Content uploaded by Ojo Temitope
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ojo Temitope on Aug 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Systematic Review
Youth Participation in Agriculture: A Scoping Review
Wendy Geza 1,2,* , Mjabuliseni Ngidi 2,3 , Temitope Ojo 4,5, Adetoso Adebiyi Adetoro 2, Rob Slotow 6,7
and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi 1
Citation: Geza, W.; Ngidi, M.; Ojo, T.;
Adetoro, A.A.; Slotow, R.;
Mabhaudhi, T. Youth Participation in
Agriculture: A Scoping Review.
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169120
Academic Editors: Slaven Gasparovic
and Òscar Prieto-Flores
Received: 27 July 2021
Accepted: 12 August 2021
Published: 14 August 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa;
Mabhaudhi@ukzn.ac.za
2African Centre of Food Security, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa; Ngidim@ukzn.ac.za (M.N.);
toshorr@gmail.com (A.A.A.)
3Agricultural Extension and Rural Resources Management, School of Agricultural, Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
4Department of Agricultural Economics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife 220282, Nigeria;
Ojotemitope70@yahoo.com
5Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa, University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa
6Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Life Sciences, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa; slotow@ukzn.ac.za
7Change Centre for Functional Biodiversity to Centre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems,
School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Science, University of KwaZulu-Nata, Private Bag X01,
Scottsville 3209, South Africa
*Correspondence: wendygeza@gmail.com
Abstract:
Providing economic opportunities for youth in agriculture is essential to securing the
future of agriculture in Africa, addressing poverty, unemployment, and inequality. However, barriers
limit youth participation in agriculture and the broader food system. This scoping review aimed to
investigate the opportunities and challenges for youth in participating in agriculture and the food
system in Africa. This review conducted a scoping review using the PRISMA guideline. Published
studies were retrieved from online databases (Web of Science, Cab Direct, and Science Direct) for
2009 to 2019. The findings showed that existing agricultural interventions are production-centric
and provide low-income earnings and inadequate social protection. We also found that the youth
have pessimistic perceptions about agriculture’s capability of improving their living standards. This
could be ascribed to the minimal youth involvement in agricultural activities and the youth’s shared
understanding of the agricultural sector’s contribution to general economic growth. From a policy
perspective, the literature revealed that current agricultural development programs do not adequately
address structural issues underpinning youth participation in the economy. Therefore, to enhance
the involvement of youths in agriculture, there is a need for policy implementation in the area of
integrated agricultural-based interventions that are context-specific and promote meaningful youth
participation in shaping future food systems.
Keywords: agriculture; capacity building; inequality; policy; poverty; unemployment
1. Introduction
Youth unemployment is a challenge in the global south [
1
]; in particular, Africa
faces significant challenging conditions, similar to Asia’s in previous decades [
2
]. This is
primarily due to rapid population growth, slow economic growth, a higher unemployment
rate concomitant with a large volume of unskilled workers, and an ageing and declining
agricultural sector [
3
]. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) displays the highest poverty rates among
youth, constituting more than 30% of the region’s population [
4
]. With approximately
60% of Africa’s population under 35 years old, most of its youth are unemployed and
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169120 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 2 of 15
living in rural areas [
5
]. At the current population growth rate, nearly 420 million young
people are aged 15–35, with an estimated 10–12 million people joining the labour force and
needing new jobs annually [
4
]. The transition from school into the workplace is becoming
increasingly challenging for young people, especially those living in developing countries;
three out of four find employment in the informal sector [6].
Agriculture is recognised as a primary livelihood source for many rural people
in Africa and an essential contributor to economic growth [
7
]. Previous research stud-
ies
[4,5,8,9]
and policies [
10
,
11
] have highlighted the role of agriculture in employment
creation, food and nutrition security, and reducing societal inequality and poverty in Africa.
The agricultural sector also presents opportunities for entrepreneurship, which would be
ideal for employment creation, especially among youth [
12
]. Moreover, the increasing
growth in Africa’s urban markets further presents an opportunity for increased demand
for processed and prepared foods. Consequently, this would attract substantial private
sector investments for small, medium, and large agribusiness entrepreneurs and other food
system participants. Fulfilling the potential of African agribusiness could open up markets
estimated to be worth more than US$100 billion per year by 2025 [13].
