Assessment of the Agroecological Transition of Farms in Central Tunisia Using the TAPE Framework

Abstract

In Tunisia, the agricultural sector faces multiple challenges that affect both productivity and farmers’ livelihoods. Although agroecology is increasingly recognized as a pathway to sustainable agriculture, the extent of its adoption by farmers remains unclear. This study assesses the agroecological performance of 50 farms in the Sbikha delegation of the Kairouan governorate (Central Tunisia), using the Tool for Agroecological Performance Evaluation (TAPE), developed by the FAO. This tool assesses how existing cropping systems align with the 10 principles of agroecology and explores their potential for further transition. The results reveal a modest level of agroecological adoption, averaging only 41%. Several factors influence this outcome, including limited farmer knowledge and technical capacity, a weak institutional and organizational framework, and low diversification of cropping systems. Furthermore, three types of farms were identified based on their production systems: farms specializing in fruit trees, farms specializing in cereal and vegetable crops, and farms specializing in olive and vegetable crops. Among these, fruit tree farms exhibit a higher level of agroecological transition, averaging 51%. This increased diversification enhances resilience to market fluctuations. To accelerate the agroecological transition, several key measures should be implemented. Updating land property titles would improve access to credit by enabling farmers to provide the necessary guarantees. Additionally, targeted training programs and awareness-raising initiatives could strengthen technical capacities, thereby facilitating the adoption of agroecological practices. These interventions would enhance farmers’ economic resilience, support sustainable agricultural production, and promote equitable rural development.

1. Introduction

The intensification of agricultural systems has been crucial in boosting global food production to meet the growing demands of a rapidly expanding population [1,2]. By modern technologies and industrial inputs, this mode of production has significantly increased agricultural yields and improved food availability [3,4]. However, these advancements have often come at the expense of natural resources and ecosystem sustainability. They have led to significant ecological imbalances, including soil erosion, water pollution, and biodiversity loss. Furthermore, they fuel social crises by marginalizing smallholder farmers in favor of large industrial operations [1,5].

Faced with these challenges, agroecology emerges as a promising solution to reconciling food production with ecosystem preservation while also addressing sustainability and equity issues [6,7]. Indeed, numerous studies have highlighted the multiple benefits of agroecology, including improving farming households’ income, enhancing food security, improving nutritional outcomes, promoting social justice, preserving biodiversity, and reducing negative environmental impacts [8,9,10,11].

Despite significant progress, knowledge regarding the impacts of agroecology remains incomplete. A substantial portion of the available information comes from what is known as “grey literature”, including case studies, reports of experiences conducted by local communities, and empirical observations gathered in the field [3,12,13]. While grey literature is essential for capturing contextual specifics and local realities, it often lacks methodological rigor or standardized protocols [7,14].

It is crucial to resort to harmonized approaches and robust methodologies that facilitate the integration of data from grey literature with scientific research. This involves the validation of local experiences and the creation of networks to ensure they can contribute to large-scale comparative analyses [12,13].

In this context, the evaluation of agricultural performance combines quantitative and qualitative methods, enabling the analysis of economic profitability, environmental impact, and the social aspects of agricultural practices. In this context, several methods have been developed. Among these, the Farm Sustainability Indicators method (Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles-IDEA) utilizes specific indicators to evaluate the sustainability of farming systems across three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental [15]. Another approach is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which assesses the overall environmental impact of an activity throughout its life cycle, from production to consumption [16]. Finally, multi-criteria analysis integrates multiple criteria to assess the performance of farming systems from various perspectives [17].

Furthermore, the FAO initiated a series of global and regional dialogs on agroecology, engaging a diverse range of stakeholders (such as civil society, producer organizations, researchers and policymakers) [18,19]. One of the key outcomes of these consultations was the development of the Tool for Agroecological Performance Evaluation (TAPE) analytical framework [20]. By integrating social, economic, and environmental dimensions, TAPE enables a comprehensive assessment of agroecological practices and serves as a strategic lever for guiding public policies and promoting sustainable agricultural development in response to contemporary challenges [21,22].

In Tunisia, the agricultural sector plays a crucial role in the national economy, contributing 11% of the Gross Domestic Product. It also significantly contributes to job creation, accounting for 15% of jobs, and has a considerable impact on the country’s trade balance and food security. More specifically, family farming, representing 78% of farms, is central to the economic, social, and cultural vitality of rural areas. It also contributes to the preservation of landscapes and ecosystems [23,24]. However, in response to numerous challenges related to intensive agricultural practices and the effects of climate change (such as the overexploitation of water resources, soil erosion, and socio-economic inequalities), agroecology emerges as a crucial solution to promote sustainable practices tailored to Tunisia’s local realities [25,26].

The present study focuses on the Sbikha delegation in the Kairouan governorate, a region where family farming is predominant. Like many rural areas in Tunisia, Sbikha faces pressing challenges, including water scarcity, soil degradation, and the impacts of climate change, further exacerbated by limited access to markets and financial resources. This research aims to assess the agroecological performance of family farms using the TAPE framework. Beyond measuring current agroecological adoption, this study seeks to identify key levers for strengthening farm resilience and explore pathways for scaling up sustainable practices tailored to local conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Household Selection

This study was conducted in the Sbikha delegation (Figure 1), located in the Kairouan governorate, where 65% of the population resides in rural areas.

