre for Functional Ecology – Science for People and the Planet (CFE), with ref- erence UIDB/04004/2020, financed by FCT/MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC). Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to João Aldeia for contributing and commenting on an ear- lier draft of this paper. The authors in general and PC in particular are grateful to the CULTIVAR project (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000020), co-financed by the Regional Operational Programme Centro 2020, Portugal 2020, and the European Union (ERDF). Authors contribution: The authors order reflects the level of contribution to this paper. Fátima Alves coordinated the research, contributed to conception and design of the study, defined the methodological approach, supervised the fieldwork, analysed and dis- cussed the results, contributed to the writing of sections of the paper and participated in the critical review of the manuscript. Diogo Guedes Vidal contributed to the manuscript writing and critical review of the manu- script. João Bica and Paula Castro participated in the data curation. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version. The authors declare no conflict of interest. REFERENCES Abreu, C.C. 2022. PSA nos kiwi ameaça produção nacional. AGROTEC – Revista Técnico-Científica Agricola 4. 92–93. Aldeia, J. 2022. Pestering capitalism: Thinking with Halyomorpha halys about multispecies relations and ecological unsustainability. Journal of Political Ecology 29. (1): 513–533. https://doi.org/10.2458/ jpe.2370 Aldeia, J. 2023. Fostering refugia amid unfolding extinctions. Animal Studies Journal 12. (2): 64–87. https://doi.org/10.14453/asj/v12i2.4 Aldeia, J. 2024. Life’s potentiality as multispecies gift. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 24. 15–30. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00210 Antunes, M.D. (ed.) 2008a. Kiwi: da produção à comer- cialização. Faro, Portugal, Universidade do Algarve. Antunes, M.D. 2008b. Prefácio. In Kiwi: da produção à comercialização. Ed.: Antunes, M.D., Faro, Portugal, Universidade do Algarve, 9–11. Antunes, M.D. 2008c. Colheita e Conservação. In Kiwi: da produção à comercialização. Ed.: Antunes, M.D., Faro, Portugal, Universidade do Algarve, 192–204. Antunes, M.D.C., Oliveira, M., Teixeira, M., Veloso, A., Veloso, F. and Panagopoulos, T. 2007. Evaluation of the effect of complementary pollination on Actinidia deliciosa CV. ”Hayward” in Northwest Portugal. Acta Horticulturae 753. 347–352. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.753.43 Antunes, M.D., Franco, J. , Veloso, F . and Panagopoulos, T. 2018. The evolution of kiwifruit production in Portugal. Acta Horticulturae 1218. 17– 21. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1218.2 APK 2007. Manual do Kiwicultor. Santa Maria da Feira, Associação Portuguesa de Kiwicultores. Bano, S. and Scrimgeour, F. 2012. The export growth and revealed comparative advantage of the New Zealand kiwifruit industry. International Business Research 5. (2): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr. v5n2p73 Bebbington, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development 27. (12): 2021–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305- 750X(99)00104-7 Bebbington, A. 2000. Reencountering development: Livelihood transitions and place transforma- tions in the Andes. Annals of the Association of https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2370 https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2370 https://doi.org/10.14453/asj/v12i2.4 https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00210 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.753.43 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1218.2 https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n2p73 https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v5n2p73 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7 Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.200 American Geographers 90. (3): 495–520. https://doi. org/10.1111/0004-5608.00206 Bonomo, M., de Souza, L., Zanotti Epifanio, P. and Araujo Trindade, Z. 2017. Social representations and rural sociability among farmers of a rural community. Psico-USF 22. (2): 235–248. https://doi. org/10.1590/1413-82712017220204 Bornstein, M.H., Jager, J. and Putnick, D.L. 2013. Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review 33. (4): 357–370. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003 Castro, H., Siopa, C., Casais, V., Castro, M., Loureiro, J., Gaspar, H. and Castro, S. 2021. Pollination as a key management tool in crop pro- duction: Kiwifruit orchards as a study case. Scientia Horticulturae 290. 110533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scienta.2021.110533 Castro, H., Siopa, C., Casais, V., Castro, M., Loureiro, J., Gaspar, H., Dias, M.C. and Castro, S. 2022. Quantificação dos défices de polinização na cultura do kiwi em Portugal. AGROTEC – Revista Técnico-Científica Agrícola 43. 56–60. Chiswell, H.M. 2018. From generation to generation: Changing dimensions of intergenerational farm transfer. Sociologia Ruralis 58. (1): 104–125. https:// doi.org/10.1111/soru.12138 Costa, G., Kukuriannis, B . and Monet , R. 1992. Kiwifruit production in Europe. Acta Horticulturae 297. 141–150. https://doi.org/10.17660/ ActaHortic.1992.297.17 Cruz, L., Cruz, J., Borges Fernandes, C., Chicau, G. and Tenreiro, R. 2004. Bacterial cancer of kiwi caused by Pseudomonas Syringae Pv. Actinidiae in Portugal – Disease importance and pathogen characterization. In 2º Simpósio SCAP – Novos Desafios na Proteção das Plantas e 7º Congresso da SPF. Oeiras, Portugal, SCAP, 1–6. https://doi. org/10.13140/2.1.4466.2087 European Commission 2024a. The Common Agricultural Policy: 2023–27. Agriculture and Rural Development 2024. Brussels, European Commission. Available at https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricul- tural-policy/cap-overview/cap-2023-27_en European Commission 2024b. Portugal – CAP Strategic Plan. Agriculture and Rural Development. Brussels, European Commission. Available at https://agri- culture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strate- gic-plans/portugal_en Eurostat 2017. Farmers in the EU – Statistics . Luxembourg, Eurostat. Available at https://ec.eu- ropa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?ti- tle=Farmers_in_the_EU_-_statistics&oldid=357532 FAOSTAT 2020. Kiwi Fruit. Rome, UN Food an Agriculture Organization. Available at https:// www.fao.org/faostat/en/#search/Kiwi fruit FAO 2024. Crops and livestock products. Rome, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2024. Available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/ QCL/visualize. Ferguson, A.R. 2004. 