Conversely to the urban sector, entrepreneurship within the agriculture sector presents
several challenges. For youth, these challenges include poor and/or limited infrastruc-
ture [
1
,
14
], and a lack of access to finance, production inputs and resources, markets,
extension services, and training [
15
,
16
]. Additionally, youths are seen competing with
older and more established farmers for resources [
17
]. The youth’s socioeconomic envi-
ronment mainly portrays farming as a “poor man’s” occupation, characterised by long
working hours with low economic returns and social status [18].
Defining the term ‘youth participation’ is essential to understand the link between
youth and agricultural development. According to Checkoway [
19
], youth participation
is the active engagement and influence of young people. This is not only based on their
passive presence or token roles in adult agencies, but also on quality, such as when people
have a real effect on the process, influence a particular decision, or produce a favourable
outcome. Furthermore, youth participation assumes that young people are competent
citizens rather than passive recipients of services. Finally, it involves young people in
the institutions and decisions that affect their lives. Therefore, youth participation in
agriculture entails the engagement of youth in the sector through entrepreneurial activities,
participation in value-chain activities, policy formulation, and advocacy in structures and
systems linked to the food system.
While youth participation is vital for the growth of a nation’s economy, youths also
face additional socio-economic barriers that underpin their involvement in the agricultural
sector. Such barriers include parents’ discouragement of youths from pursuing careers
in farming [
18
] and opting for white-collar professions [
20
] that are thought to have
higher economic returns and fewer risk factors [
21
]. Additionally, for most youths in
rural areas, the choice to be involved in farming is determined by their immediate need to
fulfil basic needs, lack of employment opportunities, or assurance to inherit the land [
22
].
When it happens, participation is circumstantial instead of being aspirational; the youth
will often leave in pursuit of a “better life” in urban areas when opportunities present
themselves [16,20].
A growing body of knowledge suggests that part of the solution for promoting
youth participation in agriculture should include supportive policies and frameworks
that promote capacity building [
20
,
23
], stakeholder investment, and creating innovative
spaces in agriculture in a way that takes into account youth aspirations. Such policies and
frameworks should be inclusive and recognise at the onset young people as key players
in policy formulation [
10
,
24
]. However, this should be complemented by other initiatives
as well. In a policy analysis conducted on agricultural, rural development, youth and
employment policies in SSA, Schwebel et al. [
25
] concluded that policies focus more on
promoting labour supply strategies, such as training programmes on entrepreneurship
skills, rather than the strategies on the demand side, such as reducing the constraints to
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 3 of 15
business development and job creation at the sectoral level. Moreover, this focus fails
to respond to the region’s human capital shortcomings, which result from poor-quality
education and a lack of employable skills. Thus, upgrading the skills of young people is
essential in ensuring their participation in agriculture, promotion of food security, and
reducing poverty in rural, peri-urban, and urban areas [26].
Furthermore, the nature of the workplace is continuously changing, and technological
advancements are altering labour market requirements. The combination of these trans-
formations, increasing inequalities, and economic stagnation makes it more difficult for
all individuals to find decent work opportunities. As a result, it is essential to prepare
and equip young people with the necessary skills, education, ambition, and aspiration to
be employable [
6
]. Therefore, the focus should shift to thinking about the kind of action
needed for youths to take on more active roles in society [
27
], removing obstacles for youth
engagement, and creating an enabling environment for young people to thrive [
23
,
28
,
29
].
Africa has identified agriculture as a sector that could drive such socio-economic transfor-
mation and allow for broader participation of marginalised groups, women, and youth, in
the economy. However, it is not clear whether the intent has translated into the desired
outcomes. This scoping review, therefore, aimed to assess the opportunities and challenges
for youth participation in agriculture and the food system in Africa. In this paper, the
primary hypothesis is that there is limited understanding of youth’s perception of their
role in the food system and the economy and that production-centric policies limit effective
youth participation in the agricultural value chain and food system.