Sbikha covers an area of 106,000 ha, representing 16% of the governorate’s total area. This delegation falls within a lower semi-arid bioclimatic zone characterized by hot, dry summers and temperate winters. These climatic conditions present major challenges for agricultural production, particularly regarding water availability and soil degradation. The Sbikha delegation includes 80,000 ha of agricultural land managed by 8000 farmers, with 20,000 ha irrigated, 40,000 ha rain-fed, and 20,000 ha of pasturelands, which play a crucial role in livestock grazing [27,28].

Smallholder farming dominates the local agricultural landscape, with households of less than 10 ha being a key pillar of the region’s economy and cultural heritage. These farms sustain local food production and preserve traditional farming practices and local knowledge, ensuring the transmission of age-old techniques across generations.

A total of 50 family farmers were selected from the region, ensuring a diverse representation of agroecological transitions. The selection was based on the following criteria: farm size ≤ 10 ha (to focus on small-scale, family farming system) and family labor ≥ 50% of the total workforce (ensuring strong reliance on household labor).

To ensure representativeness, we employed a stratified sampling strategy designed to capture key demographic and agroecological diversity (e.g., farm size, production systems, income levels). The sample was validated against regional census data (CRDA Kairouan, 2022–2023), confirming its alignment in terms of farm size distribution (70% <10 ha), household income, and educational level. In addition, collaboration with local agricultural authorities (CRDA Kairouan and CTV Sbikha) ensured that the sample accurately reflected the predominant farming typologies (cereals, olives, and fruit trees) and the socio-economic context of Sbikha.

This approach provides a comprehensive perspective on the agroecological practices adopted by small-scale farmers in Sbikha, ensuring a more representative and reliable analysis of current practices.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

To achieve the study’s objectives, we adopted the TAPE, a comprehensive framework developed by the FAO to assess agroecological transitions across multiple dimensions—economic, social, environmental, and nutritional. The TAPE methodology is designed to be adaptable to different agricultural contexts and is particularly well-suited to family farming rather than large-scale commercial farming [20]. It has been implemented in various countries, including Cambodia, Belgium, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Senegal, Mali, Ethiopia, and Italy [3,12,29,30].

TAPE is a comprehensive analytical framework grounded in the 10 principles of agroecology (

Table A1. Indicators associated with each of the 10 Elements of Agroecology [20].

Elements	Indicators
1. Diversity	1.1. Crops
	1.2. Animals
	1.3. Trees and other perennials
	1.4. Diversity of activities, products, and services
2. Synergies	2.1. Crop–livestock integration
	2.2. Soil–plant system management
	2.3. Integration with trees
	2.4. Connectivity between agroecosystem elements and the landscape
3. Efficiency	3.1. Use of external inputs
	3.2. Soil fertility management
	3.3. Pest and diseases management
	3.4. Productivity and household needs
4. Recycling	4.1. Recycling of biomass and nutrients
	4.2. Water saving
	4.3. Seeds and breeds management
	4.4. Renewable energy and production
5. Resilience	5.1. Stability of income/production and capacity to recover from perturbations
	5.2. Mechanisms for reducing vulnerability
	5.3. Environmental resilience and capacity to adapt to climate change
6. Culture and Food Tradition	6.1. Appropriate diet and nutrition awareness
	6.2. Local or traditional identity and awareness
	6.3. Use of local varieties/breeds and traditional knowledge in food preparation
7. Co-creation and Sharing of Knowledge	7.1. Platforms for horizontal knowledge creation and transfer of good practices
	7.2. Access to agroecological knowledge and interest of producers in agroecology
	7.3. Participation of producers in networks and grassroots organizations
8. Human and Social Values	8.1. Women’s empowerment
	8.2. Labor (working conditions, social inequalities)
	8.3. Youth empowerment and migration
	8.4. Animal welfare
9. Circular and Solidarity Economy	9.1. Products and services marketed locally
	9.2. Networks of producers, relationships with consumers, and role of intermediaries
	9.3. Local food system
10. Responsible Governance	10.1. Producers’ empowerment
	10.2. Producers’ organizations and associations
	10.3. Producers participation in land and natural resources governance

) and closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (

Table A2. Core criteria of performance of agroecology and their links to Sustainable Development Goals indicators [20].

Main Dimension	Core Criteria of Performance	Proposed Method of Assessment in Survey	SDG	SDG Indicators
Governance	1. Secure land tenure	Include forms of land tenure, such as ownership, rental agreements (including specific timeframes), informal or unwritten arrangements, and the presence or utilization of pastoral systems.	1 2 5	1.4.2 2.4.1 5.a.1
Economy	2. Productivity	- Value of agricultural production per hectare. - Value of agricultural production per person.	2	2.3.1 2.4.1
	3. Income	Income = Products − inputs − operating expenses − depreciation + other income	1 2 10	1.1.1, 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 2.3.2 2.4.1 10.2.1
	4. Added value	Added value = Gross value of agricultural production − (expenses for inputs + intermediates consumptions + depreciation)	10	10.1.1 10.2.1
Health and nutrition	5. Exposure to pesticides	Include quantity applied, treated area, toxicity levels, and availability of risk mitigation equipment and practices.	3	3.9.1 3.9.2 3.9.3
	6. Dietary diversity	Correspond to the Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women, based on consumption of 10 food groups in the past 24 h.	2	2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.4.1
Society and Culture	7. Women’s empowerment	Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (A-WEAI), developed to assess women’s roles in agricultural decision-making, access to resources, and their overall well-being within agricultural households.	2 5	2.4.1 5.a.1 5.a.2
	8. Youth employment opportunity	Access to jobs, training and or education; migration opportunities.	8	8.6.1
Environment	9. Agricultural biodiversity	Relative importance of crop varieties, animal breeds, tree species, and semi-natural environments within production units.	2 15	2.4.1 2.5.1
	10. Soil health	Adapted SOCLA (Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology) rapid and farmer friendly agroecological method to assess soil health.	2 15	2.4.1 15.3.1

). Particularly, TAPE is a step-by-step approach consisting of three main steps, supported by an initial description of the context and systems (step 0) and including an optional typology (step 1 bis) (Figure 2). The following steps are outlined below.

