The study refers to quantitative research using primary data, provided by Incra, obtained from questionnaires applied to the families of the Barra Nova Settlement between 2013 and 2015. This survey was carried out to answer a Public Call made by Incra, entitled: Incra/SR (16), no. 01/2013, which aimed to execute an ATER program to support the small producer in planning and implementing local development projects.

Several courses were held related to production and commercialization, health, environment, cooperativism, associativism, and rural administration, among others. After the Public Call, the winning company applied questionnaires to the settled families. In 2013, when starting the reach-out actions, in 2014, and 2015 after the activities ended. In 2013, 196 questionnaires were applied; in 2014, 185, and in 2015 a total of 178 questionnaires were applied.

For the construction of the method of analysis of social and economic indicators, models presented in the literature were used as the basis, highlighting those proposed by Silva (2007), who formulated the Agricultural Environmental Sustainability Index (ISA); the model used for the Evaluation of Agroforestry Systems (INSSAFs), developed by Camargo (2017); and the model used to assess Rural Settlement Sustainability Indexes [INSARs], designed by Moreno (2018). Based on these models, adaptations were made, and an evaluation model was built to support the research proposal, entitled as the Socioeconomic Indicator for Rural Settlements [ISAR].

After adapting the models proposed by the literature, thirteen aspects of sustainability were defined, divided into social and economic dimensions:

- Social dimension: a) services provided in the settlement; b) associativism; c) food security; d) level of education; e) housing conditions; f) fixation in rural areas.

- Economic dimension: a) financial productivity of the land; b) total income of the land; c) diversification of income sources; d) equipment and constructions; e) autonomy of agricultural activity; f) commercialization of production; g) access to credit.

It should be noted that the parameters were classified according to the models proposed in the literature and are shown in Table 1. Subsequently, thirteen indicators were defined, consisting of six related to the social dimension and seven related to the economic dimension. For this purpose, additional literature searches were carried out to verify the use of such indicators in other studies. For each determined social and economic indicator, parameters were defined so that their values could be found. Among the studies, are: Leite Junior et al. (2013), Tavares et al. (2019), Silva et al. (2016), Gamarra-Rojas et al. (2019), Silva & Vieira (2016), and Camargo (2017).

Table 1. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on the models proposed in the literature

For the calculation of sustainability indicators, the model proposed by Silva (2007), was used as the basis, in which the indicators selected for the calculation of sustainability assessment by social and economic dimensions are normalized and converted into indexes, using the metric presented in Table 2. Considering the variation of the values between 0 (zero) and 1 (one), the values closer to 1 (one) indicate more sustainability, and those closer to 0 (zero) indicate less sustainability.

Table 2. Source: Silva (2007, p. 125)

After determining the values of the indexes, they were categorized into levels of sustainability, by adapting the model proposed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP/UN, 1998) and used by Silva (2007), who called it a sustainability indication thermometer (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Source: Adapted from Silva (2007)

Figure 1 shows the model of the sustainability indication thermometer, used to classify the level of sustainability of the analyzed indicators. The indexes were classified into levels of sustainability, ranging from 0 to 1, divided into: critical (0 to 0.19); poor (0.20 to 0.39); regular (0.40 to 0.59); good (0.60 to 0.79) and excellent (0.80 to 1).

Starting from the individual values of the thirteen indicators previously determined, weights were defined for the calculation of the indexes of the social and economic dimensions, using a weighted average for this purpose. Such weights aimed to provide quantitative values, the degree of influence on the final index, and the index of more influence on the final value received more weight as compared to the others. To determine weight values consistent with reality, specialists working in the rural reach-out area were consulted, following the Delphi method, and using the answers of those available to complete the questionnaires.

The Delphi method is configured as a technique used to achieve consensus on a given subject through the analysis of a group of specialists working in the area. To this end, rounds of questionnaires are carried out between the researcher and experts, who anonymously evaluate, ponder, and send opinions and criticisms about the subject under discussion. Several authors used this method in the elaboration of sustainability indicators. Among them, stands out the work developed by Silva (2007), in the construction of an environmental and agricultural sustainability index.

After determining the indexes of the social and economic dimensions, they were categorized according to the degree of sustainability, and the last step in the construction of ISAR was carried out. That is, arithmetic mean was used between the values of the indexes of both dimensions, and in this way, the value of the settlement’s ISAR was determined, as will be shown in the research results.