The specific objectives were to:
(i)
Identify the existing challenges and opportunities for youth in agriculture in Africa;
(ii)
Based on the evidence, propose an integrated agricultural-based approach for pro-
moting youth participation and inclusivity in agriculture and the future food system
in Africa.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature Search
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist
was used as a guideline to avoid biased reporting [
30
–
32
]. The PRISMA flowchart
(Figure 1)
was used as a guideline for reporting the review results. The literature search included
peer-reviewed research articles using online databases, namely, Web of Science, Cab Direct,
and Science Direct, based on studies on youth in agriculture in Africa published between
2009 and 2019. The period was chosen because it corresponds to the African Youth Decade
plan of action [
10
]. Grey literature and relevant policy documents (regional policies set by
international government organisations obtained from websites of key development organ-
isations with known involvement in agriculture in Africa such as the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), African Union, Southern African Development Community (SADC),
New Partnership for Africa’s Development [NEPAD], Institute of Development Studies,
and the United Nations, among others).
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 4 of 15
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram outlining protocol adopted in the scoping review based on the
Preferred Reporting Items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015
statement Moher et al., [31].
The PCC (population, context, and concept) nomenclature was adopted to determine
the eligibility of this study’s research question for a scoping review, and to determine eli-
gibility criteria for the reports included. In terms of population, the study included young
people between the ages of 15 and 35, as defined by the African Youth Charter [33]. Aside
from agriculture involvement, the context was also inclusive of young people in univer-
sities/agricultural institutions or any other agricultural training program. The literature
search terms/keywords used were ‘agriculture’ with the synonyms’ farming’, ‘land man-
agement’, and ‘farm management’. The second keyword used was ‘participation’ with the
synonyms’ involvement’, ‘engagement’, and ‘contribution’. The third keyword used was
‘youth’ with the synonyms’ young people’, ‘adolescents’, and ‘young adulthood’.
The keywords were used in combination with each other. The use of singular, plural,
and synonyms for search terms was also applied, accounting for relevant keywords that
may differ from one database to another. For example, for the search term ‘youth and
agriculture’, ‘young farmers’ or ‘young people in farming’ was used. Articles were con-
sidered for the review if the keywords appeared either in the title, abstract, or were dis-
cussed as a heading/subheading.
The full screening of records retrieved focused on articles that reported on one or
more of the following outcomes concerning youth: agriculture interventions, policies, op-
portunities and challenges, food systems, livelihoods, development, and career aspira-
tions in agriculture or agribusiness. Additionally, there was a focus on studies researching
youth perceptions, awareness, or attitudes towards agriculture, program, or intervention
analysing the economic, social, or political environment factors affecting the participation
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram outlining protocol adopted in the scoping review based on the
Preferred Reporting Items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015
statement Moher et al. [31].
The PCC (population, context, and concept) nomenclature was adopted to determine
the eligibility of this study’s research question for a scoping review, and to determine
eligibility criteria for the reports included. In terms of population, the study included
young people between the ages of 15 and 35, as defined by the African Youth Charter [
33
].
Aside from agriculture involvement, the context was also inclusive of young people in
universities/agricultural institutions or any other agricultural training program. The
literature search terms/keywords used were ‘agriculture’ with the synonyms’ farming’,
‘land management’, and ‘farm management’. The second keyword used was ‘participation’
with the synonyms’ involvement’, ‘engagement’, and ‘contribution’. The third keyword
used was ‘youth’ with the synonyms’ young people’, ‘adolescents’, and ‘young adulthood’.
The keywords were used in combination with each other. The use of singular, plural,
and synonyms for search terms was also applied, accounting for relevant keywords that
may differ from one database to another. For example, for the search term ‘youth and agri-
culture’, ‘young farmers’ or ‘young people in farming’ was used. Articles were considered
for the review if the keywords appeared either in the title, abstract, or were discussed as a
heading/subheading.