• Step 0: Contextualization of the Study Area: This preliminary step involved a desk review to understand the socio-economic (e.g., household income levels, employment access and education levels), demographic (e.g., population growth and gender dynamics), environmental (e.g., climate conditions, biodiversity, and water availability), and institutional (e.g., Government policies and agricultural extension services) contexts of the Sbikha delegation. The review included sources such as studies, administrative reports, and national statistics produced by the Ministry of Agriculture and affiliated institutions.

Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with farmers, cooperatives, community leaders, and local agricultural administration officials (Regional Development Commissariat of Kairouan-CRDA, Territorial Extension Unit of Sbika-CTV) to refine the contextual analysis. Contextual data for the region were sourced from official documents and statistical records provided by the Kairouan CRDA and the Sbikha CTV.

• Step 1: Characterizing Agroecological Transitions (CAET): Step 1 aimed to assess the extent of agroecology adoption among farming households. Data were collected through structured surveys conducted with 50 selected farmers, supplemented by observations from local agricultural administration officials. The CAET framework is based on 37 indicators grouped under the 10 elements of agroecology defined by the FAO. In our study, we worked with 35 indicators (Table A1). The FAO-TAPE framework explicitly encourages contextual adaptations to ensure the assessment remains relevant to local realities, without compromising its methodological robustness. In the study region, smallholder farmers have limited access to formal credit systems and often rely on informal financial networks. Consequently, quantifying indicators such as farmers’ indebtedness and income from diversified activities proved impractical, as respondents either lacked financial records or were reluctant to disclose sensitive personal information.

Each indicator is scored on a scale from 0 (lowest performance) to 4 (highest performance). For example, the element “Efficiency” is evaluated using four indicators: “Use of external inputs”, “Soil fertility management”, “Pest and diseases Management”, and “Productivity and household needs”. The score of their indices are summed (for example: 2 + 4 + 1 + 3 = 10), and the total scores are then converted into a percentage by standardizing them on a scale from 0 to 100 (e.g., a score of 10 out of a maximum possible 16 corresponds to 62.5%). By assigning scores to each indicator, a quantitative assessment of the overall agroecological performance of the agricultural system was obtained.

Additionally, a correlation analysis was performed on the various variables to gain insights into the relationships between the 10 elements of agroecology, as well as between the overall CAET and its underlying elements. This step is crucial for identifying strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement during the transition to more sustainable agricultural practices.

• Step 1 bis: Typology of Agricultural Systems: This step is optional in the TAPE framework. Indeed, to further refine the analysis, Step 1 bis classified farms based on criteria such as diversity, production orientation, and CAET scores. The methods used to develop these typologies can vary, ranging from participatory approaches and statistical techniques to expert-driven classifications [31,32]. In our study, we employed an expert-driven typology approach, leveraging the knowledge of the local agricultural administration officials (CRDA Kairouan and CTV Sbikha). This typology was developed according to the main orientation of the production systems of the 50 studied farms (cereals, vegetable crops, olive trees, fruit trees). Particularly, 15 farms are specialized in cereals and vegetable crops, 18 farms are specialized in olive trees and vegetable crops, and 17 farms are specialized in fruit trees.
• Step 2: Multidimensional Performance Assessment: This step evaluated agroecological performance across three key dimensions: economic (e.g., farm income and market access), environmental (e.g., biodiversity and water use efficiency), and social (e.g., gender inclusion and food security). These dimensions are aligned with national policymakers’ strategic priorities aimed at promoting the sustainability and resilience of agricultural systems. Specific criteria are defined for each dimension, followed by the identification of indicators. A concise list of 10 core criteria has been established to guide this evaluation (Table A2). Data collection combines interviews, direct field observations, and structured surveys with farms and local agricultural administration officials.

Performance is evaluated using the “traffic light” approach, which categorizes sustainability into three levels: critical unsustainability (red), acceptable conditions (yellow), and desirable conditions (green). This method helps to highlight areas in need of improvement (

Table A3. Core criteria of performance of agroecology and Sustainability Levels [20]. (Performance is evaluated using the “traffic light” approach, which categorizes sustainability into three levels: critical unsustainability (red), acceptable conditions (yellow), and desirable conditions (green)).