For the Social Dimension analysis, six indicators were used, as described in the previous section. Regarding the results obtained, there were several changes in their values between 2013 and 2015, both individually, among the six indexes analyzed, and in the IDS’s final value, which is composed of the indexes’ weighted average. As for the IDS, its value in 2013 was 0.51, changing to 0.60 in 2015, classifying it according to the sustainability thermometer, as regular in 2013, and good in 2015, thus confirming that, in general, the social conditions of the families improved after the reach-out actions.

Table 3 shows the values of the ISAR social dimension indexes. According to the sustainability thermometer, the values of the weights assigned to each index and their classifications are also shown.

Table 3. Source: own source based on the research results *

Weight assigned following the Delphi Method.

The IDS was classified as good in 2015, and its value improved slightly as compared to the previous period. When analyzing the results of the indicators, it appears that the indexes vary between 2013 and 2015. All six indexes studied had their values changed. However, two of them remained in the same classification concerning sustainability, one worsened, but three improved. That is why, as a whole, the Barra Nova Settlement Social Dimension Index improved over the period analyzed. It serves as a positive indicator of the reach-out action performed.

As for the indicators that continued with the same classification, in 2013 and 2015, there are those related to the satisfaction of the services provided by Incra and the education of farmers. As for the first, it was found that its value went from 0.46 to 0.49, remaining as Regular between the periods, demonstrating that the perception of the settled people about the services performed by Incra, such as the construction of houses, application of credit, attendance of employees, presence in the settlement and resolution of demands and problems has not changed so much after the reach-out actions.

Regarding the education level of farmers, the result was classified as poor in both periods of analysis. Also, its value was the lowest among all indicators of the social dimension. This fact deserves special attention because, according to Camargo (2017), the low level of education can negatively affect the financial management of the properties, hinder the commercialization of products and increase the difficulties in the development of productive activities.

Leite Junior et al. (2013), found similar results in a settlement in Goiás, when the authors detected a low level of education among the families, noting functional illiteracy. At this point, the authors stated that agrarian reform goes far beyond establishing a settlement and the level of education is an essential factor for the territorial development of these places.

Thus, it appears that the low education level of the farmers is common among them in several rural settlements, and the situation lacks State intervention. The need to create education policies aimed at the countryside is emphasized so that such indicators are improved and, consequently, improvements in rural development are possible.

As for the index that worsened, there is a topic related to the association’s presence in the settlement in the period under analysis. It was classified as Good in 2013, but in 2015 it was considered Regular. As noted, the percentage of respondents who stated the existence of an association in the settlement in 2015 was lower than in 2013, which decreased the value of the index (Table 3). Therefore, it is noted that there is no unanimity in the answer, and thus, it is considered that there must be an association, but few producers feel aggregated or represented by it.

Sangalli et al. (2015), in a study in the Lagoa Grande settlement in MS, found several factors that can limit the development of a settlement. Among them, there was a lack of associativism activity with the producers, as this can be understood as a ‘link’ between settled people and public institutions for the emergence of partnerships, dissemination of information, in addition to projects and programs of income generation.

As for the indexes that improved, there are those related to food security, satisfaction with housing, and fixation in the countryside. The first classification went from Poor to Regular between the periods analyzed, with a significant improvement in value, going from 0.37 to 0.54 (Table 3). Therefore, it appears that the amount of food consumed by families, which were produced in the lots, increased between 2013 and 2015. That is, families started to produce more food for their consumption. This fact reflects the increase in the production diversification of the lots and the increase in the cultivation of crops such as vegetables and orchards.

This result demonstrates that the settlement fulfills one of its crucial roles, improving the nutritional aspects of families and favoring the community’s food safety (Schneider, 2016).

Regarding satisfaction with housing, as can be seen in Table 3, its rating went from Good to Excellent between 2013 and 2015, going from 0.66 to 0.88, which is the highest value index of the social dimension in 2015, noting that families are satisfied with their homes. This fact is due to the increase in the houses’ average size and the improvement in the type of constructions, combined with the increase in the number of brick masonry houses, which reflected in the satisfaction of the settled families and, consequently, in the improvement of the indicator.

As for the index related to fixation in the rural area, its classification also went from Good (0.60) to Excellent (0.84), showing that after the reach-out actions, families started to occupy themselves more with work activities in the settlement and diversified their production and income, among other changes, which reflected in the improvement of this index. This result favors the continuity of activities and the fixation of farmers’ children, who, when viewing the possibility of income and improving the quality of life, in addition to incentive programs, can see a future in the settlement itself.