The full screening of records retrieved focused on articles that reported on one or
more of the following outcomes concerning youth: agriculture interventions, policies,
opportunities and challenges, food systems, livelihoods, development, and career aspira-
tions in agriculture or agribusiness. Additionally, there was a focus on studies researching
youth perceptions, awareness, or attitudes towards agriculture, program, or intervention
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 5 of 15
analysing the economic, social, or political environment factors affecting the participation
of young people in agriculture, studies conducting research/addressing a challenge or lim-
itation faced by youth in agriculture and rural youth livelihood strategy studies. Included
studies were those that were conducted in Africa or of relevance to Africa.
Studies on food security, diets, nutritional status, farm injuries in young workers,
and urban youth migration, gender gaps and their influence on youth challenges or
opportunities and literature reviews were excluded due to differences in context and
associated context-specific challenges and opportunities. A total of 322 studies were
retrieved from online databases (Table S1) and 28 records from other sources (Table S2).
After a comprehensive search and screening of titles, 116 duplicates were removed, and
234 abstracts were screened for eligibility. A total of 118 studies were excluded as they
were found to be unrelated to the study’s objective. The full-text articles of the remaining
121 articles were downloaded for further screening. During the full article screening stage,
91 of the 121 studies were also excluded. Some of the reasons for exclusion were based
on study type (review paper, opinion pieces and policy briefs with no primary data),
variables being investigated not being aligned with the inclusion criteria, and the research
being conducted outside of Africa (see Supplementary Information Table S3). A total of
30 articles met the selection criteria and were included in the study (refer to Figure 1above).
These articles include six policy documents that met the selection criteria. These six policy
documents were then further reviewed based on youth inclusion as part of the specific
policy objectives.
2.2. Data Analyses
The 30 selected articles were imported into the QSR NVivo 12 [
34
] qualitative data
analysis software. The first objective was achieved by conducting a search query for the
20 most common words in the data set, and word trees were generated. The number 20
was chosen to give a snapshot of broad focused themes and connections within the data set
related to opportunities and challenges for youth participation in agriculture. These were
then translated into themes or ‘nodes’ for further analysis [
34
]. The nodes consisted of
classifications such as ‘development challenges’, ‘demographical challenges’, ‘unemploy-
ment’, ‘youth perceptions and aspirations’, ‘youth characteristics’, ‘youth participation’,
‘development programs’, and ‘policy priorities’. Further classification of the data set was
carried out to code passages of the data under the appropriate node. An analysis was
conducted using ‘matrix queries’ and ‘cross-tabulate functions’ within the software to
establish hierarchal relationships between nodes and link similarities between the data to
achieve the second research objective. A query was also conducted to extract qualitative
and quantitative data on youth participation, perceptions, interest, and aspirations from
the data set. Using functions within NVivo, aspects of the data set and results from the first
two objectives were further analysed for patterns and casual relationships and visualised
using maps and diagrams to determine the role of youth in future agricultural food systems
in Africa, thus achieving the third study objective.
3. Results
3.1. Literature Search
A total of 24 studies and six policy documents were included in this review. The
six policy documents that met the inclusion criteria are: (i) African Youth Decade Plan of
Action 2009–2018, (ii) African Agenda 2063, (iii) African Youth Charter, (iv) Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), (v) the Malabo Declaration on
Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved
Livelihoods, and (vi) Regional Agricultural Policy (RAP).
A total of 91 studies were excluded at the full-text screening stage (see supplementary
information Table S3). The most common reasons for exclusion included: no primary data
or clear description of the age range of youth (specifying age range remains an important
selection criterion [
35
–
37
], variables being investigated by the study were not aligned with
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 6 of 15
the inclusion criteria, research was conducted outside of Africa, and the results are not
relevant to Africa, opinion pieces based on a workshop, the article had been removed from
the website, and there was no English version of the article available.
The characteristics of included studies are presented in Table S4 (Supplementary
Information). The majority (44%) of the included published studies were conducted in
the West Africa region, primarily Nigeria, followed by the SADC region (16%). Most of
the studies had a focus on rural areas. The studies investigated youth involvement in
agriculture from various perspectives, such as the adoption of production technologies
by youth [
38
], challenges for youth in agriculture [
23
,
39
–
42
], policy engagement [
20
,
24
,
29
],
youth perceptions, career goals and aspirations, entrepreneurship opportunities [
15
], and
information communication and technology [
28
]. Most studies (n = 13, 54, 2%) did not
mention or refer to any policies related to youth or youth participation in agriculture.