Core Criteria of Performance	Sustainability Levels
Secure land tenure	Green (desirable): Has a formal document with the name of the holder on it.
	Yellow (acceptable): Has no document but has perception of secure land and has at least one right to sell/bequeath/inherit the land.
	Red (unsustainable): No document possessed.
Productivity	Green (desirable): Productivity value per ha is ≥2/3 of the national average value of production per hectare/year.
	Yellow (acceptable): Productivity value per ha is ≥1/3 and <2/3 of the national average value of production per hectare/year.
	Red (unsustainable): Productivity value per ha is <1/3 of the national average value of production per hectare/year.
Revenue	Green (desirable): Perception that income is increasing and > average income in the region.
	Yellow (acceptable): Perception that income is stable and = average income in the region.
	Red (unsustainable): Perception that income is decreasing or < average income in the region.
Added Value	Green (desirable): Gross added value/family worker >1.2 × national agricultural GDP per agricultural worker.
	Yellow (acceptable): Gross added value/family worker <1.2 × national agricultural GDP per agricultural worker.
	Red (unsustainable): Gross added value/family worker <0.8 × national agricultural GDP per agricultural worker.
Exposure to Pesticides	Green (desirable): Quantity of organic pesticides used ≥ Quantity of synthetic pesticides used.
	Yellow (acceptable): Quantity of synthetic pesticides used > quantity of organic pesticides used.
	Red (unsustainable): producers use chemical pesticides of any class and no organic pesticides and no other integrated techniques are used.
Dietary Diversity	Green (desirable): Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD): score ≥ 7
	Yellow (acceptable): 5 ≥ MDD score < 7
	Red (unsustainable): score < 5
Women’s Empowerment	Green (desirable): A-WEAI ≥ 80%
	Yellow (acceptable): A-WEAI ≥ 60% and <80%
	Red (unsustainable): A-WEAI < 60%
Youth Employment Opportunities	Green (desirable): Score ≥ 70%
	Yellow (acceptable): Score ≥ 50% and <70%
	Red (unsustainable): Score < 50%
Agricultural Biodiversity	Green (desirable): Average score is ≥70%
	Yellow (acceptable): Average score is ≥50% and <70%
	Red (unsustainable): Average score is <50%
Soil Health	Green (desirable): Average score is ≥3.5
	Yellow (acceptable): Average score is ≥2.5 and <3.5
	Red (unsustainable): Average score is <2.5

).

• Step 3: Participatory Interpretation of Results: In the final step, findings from Steps 1 and 2 were validated through participatory discussions with farmers and stakeholders (e.g., CRDA Kairouan and CTV Sbikha) during farms visits. This process ensured that the data accurately reflected local realities and helped generate actionable recommendations for improving agroecological practices. The participatory approach also played a role in policy guidance and capacity-building efforts.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The analysis and visualization of survey data were conducted using R software (version 4.2). To explore the relationships between different indicators of agroecological performance, Pearson’s correlation analysis was carried out using the Hmisc and corrplot packages in R [33].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Contextualization of the Sbikha Delegation

The agricultural sector in the Sbikha delegation is a vital pillar of the local economy. Farms are featured by diverse production systems, with a notable emphasis of vegetable crops (e.g., tomatoes, onions, chili peppers, peas, watermelon and melon) totaling 120,000 tons in 2024. Additionally, olive and fruit trees (e.g., peach, plum, almond, and apricot) play a significant role, covering approximately 20,000 and 900 ha, respectively [28]. Irrigation helps support agriculture in the region despite its semi-arid climate. Water is mainly supplied from the Nebhana dam, deep wells, and surface wells tapping into the aquifers of Sisseb-ElAlem, Ain Boumorra, Ain Jloula, and Chougafia.

Moreover, livestock farming (sheep, cattle, goats) on natural grasslands is still important for families and the local economy, providing meat and dairy products. There are 125,000 sheep and goats’ heads and 6000 cattle heads [27,28].

The average family in Sbikha consists of 6 members. Small family farms (less than 10 ha) are vital, making up 70% of the region’s farming systems, with around 49,000 farms. 43% are smaller than 5 ha, playing a significant role in the local agricultural landscape. Additionally, 27% of farms fall within the 5 to 10 ha, highlighting the importance of small-scale and medium, family-managed farms. These farms contribute 35% of the region’s income and are key drivers of economic, social, and cultural development [27,28].

However, economic vulnerability remains high, with 30% of surveyed households living below the poverty line with an average annual income of 2,536 Tunisian Dinars-TD (1 € = 3.32 TD in 2025 [34]). Limited infrastructure and access to credit were frequently cited as barriers to farm investment, affecting productivity and sustainability.

Regarding educational levels, more than half of the surveyed farmers (64%) have completed only primary education, while 18% have attained secondary education. Notably, only 6% of respondents hold a university degree. Interestingly, farmers with higher levels of education tend to demonstrate greater awareness, which positively impacts their agricultural management decisions. This, in turn, contributes to the overall sustainability and profitability of their farming operations.

3.2. Characterization of the Agroecological Transition (CAET)

The CAET aims to assess the agroecological transition of households in the Sbikha delegation by identifying their strengths and weaknesses based on the 10 agroecology elements (Table A1). The 50 farms studied achieved an average CAET score of 41%, meaning that they are not yet advanced in their agroecological transition (CAET 40–50%). The highest average scores among the 10 agroecological elements relate to the social dimensions of agroecology, specifically ‘culture and food traditions’ and ‘human and social values’, which scored 68% and 61%, respectively (Figure 3).

This reflects the local population’s strong attachment to customs and traditions related to food sovereignty, such as the use of self-produced seeds, family poultry farming, and artisanal cheese production. These practices are considered essential for promoting agriculture that respects cultural identities and preserves artisanal skills. This strong connection stems from the recognition and appreciation of local agricultural practices, as well as the community’s ability to manage its food resources [35,36].