Thus, it appears that the most prominent indexes for improvement in the social dimension were those related to satisfaction with housing and the fixation of people in the countryside, which were classified as excellent in 2015. Only one of the six indicators worsened between the periods, showing that, after the reach-out action, a families’ social conditions improved. The results of the indexes related to the economic dimension of the settlement’s ISAR will be presented in the next topic to broaden the analysis.

Regarding the economic dimension, seven indexes were analyzed. Table 4 presents the values, as well as the weights assigned to each one and their classifications according to the sustainability thermometer, as proposed in this study.

As shown in Table 4, the economic dimension index, as well as the social dimension, improved between 2013 and 2015. Its value showed a significant increase, from 0.34 to 0.54, and its classification went from Poor to Regular between the periods. Even considering the small change in the classification, it is worth noting the occurrence of several significant changes in the indexes when analyzed separately, which, once again, might be reflecting the various changes that emerged in the settlement with the actions developed.

Table 4. Source: own source based on the research results *

Weight assigned following the Delphi Method

In the economic dimension, more notable changes were observed in comparison to the social dimension. Among them, there are more significant increases in the indexes’ values and a larger number of those that improved, of which seven out of six analyzed improved, and only one worsened, which refers to the products’ commercialization produced by the farmers. As for the index related to the land’s financial productivity, its value in 2013 was 0.13, classified as critical. In 2015, its value was 0.22, classified as poor. Furthermore, it is observed that even with a small improvement, the land’s financial productivity, which measures the financial yield per hectare in the properties, was considered poor in 2015. Although it has improved, it deserves special attention, since it presented the lowest value among the seven indexes in the last period under analysis.

Similar results were found in other studies, which differed in the values, but presented the same classifications. Among these studies are: Gamarra-Rojas et al. (2019), in a settlement in the state of Pernambuco, where the value was 0.16; and Stoffel and Colognese (2015), in a settlement in the state of Paraná, where the value was 0.36. In both studies, this index was classified as Poor and was identified as the most negative value concerning sustainability.

For Stoffel and Colognese (2015), the similarity of such results is explained by the increase in the production cost to which farmers are subject. As alternatives, Santos and Braga (2013) emphasize the need for technical guidance for producers, guiding them in ways of adding value to production, increasing production in smaller spaces, in addition to financial management mechanisms, so that results control can be measured and improved.

As for the index related to the total monthly income of the property, this was considered critical in 2013. However, its value increased significantly, going from 0.16 to 0.41, classified as regular in 2015 (Table 4). In this sense, it is noted that the families’ income improved after the reach-out actions, which may indicate the improvements that occurred from these actions.

Another settlement with similar results in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul was studied by Souza et al. (2017), when this index was 0.42, also pointing to average sustainability. Due to this classification, the results show that there are still opportunities for improvement in this regard, which is influenced by other factors, such as the financial productivity of the land and the commercialization of production, which also deserve attention because it is a variable that influences people’s quality of life.

The index related to income diversification is highlighted in the 2015 Economic Dimension Index - IDE, which presented the highest value among that year’s indexes. In 2013, it was classified as Good, with a value equal to 0.63, reaching 0.92 in 2015, when it was classified as Excellent. It is noted that families increased the number of income sources between periods. This result reflects the diversification of productive activities carried out by families and influences the income value increase, as shown in the previous index.

This result is favorable to the settlement because according to Oliveira et al. (2015), the diversification of production promotes different benefits, such as complementation and diversification of income, food security, nutritional improvement of meals, nutritional improvement of meals, and increased participation of the female workforce in the field.

As for the index related to equipment and constructions, which measures the number of productive goods (machines, equipment, and vehicles) and the constructions made in the lots (excluding families’ households), its value went from 0.28 to 0.63, going from poor in 2013 to good in 2015 (Table 4). Thus, it appears that families had greater availability of goods for their productive activities and increased the number of constructions in the lots, which favors the development of the families’ productive activities and, consequently, in production and income.

At this point, there was a significant increase in the totality of goods in the settlement, which in 2015 was 1,130 pieces of equipment, as compared to 685 in 2013, and in the last period, all lots presented at least one productive piece of equipment, especially the tractor. In the same way, constructions also increased, from 334 in 2013 to 534 in 2015, with particular emphasis on warehouses, pigsties, and stables. In 2015, practically 93% of the properties had some construction, against 74.5% in 2013.