Eleven studies mentioned policies, as shown in Table S5 (see Supplementary Information).
3.2. Challenges and Opportunities for Youth in Agriculture
The studies identified by the review were unable to articulate the key priority areas
for youth in agriculture. However, some studies suggested improvements in the rural
environment to encourage youth participation in agriculture. These improvements include
the incorporation of youth aspirations in agriculture [
20
,
22
], capacity building and the
development of rural infrastructure [
23
], improving the image of agriculture [
18
,
28
,
41
,
43
],
and the engagement of youth in policy processes [24].
Challenges that affect youth participation in agriculture were discussed and analysed
in most studies (n = 13, 54, 2%). Figure 2highlights the number of studies across each
challenge. The density of the included studies across each challenge is mapped onto the
conceptual framework and has been integrated into identifying key pathways for the role
of youth in future agricultural food systems in Africa. These challenges were mostly related
to access factors (production resources, finance, knowledge and information, extension,
innovation, and technology) and control over resources. Lack of education, career guidance,
employable skills to enter the job market, mentorship, resources, and supportive policies
were mentioned as other challenges affecting youth participation in the economy. Using
the sustainable livelihood approach, physical capital challenges such as service delivery,
access to markets, infrastructure, and low technological advancements were the most
dominant. Human and financial capital, that is, access to information and finance and
credit, respectively, were mentioned as a challenge across most articles. It was interesting to
note that social capital was mentioned as a challenge. Youth in agriculture have embraced
information and communication technology (ICT) and use different networking platforms
such as Facebook, Google, and WhatsApp. Unfortunately, the cost of data has prohibited
the full use of ICT for networking.
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 7 of 15
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
Sustainability 2021, 13, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Figure 2. Conceptual framework for promoting youth inclusivity and meaningful participation in agriculture and the food system. Adapted from Mabhaudhi et al. [44].
Legend
•The style of the arrows indicates the number of articles that mentioned the challenge.
Arrow with broken lines indicates 1-10 articles, thin solid arrow with round ends
indicates 11-20 articles and thicker solid arrow indicates 20 + articles
•Colour codes represent the five asset groups ( human, social, financial, physical,
natural) and red represents transforming structures and systems
•Codes for: >> short-term, *medium-term §long-term goals
Structures
and
processes
•Lack of access to information
•Lack of social networks
•access to finance and credit
•Rising input costs
•Lack of service delivery
•Lack of access to markets
•Lack of infrastructure
•Low levels of tech advancement
•Lack of access to land
•Lack of participation in decision
making
•Lack of initiative to engage youth
Human
capital
Social
capital
Financial
capital
Physical
capital
Natural
capital
Human
capacity to lead
a healthy,
productive and
satisfying life
Vision:
Youth-inclusive Sustainable Agri-food
Systems
Challenges
Lack of:
Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
Contribution
>>/* Alignment of youth cohort profile with market demands
and food system livelihood opportunities
*>>/§Review current youth participation in value-chain and
create opportunities for long term career paths
Connectivity and networking
>>Increase youth inclusiveness and representation in policy
processes (representative of all youth cohorts)
>>/* cross sector collaboration to improve youth access to
services and resources
*/§Invest in mentorship opportunities at all levels (family,
community, local, national, regional)
Capacity building
>>integrate agriculture in school curriculum
>>Equip youth with soft skills, vocational training and
transferable skills needed in the agri-food system
>>/* Data base of youth cohorts and assessment of
opportunities and challenges facing each cohort
*/§Align youth cohort needs, interest and asset profile with
food system dynamics
Figure 2. Conceptual framework for promoting youth inclusivity and meaningful participation in agriculture and the food system. Adapted from Mabhaudhi et al. [44].