As shown in Figure 3, the farms studied exhibit low scores for the elements of “responsible governance” (11%), “co-creation and sharing of knowledge” (24%), and “circular and solidarity economy” (32%). These elements depend on interactions within local markets, the presence of producer networks, and relationships with consumers and intermediaries. The low scores observed are mainly due to the limited involvement of farmers in rural organizations that support their empowerment. This lack of participation reduces their bargaining power with institutional actors (i.g. CRDA Kairouan, CTV Sbikha, etc.) and limits their access to both technical and financial support. It is also important to note that there are very few such organizations in Sbikha, with only two Mutual Agricultural Service Companies (SMSA) and three Agricultural Development Groups (GDA). Additionally, the Regional Union of Agriculture and Fisheries (URAP), which is intended to represent farmers’ interests, has not been effective in providing support or advocating for their needs.

Although farmers use practices related to agroecology (such as drip irrigation, composting, and crop rotation), the concept itself remains largely unfamiliar to most of them. There is also a lack of participatory processes to encourage the development and sharing of agroecological innovations among peers. This gap is linked to the low educational levels of farmers, with only 18% having completed secondary education and just 6% holding higher education qualifications. Additionally, there is almost no training available to help farmers develop the knowledge and skills needed for agroecological practices. To address this challenge, it is essential to provide support and training to local farmers through institutional actors (such as Agricultural Extension and Training Agency, CRDA Kairouan, and CTV Sbikha) and NGOs to facilitate the agroecological transition [6,37,38].

The “diversity” element receives an average score of 39% (Figure 3), which is considered moderate. This is partly attributed to the limited number of animal species, as well as constraints in the selection of annual crops and trees, driven by climatic conditions, available land area, and limited financial resources.

The principles of “recycling (43%)”, “synergies (44%)”, “efficiency (45%)”, and “resilience (45%)” (Figure 3) display moderate scores, highlighting opportunities to improve the agroecological transition. These results are largely attributed to the limited integration of crop-livestock systems, as herd feeding still relies heavily on externally purchased inputs—such as corn, soy, and protein-enriched cereal mixes—particularly during periods of drought. This dependence on external input, while it may increase productivity in the short term, leads to a moderate level of resilience for farmers. Indeed, those who have attempted to reduce their reliance on these inputs have often faced a decrease in income. As a result, they are forced to seek alternative sources of income, either in the agricultural sector (such as farm workers or sharecroppers) or in other sectors (such as merchants, artisans or transporters) [9,10].

Advancing the agroecological transition requires integrating technological innovations that are adapted to environmental and climatic challenges. In the Sbikha delegation, access to renewable energy sources—such as photovoltaic solar energy—remains limited due to financial constraints and a lack of technical knowledge, despite awareness campaigns by public services encouraging the adoption of clean energy solutions.

3.3. Correlations Between the Elements of Agroecology and the Overall Agroecological Transition (CAET)

The correlation matrix between the 10 elements of agroecology and CAET in the Sbikha delegation is presented in Figure 4. It reveals significant differences among all the elements of CAET. Since the CAET is composed of the scores of its elements, positive correlations are expected. However, the significant differences highlight the relative importance of each element in shaping the overall agroecological transition observed on the surveyed farms.

The element most strongly associated with this transition is “co-creation and knowledge sharing” (0.80, p < 0.001). Unlike industrial agricultural models that rely on external and standardized technologies, agroecology values indigenous knowledge, peasant practices, and field experience. This approach promotes the adoption of innovations by local actors, enhancing their commitment and empowering them to drive change and achieve greater autonomy. It highlights the need for a collaborative approach that engages all stakeholders—farmers, researchers, policymakers, NGOs, consumers, and others—in the development of policies and strategies tailored to local contexts [1,39].

Similarly, the element “efficiency” (0.76, p < 0.001) demonstrates a strong correlation with CAET, indicating that the most efficient farms are those that effectively apply agroecological practices in their daily management (e.g., crop diversity, presence of livestock, crop rotation, intercropping, composting, local varieties and breeds, localized irrigation) [40,41]. The element “resilience” (0.66, p < 0.001) also presents a significant positive correlation, highlighting that farms capable of withstanding various disturbances—whether climatic (e.g., droughts, floods, heatwaves), economic (e.g., high input costs, limited access to agricultural credit, price fluctuations of agricultural products), or ecological (e.g., soil erosion, overexploitation of water)—tend to be in agroecological transition.

The element “responsible governance” (0.58, p < 0.001) emphasizes the importance of decision-making mechanisms in the transition to agroecology. This connection suggests that the success of the transition largely depends on how decisions are made within agricultural operations—whether through participatory decision-making by the concerned actors or individual decision-making by the farmer—and on the commitment of these actors to sustainable and responsible resource management. It is important to note that the low score of the “responsible governance” element compromises the necessary conditions for the effective functioning of a circular and solidarity-based economy. On-participatory governance can reinforce existing inequalities and exclude certain groups of actors, thereby undermining the system’s solidarity and equity. In some cases, this may lead to conflicts and reduced stakeholder engagement.

The work conducted by Tittonell et al. [40] on the agroecological transition in Brazil showed that improving elements related to community networks, knowledge sharing, social justice, and institutional innovation can significantly impact the transition to agroecology. Furthermore, implementing transparent, responsible, and inclusive governance mechanisms is crucial for establishing responsible governance that ensures equal access to resources such as land and water—key factors in achieving social justice [41]. Equitable and effective governance ensures that all stakeholders, particularly rural communities, have fair access to the resources needed for sustainable and resilient production [42].

