From: Empirical survey on business models of kindergarten farms
Characteristics | Case study A | Case study B |
---|---|---|
Subject | Professional agriculture | Professional agriculture |
Location | Rural area | Peri-urban area |
Utilized agricultural area, ha | 8 | 50 |
Head of cattle | 0 | 100 |
Asset value, euro | 260,000 | 1,550,000 |
Estimated revenue streams, euro | 84,000 | 226,000 |
Revenue from production | 24% | 59% |
Revenue from social service | 43% | 25% |
Revenue from recreational service | 33% | 16% |
Number of paid workers | 1 | 6 |
Number of family workers | 2 | 2 |
Number of volunteers | 1 | 0 |
Functions | Case study A | Case study B |
Food production | yes | yes |
Social- rehabilitation and care | yes | no |
Social and educational | yes | yes |
Tourist and recreation | yes | no |
Environmental and biodiversity | yes | no |
Direct sales of farm products | yes | yes |
Social, leisure and well-being | no | yes |
Economic results | Case study A | Case study B |
Estimated net farm income, euro | 30,000 | 95,000 |
Estimated net farm income per family worker, euro | 15,000 | 47,500 |
Amount the government saves per child by subsidizing kindergarten farm, euro | 4,624 | 4,981 |
Increase in the annual fee paid by family, euro | 1,804 | 1,804 |