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 8 of 15
At a regional level, the importance of investing in youth empowerment and develop-
ment is mentioned in most of the policies (see Table 1). The main challenges mentioned by
the policies are an inadequate investment in youth development, lack of youth socioeco-
nomic empowerment, provision of essential services, and a lack of education. However,
there is no exclusive mention of the role of youth in agri-food systems. Youth, women, and
‘other vulnerable members of society’ are mentioned as beneficiaries of what the projected
‘agricultural development’ will yield [11,45,46].
Table 1. The inclusion of the ‘youth agenda’ in policy documents selected for the review.
Policy Challenges Faced by Youth
Youth Role and
Participation in
Agriculture
Youth Investment Focus Areas
African Youth
Charter Not mentioned Not mentioned
Guaranteed participation of young people in government and spheres
of society
Provision of technical and financial support to build the institutional
capacity of youth organisations
Provision of access to health care
Provision of access to information and services which will empower
youth to become aware of their rights and responsibilities
Education and skills development
Poverty eradication and socioeconomic integration of youth
Sustainable livelihoods and youth employment
African Youth
Decade Plan of
Action
Unemployment,
underemployment
lack of skills, relevant
education, access to capital,
unmet need for health-related
information and services
Not mentioned
Ensuring a rights-based approach to youth development through
meaningful participation and representation
Consolidated investment targeting youth socioeconomic empowerment
Mainstreaming youth perspective in the efforts to achieve broad
development goals and priorities
Investing in youth empowerment and development
Investing in meaningful participation and contribution of young
people towards Africa’s progress and sustenance of current gains.
Advocating for the well-being of youth by having access to education,
health facilities, employment and promoting the cause of the
disadvantaged youth.
Agenda 2063
Unemployment and
underemployment
Access to education, training,
skills and technology, health
services, jobs and economic
opportunities,
Not mentioned
Inclusive growth, job creation, increasing agricultural production;
investments in science, technology, research and innovation; gender
equality, youth empowerment and the provision of basic services
including health, nutrition, education, shelter, water and sanitation
Engagement and empowerment of youth through the full
implementation of the African Youth Charter
Youth issues mainstreamed in all development agendas.
Africa’s youth shall be the driving force behind the continent’s political,
social, cultural and economic transformation.
CAADP Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
Malabo
Declaration Not mentioned Not mentioned
To create job opportunities for at least 30% of the youth in agricultural
value chains
To support and facilitate preferential entry and participation for
women and youth in gainful and attractive agri-business opportunities.
SADC Regional
Agricultural
Policy
youth is poor, rural, has poor access to
economic activities, education, land
and capital.
Participation for
most of the rural
youth in farming is
based on
circumstances and
limited economic
opportunities
Promoting land policy research and development considering gender,
youth and vulnerable groups
Facilitate Member States in promoting agriculture as an attractive
career choice for the youth
Facilitating the participation of informal traders, SMEs and
marginalised groups such as women and youth.
Mainstream youth needs in regional and national policies and
strategies dealing with access to land, farm support systems and
services and rural finance.
3.3. Youth Aspirations, Interest and Participation in Agriculture
Only four studies (16%) [15,18,22,47] identified youth interest and career aspirations,
which were mainly corporate careers or ‘modern jobs’. Only youths involved in agriculture
as a primary occupation, members of agricultural clubs/organisations or participants of
agriculture-related interventions (for example, the Young Farmer’s Club from Nigeria [
47
])
had aspirations of choosing agriculture as a career.
Youth participation and pursuing agriculture as a career was mentioned in terms
of negative or positive experiences and perceptions of high school students, graduates,
and rural youth. Adverse experiences were associated with demographical challenges
related to marital status, education levels, access to resources, and information in rural
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 9 of 15
areas
[20,36,40,47–50]
. A demographical challenge was the retention of land by the el-
derly
[16,20,22,23,51]
, where land in rural areas is used as a bargaining chip for power
and respect. Young people gain access to land through inheritance, permission to occupy
agreements, or leasing [39].
Some studies [
18
,
39
] highlighted that elderly people perceive the youth as self-centred,
‘problematic members’ in society, who are ‘inexperienced’, only concerned about their
economic welfare and their own immediate family, rather than extended family needs.