A positive correlation between the element “circular and solidarity economy” and the CAET (0.509, p < 0.001) highlights the synergy between the agroecological transition and sustainable economic models. The adoption of agroecological practices goes beyond the preservation of natural resources. It is also part of a broader economic model that values the solidarity of actors, particularly through the creation of peasant organizations that strengthen the resilience of small farmers, as well as the reuse of resources (e.g., use of crop by-products, composting). This synergy is a key element in building resilient, equitable, and ecologically responsible food and agricultural systems [43,44].

3.4. Typology of Households

A farm typology, based on an expert-driven typology, was developed according to the main orientation of their production systems. This typology provides valuable insights into the transition towards more sustainable and resilient agricultural systems. It identifies three distinct types, as outlined below, which help in understanding the different pathways for enhancing sustainability and resilience in farming practices:

-

Type 1. Farms Specializing in Cereal and Vegetable Crops (CVC): This type represents 30% of the farms studied, with a primary focus on cultivating cereals (such as barley, durum wheat, and soft wheat) and vegetables (such as beans, tomatoes, onions, peppers, and peas). The average farm size is 2.6 ha, and most of these farms also engage in sheep and goat farming, with an average herd size of seven animals. The average number of family members working on the farm is three. This type achieved a very low CAET score of only 33%, indicating that these farms do not meet agroecological criteria (CAET < 40).

-

Type 2. Farms Specializing in Olive trees and Vegetable Crops (OVC): This second type represents 37% of the farms studied, with a primary focus on olive trees cultivation and vegetable crops such as beans, tomatoes, onions, peppers, watermelon, and melon. The average farm size for this type is estimated at 5 ha, with the integration of cattle farming (an average of 2 herds) and sheep farming (an average of 10 sheep). The average family labor force is estimated at four members. This type reaches a moderately low CAET score of 41%, and farms are also considered non-agroecological (CAET between 40 and 50).

-

Type 3. Farms Specializing in Fruit Tree (FT): This type represents 33% of the farms studied, specializing in fruit tree cultivation, including peach, plum, and apricot trees, with an average farm size of 8 ha. Some of these farms also grow vegetable crops through intercropping, such as beans, tomatoes, chili peppers, and peas. Additionally, the majority of these farms practice sheep and dairy cattle farming. This type achieves an average CAET score of 51%, and farms are in incipient agroecological transition (CAET between 50 and 60).

For the two identified types, CVC and OVC, specialized in annual crops and olive trees, agroecological elements related to “human and social values” and “cultural and food traditions”, receive the highest scores (Figure 5). This indicates that the surveyed farmers highly value local cultural aspects and traditional food practices. In contrast, for the third type, while these elements remain important, they are ranked after “efficiency” (Figure 5). This hierarchy suggests that, in this type of farming, the primary focus is on profitability, while cultural and social considerations are secondary. Moreover, the principles of ‘recycling’, ‘synergies’, and ‘resilience’ received the lowest scores across the three identified farm types (Figure 5). This is mainly attributed to a lack of awareness and training among farmers, limited cooperation between local stakeholders, and the low diversification of production systems.

Farms specializing in fruit tree cultivation stand out for their exceptional efficiency within the agroecosystem. This efficiency leads to higher productivity, increased income, and added value. It is driven by several factors, including the optimized management of local resources and, most importantly, the ability of these farms to diversify. This diversification not only helps in better managing risks associated with climatic and economic uncertainties but also enhances the resilience and sustainability of production systems. Moreover, these farms could create opportunities in niche markets, where there is higher demand for specific products, such as organic, exotic, or high-quality fruits. Although these markets may be smaller, they can offer higher profit margins, contributing to greater overall profitability [45,46].

The multidimensional evaluation of the farms reveals significant disparities among the different types. From an economic perspective, type 3 farms stand out for their performance, with an average monthly income of 2400 DT, making them the most profitable. This success can be attributed to better diversification of activities and more effective product valorization. In terms of the social dimension, type 2 farms appear to be the most engaged in employing young people, both men and women, reflecting a potential openness to generational renewal and innovation. However, the analysis also identifies a common weakness across all farm types: the low involvement of women in agricultural activities and decision-making processes. From an environmental standpoint, type 3 farms distinguish themselves once again, particularly due to a higher level of crop and practice diversification. This diversity represents a valuable asset for ecological resilience, soil health, and the long-term sustainability of production systems.

3.5. Core Criteria of Performance: The Multidimensional Performance of Agroecology

A detailed correlation analysis, broken down by environmental, social, and economic dimensions, is presented below.

3.5.1. Social Dimension

This dimension explores the social, cultural, and community factors that influence agroecological practices. The indicators used to assess this dimension include dietary diversity, youth empowerment, women’s empowerment, and the involvement of family labor in agriculture (Figure 6).

Our results indicate that 73% of the surveyed farmers achieve a “desirable” (green) level of dietary diversity (Figure 7). These farmers consume a wide variety of foods, with a minimum dietary diversity score of 7 or higher. This score is based on the consumption of 10 distinct food groups throughout the day, including essential categories such as cereals, legumes, leafy vegetables, dairy products, meat, eggs, fruits, and dried fruits, among others. This outcome is attributed to the farmers’ proximity to fresh agricultural products and their greater knowledge of healthy and traditional foods.