1904 – the year that kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa) came to New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 32. (1): 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.20 04.9514276 Fernandes, J.A.R. and Seixas, J. 2018. Cities and urbanisation in democratic Portugal. Méditerranée 130. E-publication. https://doi.org/10.4000/medi- terranee.10698 Franco, J. 2008. História e desenvolvimento comer- cial. In Kiwi: Da Produção à Comercialização. Ed.: Antunes, M.D., Faro, Portugal, Universidade do Algarve, 13–19. Fuglie, K.O. 2012. Productivity growth and technol- ogy capital in the global agricultural economy. In Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An International Perspective. Eds.: Fuglie, K.O., Wang, S.L. and Ball, V.E., CABI Digital Library, 335–368. https://doi. org/10.1079/9781845939212.0335 Gallego, P.P. 2018. Kiwifruit production and research in Spain. Acta Horticulturae 1218. 23–29. https://doi. org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1218.3 Girdziute, L., Besuspariene, E., Nausediene, A., Novikova, A., Leppala, J. and Jakob, J 2022. Youth’s (un)willingness to work in agriculture sector. Frontiers in Public Health 10. 937657. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.937657 Gurbuz, I.B., Ozkan, G. and Er, S. 2024. Exploring kiwi fruit producers’ climate change perceptions. Applied Fruit Science 2. 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10341-023-01021-4 Hinchliffe, S. and Whatmore, S. 2006. Living cities: Towards a politics of conviviality. Science as Culture 15. (2): 123–138. https://doi. org/10.1080/09505430600707988 Huang, H. and Ferguson, A.R. 2001. Review: Kiwifruit in China. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 29. (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/01140671.2001.9514154 Hutchison, G. 2021. Seasonal Labour Shortage – Kiwifruit Sector. Lincoln, Kellogg Rural Leadership Programme. IBM 2018. Released IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, V25.0. Armonk, New York, IBM Corporation. INE 2007. Portugal Agrícola 1980–2006. Lisboa, Portugal, Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P. INE 2011. Recenseamento Agrícola 2009. Análise Dos Principais Resultados. Lisboa, Portugal, Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P. INE 2019. Estatísticas Agrícolas 2018. Lisboa, Portugal, Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P. Joassart-Marcelli, P. 2022. Food Geographies: Social, Political and Ecological Connections. Lanham, Maryland, US, Rowman & Littlefield. Klerkx, L. and Leeuwis, C. 2009. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different inno- https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00206 https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00206 https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712017220204 https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712017220204 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110533 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110533 https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12138 https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12138 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1992.297.17 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1992.297.17 https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4466.2087 https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4466.2087 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-2023-27_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-2023-27_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans/portugal_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans/portugal_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans/portugal_en https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farmers_in_the_EU_-_statistics&oldid=357532 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farmers_in_the_EU_-_statistics&oldid=357532 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farmers_in_the_EU_-_statistics&oldid=357532 https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/%23search/Kiwi%20fruit https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/%23search/Kiwi%20fruit https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/%23data/QCL/visualize https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/%23data/QCL/visualize https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2004.9514276 https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2004.9514276 https://doi.org/10.4000/mediterranee.10698 https://doi.org/10.4000/mediterranee.10698 https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845939212.0335 https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845939212.0335 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1218.3 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1218.3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.937657 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.937657 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-023-01021-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-023-01021-4 https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430600707988 https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430600707988 https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2001.9514154 https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2001.9514154 201Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201. vation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agri- cultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76. (6): 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2008.10.001 Kneafsey, M., Maye, D., Holloway, L. and Goodman, M.K. 2021. Geographies of Food. London, Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474204392 Lagerkvist, C.J., Larsen, K. and Olson, K.D. 2007. Off- farm income and farm capital accumulation: A farm- level analysis. Agricultural Finance Review 67. (2): 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/00214660780001207 Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D. and Dash, P. 2013. Ecosystem services: Origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conservation and Society 11. (4): 343–358. https://doi. org/10.4103/0972-4923.125752 Lorimer, J. 2015. Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation after Nature. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press. https://doi. org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816681075.001.0001 Malla, S., Bista, L. and Sapkota, R. 2022. Prospects of kiwi production and marketing in the advancement of household economy in Dolakha District. Turkish Journal of Agriculture – Food Science and Technology 10. (10): 2039–2044. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf. v10i10.2039-2044.5219 Maman , M. and Tate , T.H. 2012. Women in Agriculture. London, Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203054321 Marsden, T. and Smith, E. 2005. Ecological entre- preneurship: Sustainable development in local communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum 36. (4): 440–451. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.008 May, D., Arancibia, S., Behrendt, K. and Adams, J. 2019. Preventing young farmers from leaving the farm: Investigating the effectiveness of the young farmer payment using a behavioural approach. Land Use Policy 82. 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2018.12.019 Meingassner, L. 2011. The kiwifruit industry and kiwifruit production in Western Húnán. Vienna Journal of East Asian Studies 1. (1): 63–89. https://doi. org/10.2478/vjeas-2011-0003 Mishra, A.K., el-Osta, H.S. and Johnson, J.D. 1999. Factors contributing to earnings success of cash grain farms. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31. (3): 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1074070800008889 Moragues-Faus, A., Clark, J.K., Battersby, J. and Davies, A. 2023. Handbook of Urban Food Governance. London, Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003055907 Morton, J.F. 2013. Kiwifruit. In Fruits of Warm Climates. Miami, Echo Point Books and Media. 293–300. Moura, L., Garcia, E., Aguín, O., Ares, A., Abelleira, A. and Mansilla, P. 2015. Identificação e caracteri- zação de Pseudomonas Syringae Pv. Actinidiae (Psa) na região do Entre Douro e Minho (Portugal). Revista de Ciências Agrárias 38. (2): 196–205. Naiff, D.G.M., Monteiro, R.C. and Naiff, L.A.M. 2009. Social representations of college students on cottag- ers and rural workers. Psico-USF 14. (2): 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712009000200011 Neves, N. 2008. Morfologia e fisiologia. In Kiwi: Da Produção à Comercialização. Ed.: Antunes, M.D., Faro, Portugal, Universidade do Algarve, 29–39. Panagopoulos, T. and Antunes, M.D.C. 2011. Spatial distribution of qualitative characteristics and production factors of kiwifruit at Beira Litoral, Portugal. Acta Horticulturae 913. 609–614. https:// doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.913.83 Parker, C., Scott, S. and Geddes, A. 2019. Snowball Sampling. London, SAGE Publications. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781526421036831710 Pretty, J. and Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29. (2): 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X Pretty, J., Ball, A.S., Lang, T. and Morison, J.I.L. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30. (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food- pol.2005.02.001 Sheridan, A., Newsome, L., Howard, T., Lawson, A. and Saunders, S. 2021. Intergenerational farm succession: How does gender fit? Land Use Policy 109. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2021.105612 Srinivasan, S. and White, B. 2024. Introduction: Young people’s pathways into farming. In Becoming A Young Farmer. Rethinking Rural. Ed.: Srinivasan, S., Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 1–22. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-031-15233-7_1 Testolin, R. and Ferguson, A.R. 2009. Kiwifruit (Actinidia spp.) production and marketing in Italy. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 37. (1): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140670909510246 Thirtle, C., Lin, L. and Piesse, J. 2003. The impact of research-led agricultural productivity growth on poverty reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America. World Development 31. (12): 1959–1975. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.07.001 Ward, C. and Courtney, D. 2013. Kiwifruit. Taking its place in the global fruit bowl. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 68. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-394294-4.00001-8 Widiyanti, E., Setyowati, N. and Ardianto, D.T. 2018. Young generation’s perception on the agricultural sector. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 200. 012060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755- 1315/200/1/012060 Zhang, X., Zhang, L. and Nie, T. 2023. Study on the impact of social capital on farmers’ decision-mak- ing behaviour of adopting trusteeship services. Sustainability (Switzerland) 15. (6): 5343. https://doi. org/10.3390/su15065343 Thirtle https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001 https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474204392 https://doi.org/10.1108/00214660780001207 https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125752 https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125752 https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816681075.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816681075.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v10i10.2039-2044.5219 https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v10i10.2039-2044.5219 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203054321 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203054321 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.019 https://doi.org/10.2478/vjeas-2011-0003 https://doi.org/10.2478/vjeas-2011-0003 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800008889 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800008889 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003055907 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003055907 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-82712009000200011 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.913.83 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.913.83 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036831710 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036831710 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105612 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105612 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15233-7_1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15233-7_1 https://doi.org/10.1080/01140670909510246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.07.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394294-4.00001-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394294-4.00001-8 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/200/1/012060 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/200/1/012060 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065343 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065343 Alves, F. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 73 (2024) (2) 185–201.202