These perceptions negatively affect youth regarding accessing land for agricultural use,
as they would then not be prioritised. Additionally, when it comes to land allocation,
preference is often given to married youths [
51
]. These experiences directly influence how
youths perceive agriculture, their interest in participation, and their career aspirations.
Positive perceptions of agriculture are related to youth experiences of participating in
agricultural programs, the influence of family members who are farmers, and access
to services and resources. These experiences were also linked to the entrepreneurship
opportunities that youth perceived agriculture to have, making them want to pursue it as a
career.
Youths who are already involved in agriculture through participation or exposure to
training programs are more likely to have future aspirations related to agriculture than
those who are not. Additionally, socio-economic factors such as the youth’s marital status,
education levels, access to resources and information, and perceptions of community
resource ‘gatekeepers’ about youth influences how youths perceive agriculture and their
interest in participating.
3.4. Role of Youth in the Food System
Based on the literature search, most youths were involved in primary activities such as
crop production (for example, cassava, cocoa, rice, maize vegetable production) and animal
production (for example, livestock rearing, breeding, poultry, and poultry piggery). An
analysis of the value chain showed that very few youths participated in mid-point activities
such as agro-processing and agricultural engineering. One study was conducted on youth
involvement in fish farming [
52
]. In eight studies, youths were involved in agriculture
as their primary occupation, followed by trading activities and government jobs. The
remaining youth were students, and others were involved in other livelihood activities
such as trading and other forms of temporary employment. The majority of the studies
did not mention any ownership of land by the youths. However, in studies where it was
mentioned, the average farm sizes owned by youths ranged from 1.5 to 3 ha [
39
,
43
,
48
,
49
,
53
].
Additionally, there was no mention in any study of youth involvement in dealing with
issues concerning the food environment.
In summary, youth participation in agriculture is mainly concentrated in the primary
sector. Youths who have access to land have plots that are less than 3 ha. Furthermore, there
is little youth participation in value-chain activities, and no evidence of youth advocacy in
structures governing issues related to the food system.
4. Discussion
This scoping review identified various areas of existing research on youth involvement
in African agriculture. The key challenges for youth participation in agriculture are centred
around knowledge availability; production resources; and lack of infrastructure, support,
and access to advisory services. The findings suggest that building the capacity of young
people is essential in ensuring their participation in agriculture. Yeboah and Jayne [
21
]
noted that although the number of people employed in agriculture is still increasing, the
workforce share is declining over time. This suggests that young people are fleeing from
poverty and not farming per se. The majority of youths in SSA reside in rural areas,
where labour productivity is low and employment opportunities are scarce [
54
]. With
farming generating about 68% of rural income in Africa [
55
], youths are more likely to find
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 10 of 15
employment in the informal sector or engage in self-employment to meet immediate basic
needs [56].
However, underemployment offers limited social protection and rights, low wages,
poor job security, and limits future career development opportunities [
57
], perpetuating
the cycle of poverty and hunger. Therefore, addressing youth participation in agriculture
requires a holistic approach, broadly focused on improving rural economies, social well-
being, and service delivery [
26
]. Moreover, making farming more profitable and less
laborious could potentially attract youth into agriculture [21].
In this paper, we used the results from the review on challenges faced by youth in
agriculture, youth aspirations, interest, youth participation in agriculture, and the sustain-
able livelihoods (SL) framework to shed light on the micro-dynamics that embody youth
capabilities, their productivity, enabling environment, outcomes of livelihood strategies,
and ultimately their contribution in society [
58
]. A framework (see Figure 2) was developed
to map key pathways for the role of youth in future agricultural food systems in Africa.
The human development perspective and the capability approach highlight the impor-
tance of enhancing people’s abilities to lead productive and fulfilling lives, which they
value [
59
,
60
]. Consequently, stressing the importance of investing in well-being, expanding
people’s choices, empowerment, and removing obstacles preventing people from actively
participating in life.