The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) is a tool designed to assess the empowerment and engagement of women across five key areas: decision-making related to agricultural production, access to productive resources and decision-making power over these resources, control over income use, responsibilities within the community, and time management. In the Sbikha delegation, nearly half of the women (58%) have an “unsustainable” (red) (Figure 7) WEAI score below 0.6, highlighting the marginalized position of women who lack the power and necessary resources (such as land and financing) to effectively participate in the agricultural sector. Moreover, women often lack recognition for their contributions, which remain largely invisible or unacknowledged—particularly in official statistics—despite bearing an excessive workload that combines agricultural, domestic, and community responsibilities. Despite the significant presence of women as workforce, there is a clear male predominance among farm managers in Sbikha. This disparity is deeply rooted in social and cultural norms that restrict women’s access to land ownership, productive resources, and decision-making processes, a situation that is prevalent in several rural areas in Tunisia [47,48]. Such exclusion has profound implications for the financial independence and autonomy of rural women. This highlights the need to integrate a gender perspective when developing strategies aimed at improving agroecological performance. This can be achieved through land reforms, such as securing community rights and registering land in women’s names, as well as through awareness initiatives like women’s education and targeted media campaigns (such as agroecology, leadership, and project management), as well as by supporting the creation of cooperatives or women’s groups [49,50,51].

The professional prospects of young people are a key strategy for combating unemployment and ensuring their sustainable integration into the labor market. Our results reveal a concerning situation in the Sbikha delegation, where 70% of young people (aged 15 to 34) live in this rural area but are employed outside the agricultural sector, in fields such as construction, commerce, and public services, with incomes that do not exceed 1.5 times the Guaranteed Interprofessional Minimum Wage (SMIG = 493 TD in 2025 [52]) in Tunisia. The score associated with this criterion is only 0.195, indicating that the situation of these young people is “unsustainable” (100% of the surveyed farmers achieve an “unsustainable” of youth employment; Figure 7).

In this context, agroecology emerges as a transformative concept to revitalize rural areas, reduce migration flows, and attract young people by offering opportunities such as training, support networks, agricultural innovations, and entrepreneurship [12,13].

Agroecological farms are often family-run, with members actively engaged in its management, reducing the reliance on external labor. The farms studied in Sbikha follow this model, with the number of active family members involved in agricultural activities—such as cattle farming, sheep farming, vegetable cultivation, and fruit growing—ranging from a minimum of three to a maximum of eight individuals. These results emphasize the potential of agroecological transitions to successfully incorporate family labor while fostering the development of sustainable local employment opportunities [41,53].

The correlation analysis between social indicators and CAET reveals notable trends, as shown in Figure 6. Firstly, a positive, though non-significant, correlation is observed between the WEAI and the CAET. This suggests that, as women in agriculture gain autonomy in economic (e.g., access to land, credit, and agricultural income), social (e.g., participation in community meetings, access to training and education, and social rights), and decision-making (e.g., crop selection, and production techniques) aspects, they are better positioned to take initiatives and are more likely to adopt sustainable agricultural practices [49,50].

Moreover, although youth employment exhibits a negative correlation with CAET (Figure 6), it is crucial to acknowledge that other social factors contribute to the way young people engage in sustainable agriculture. These factors include the low level of education and training, the lack of encouraging economic incentives (such as subsidies and low-interest loans), and the absence of targeted public policies (such as awareness programs, the creation of youth networks, and specialized training). These elements all play a significant role in shaping youth involvement in sustainable agricultural practices.

Finally, a significant negative correlation is observed between dietary diversity and the CAET score. This can be explained by the fact that food diversity is often more common in conventional or industrial agricultural systems. Therefore, as the transition towards advanced agroecological practices becomes more pronounced, a greater specialization in certain crops may occur, which could reduce food diversity before a complete diversification is achieved in the long term.

These findings underscore the important role of social factors and highlight the necessity of incorporating them into agricultural and rural development policies and programs. By doing so, such initiatives can be more effective, inclusive, and tailored to the specific needs and realities of local communities [8,50].

3.5.2. Economic Dimension

The economic dimension emphasizes aspects related to agricultural and commercial production, as well as the distribution and consumption of goods and services within markets. This analysis considers three key criteria: productivity, income, and added value.

Farm productivity measures the ability to generate agricultural goods using available resources (labor, land, and capital). Among family farms in Sbikha, productivity ranges from 1500 to 21,000 TD per hectare. Farms with an average productivity demonstrate improvement, indicating a gradual transition to more sustainable practices. These practices include crop rotation, intercropping, and the moderate use of organic fertilizers [9,41].

For the studied farms, the average net income per worker is 1700 TD per month, with a notable variation ranging from 500 to 2500 TD per month. This average income is approximately three times the SMIG. Farmers who attain higher income levels achieve this by diversifying their crops and incorporating high-value crops, such as watermelon, tomato, apricot, peach, and olive.

The Gross Agricultural Value Added (GAVA) measures the contribution of the agricultural sector to the economy. The average GAVA is 23,565 TD per year. It was found that 14% of farms report an annual GAVA of no more than 10,000 TD, primarily due to significant economic challenges, which are often associated with inefficient agricultural practices and poor resource management. Furthermore, 28% of the farms generate a GAVA between 10,000 and 20,000 TD per year, demonstrating their ability to cover production costs and maintain a certain level of economic viability. However, it is important to note that the economic performance of less-advanced agroecological farms in the target area is often linked to negative environmental and social impacts. These farms tend to have a higher reliance on external inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, which increases their ecological footprint [8,41].