As for the index related to the autonomy of the properties’ productive activity, which evaluates the percentage of the monthly income generated by agricultural activities concerning total income (agricultural or not), there was also an improvement in values and classification. From 0.37, its value went to 0.47, being classified as regular in 2015, differently from 2013, when it was classified as poor (Table 4). Therefore, it appears that the properties, after the reach-out actions, became more self-sustainable, due to the increase in the proportion between the agricultural financial income and the total income of the families. This fact is influenced by the diversification of income and the increase in activities in the settlement and favors the rate of fixation in the rural areas, which has also improved.

As for the index related to access to credit provided by PRONAF, which evaluated the percentage of financing applications provided to farmers, there were also improvements in the results. It was classified as critical in 2013, going to good in 2015. With this index, it was observed that no family had used credit lines provided by PRONAF in 2013, which changed in 2015, when more than 60% of the population used this resource, as shown in Table 4.

Access to credit by the family producer can grant several gains. A study by Miranda and Gomes (2016) showed that the credit granted by PRONAF helped improve productive capacity, maintain agricultural activities, and improve the families’ income. In summary, the authors considered that this aid, given the benefits that concern farmers, could provide the reach of sustainable rural development.

Once again, the importance of the reach-out actions carried out in the Settlement it’s noted. In addition to training, this brings information to people because, as the results indicate, families probably had little knowledge of this resource, which favors and helps farmers in their various activities.

As for the only index that worsened between the periods analyzed, there is the one related to the commercialization of family production, which identifies the commercialization channels or points of sale that the products are destined to be sold. Table 4 noted that in 2013, it was classified as Good, but in 2015, it was classified as Regular.

Based on this result, there was a strong presence of intermediary agents who resell products in places where the settled families do not reach. Besides, it was noted that public entities, fairs, and supermarkets are not yet reached by producers, requiring attention from entities, which encourage and assist such families in reaching new markets, which may further favor diversification and income generation.

A study by Moreira and Souza (2018), in another settlement in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, showed better results in this regard. As means that favored the commercialization of production, they highlighted public policies, such as the National School Food Program – PNAE and the Food Acquisition Program – PAA. In this sense, they highlighted the importance of these mechanisms, which, in addition to these gains, promote the improvement of the quality of life and families’ social and economic conditions.

There were several improvements between the periods analyzed, in addition to income, thus showing that the economic conditions of families improved after the reach-out actions. This index, in addition to the Social Dimension Index [IDS], constitutes the Socioeconomic Indicator for Rural Settlement, ISAR, presented below.

Table 5 presents the values and classifications in both periods of analysis regarding the settlement ISAR determination. Apparently, its value in 2013 was 0.42, while in 2015, it reached a value of 0.57, classifying it as regular in both periods. It is noteworthy that, even with this classification, the individualized results of each indicator, already presented in the analysis of the indexes of the social and economic dimensions, showed significant improvements.

Table 5. Source: own source based on the research results

Furthermore, even without changes in the classification of the settlement’s ISAR value, it is considered that the social and economic indexes showed several significant improvements between 2013 and 2015. It leads to the observation that there are strong indications that the reach-out actions carried out in the Barra Nova Settlement favored several changes in the settled families’ social and economic conditions.

However, the study by Oliveira (2017) in the same settlement stands out with an econometric analysis of panel data. With the study, it was concluded that the assistance actions improved the social and economic situations of the families, with emphasis on the increase of access to rural credit, an increase of productive goods and constructions, and an increase of families producing for commercialization. As factors to be improved, the author highlighted the need to create a cooperative and increase residents’ actions in the association. Moreover, even with a different methodology, the results were similar in this work.

For the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, the studies of Oliveira et al. (2017), stand out with a value of 0.53; and Souza et al. (2017), where the indicator was 0.56, and for both, the indicator was classified as an average level of sustainability. Another study with a similar result was carried out by Moreno (2018), in which the authors compared families benefited and not benefited by PRONAF, resulting in a value of 0.46 for beneficiaries and 0.47 for non-beneficiaries, classified as regular for both groups.

Given the similarity of the results, there is a convergence of the settlements in presenting average values, which deserves public officials’ attention, as their sustainability is regular. As considered by Sangalli et al. (2015), the common problems faced by different settlements can be minimized with proper planning in their project and concern related to peoples’ quality of life, which must consider factors such as local characteristics, soil fertility, access to the consumer market, health services and education level.