Negative correlations were observed between income, added value, productivity, and CAET, indicating that higher levels of these parameters are linked to a greater reluctance to adopt agroecological practices (Figure 6). Farmers with high incomes and productivity are often reluctant to adopt agroecological practices due to transition costs, the risk of short-term productivity decline, and uncertainty about financial benefits. Although these practices are sustainable in the long term, they are perceived as costly and risky, which hinders their adoption by those who are already economically successful. To encourage this transition, financial incentives, technical support, and public policies are needed to demonstrate the long-term benefits of agroecology [1,9].

3.5.3. Environmental Dimension

The results of the environmental indicators focus on the use of pesticides, expenditure on chemical pesticides, soil health index, spending on fertilizers, and the agroecological biodiversity index. Agricultural biodiversity, a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture, plays a critical role in achieving several SDGs (SDG2, SDG3, SDG15). It contributes to food security and enhances nutrition through crop diversity, which is essential for maintaining stable food production in the face of significant challenges such as climate change, pests, and diseases. The Simpson index measures biological diversity by providing insight into the degree of species diversification within ecosystems [20].

The results show that farms with a higher degree of agroecological transition tend to have greater richness and variation in agricultural biodiversity. However, the majority of the evaluated households (66%) demonstrate an “unsustainable” (red) level of agricultural biodiversity (with a score of 0.5 for this indicator) (Figure 7). Therefore, targeted improvements are essential to encourage more agroecological practices in the Sbikha delegation over the long term.

Moreover, the correlation between CAET and agricultural biodiversity is significantly positive (Figure 6), underscoring the crucial role of adopting sustainable agroecological practices in preserving and enhancing biodiversity within agricultural systems. More specifically, this relationship emphasizes the integral role of agricultural biodiversity in improving ecosystem resilience, as well as its contributions to pest regulation, pollination, and the maintenance of soil fertility, all of which align with the core principles of agroecology [40,41].

On the other hand, the majority of the surveyed farmers (88%) manage lands whose health and fertility are considered “desirable” (Figure 7) (with an average score of 4.24 for this indicator), based on the 10 criteria outlined by SOCLA (structure; degree of compaction; status of residues; color, odor, and organic matter; water retention; soil cover; erosion; presence of invertebrates; and microbial activity).

However, the correlation between CAET and soil health is weak and not statistically significant (Figure 6), suggesting a less direct influence of soil health on the adoption of agroecological practices. This can be explained by the fact that the decision to adopt agroecological practices is often more influenced by economic factors (such as profitability and practice costs) and social factors (including farmers’ knowledge and acceptance of these practices), which play a more substantial role in the decision-making process [54,55].

To summarize, the results highlight the unsustainability of the households studied in the Sbikha delegation, especially concerning youth employment in rural areas. While family farming remains a central economic activity, it has proven ineffective in addressing the critical issue of youth unemployment or in creating long-term employment opportunities. Moreover, only 4% of the women surveyed find themselves in a favorable economic situation, a figure that highlights the deeply rooted marginalization of women’s roles within households. A significant number of women lacks financial independence. Additionally, 32% of farms demonstrate unsustainable productivity per hectare, with agricultural yields significantly below the national average. This limitation significantly hinders their potential for economic growth and long-term viability.

4. Conclusions

The concept of agroecology has become increasingly important in contemporary agricultural debates and policy-making, driven by escalating concerns over climate change, the depletion of natural resources (such as soil and water), and the loss of biodiversity.

The evaluation of 50 farm households in the Sbikha delegation reveals a low rate of agroecological transition, with only 41% of farms adopting these practices. This underscores the challenges farmers face in incorporating agroecology into their production methods. The primary factors behind this limited transition are closely linked to the lack of knowledge and technical skills among farmers, which hinders their ability to adopt agroecological practices. Furthermore, the absence of professional organizations restricts access to technical training, awareness-raising programs, and financial resources, necessary for the implementation of agroecological practices.

Despite these challenges, the adoption of agroecological practices by farms in the Sbikha delegation demonstrates a potential for transition. This momentum could be strengthened through the implementation of more targeted public policies specifically designed to support farmers in this transformation. These measures include improved access to financial resources (such as tailored subsidies, low-interest credit mechanisms, and results-based incentive programs) to help overcome the economic barriers to investing in agroecological practices. In addition, developing a robust network for awareness-raising and technical support, structured around specialized training programs in agroecology, territorial facilitation, and multi-stakeholder engagement, would be particularly relevant to address the identified skills gap. Such initiatives would be especially effective if targeted at intermediary actors (e.g., agricultural advisors, project facilitators, and technicians), whose role is pivotal in guiding and supporting producers. Furthermore, supporting the creation and strengthening of farmers’ organizations would significantly enhance knowledge sharing, peer learning, and collective action. Such forms of organization can help mitigate the lack of coordination and the isolation among stakeholders, as highlighted in our findings. Finally, better coordination between agricultural, rural and environmental policies, through appropriate institutional mechanisms, would help address governance weaknesses and foster a more enabling environment for agroecological transition—not only in Sbikha, but also in other regions facing similar challenges.

The TAPE method has facilitated the evaluation of performance across various criteria that go beyond traditional indicators, helping to build a body of evidence for agroecology and supporting the transition toward sustainable agricultural production and food systems. While the TAPE method is a valuable tool, it could be further improved to enhance its accessibility, flexibility, and relevance across a broader range of agricultural and socio-economic contexts. A particular focus on socio-economic factors, local adaptability, and the objectivity of evaluation criteria could strengthen its effectiveness and long-term sustainability. However, the implementation of such improvements may be hindered by institutional and cultural barriers—most notably, a lack of coordination among institutions, the absence of reliable and accessible databases, and the local population’s resistance to change.