For youth to participate in food futures, aspirational career paths with a long-term
perspective other than economic gains or reducing unemployment would have to be created
locally, nationally, and globally [
55
]. However, the challenges faced by youth in agriculture
(see Figure 2) affect all aspects of their capital assets, which puts an additional constraint
to their baseline, regardless of the presence, or lack thereof, of an enabling environment
for youth to succeed in the sector. Additionally, these challenges also come from a lack of
involvement in policies and institutions governing youths’ surroundings [
20
,
24
]. These
factors alone limit youth inclusivity and any prospects of youth positively contributing to
agriculture and society.
The interactions between the physical, social, environmental, and institutional factors
play a role in individuals’ overall capacity and capabilities [
61
,
62
]. Therefore, investments
made should be balanced and well distributed amongst these aspects for a more significant
impact. Addressing youth participation in agriculture requires a holistic approach, broadly
focused on improving rural economies and creating employment opportunities for youth.
As long as rural areas suffer from a lack of service delivery, poor connectivity, and stagnant
economies, it will be difficult to convince anyone to stay there [
7
,
63
]. Furthermore, there
is the potential for job creation for young people in non-farm activities related to food
value chains, sustainable agriculture, agribusiness, and other food system support services.
However, unlocking these economic opportunities relies on strengthening rural–urban
linkages [13].
For youths to effectively contribute to agriculture, investment must be made to de-
velop their capacity by investing in human capital (for example, education, soft skills,
vocational training, and skills development). There is a link between the level of educa-
tion attained and youth participation in agriculture. As noted by Bezu and Holden [
64
],
education improves youths’ access to information about opportunities outside of their
immediate surroundings, thus raising expectations and encouraging youths to explore
these opportunities. Youths who have low levels of education resort to agriculture as a
means of earning an income, as they do not meet the requirements for employment in other
professions [65].
On the contrary, McMillan and Harttgen [
66
] note that three out of five young workers
in sub-Saharan Africa do not have the level of education required to make them productive
in the workplace. Additionally, only 2% of African university graduates specialise in
agriculture, with nearly 80% of young people aged 25–34 working in agriculture having a
primary school education or less, including 40% with no education at all. The inclusion of
agricultural subjects and activities in schools could spark an interest in young people and
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 11 of 15
expose them to various aspirational career opportunities in agriculture at a young age [
67
].
Similarly, Magagula and Tsvakirai [
68
] found that exposure to agricultural studies at
secondary and tertiary levels influences youths’ intention to participate in agripreneurship.
This highlights the importance of promoting agricultural education at the different levels
of education, i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary, as part of the overall strategy to increase
awareness on agriculture as a career choice and hence increase youth participation in
agriculture.
Secondly, youth’s connectivity to society, industry role players, and stakeholders, and
their access to resources and services, must be enhanced through investments in social,
financial, natural, and physical capital, particularly basic infrastructure and service delivery
in rural areas (secure shelter and buildings, water supply and sanitation, health, energy,
communications). The challenges due to the lack of general service delivery in rural areas
hinder young people’s engagement and success in agriculture [
69
]. They may be the reason
behind their low participation and negative perception of agriculture. Undoubtedly, the
challenges associated with young people’s access to productive resources and services in
rural areas also contribute to low participation. For example, the customary laws and norms
associated with accessing land often discourage young people from viewing agriculture as
a livelihood option. Facilitating dialogue and connection between youths (representative
of all socioeconomic backgrounds), the private sector and industry players can be valuable
for enhancing youth’s connectivity and inclusiveness to society and the sector.
Building the capacity of youths through education and other initiatives and leveraging
that to improving their socioeconomic access to industry players in the agricultural sector
will increase the likelihood of youth engagement in farming activities [
33
,
70
]. As a result,
young people would be empowered while gaining the necessary skills to participate in
evolving global agriculture value-chains [
69
]. Moreover, how millennials connect to the
food system is determined by the biophysical, economic, cultural, and social domains,
shaping how they perceive themselves actively contributing to the food system [
71
]. It
is therefore imperative for policies, strategies, and interventions targeted at promoting
agricultural growth, development, and participation of youths in the sector to speak to the
socioeconomic context, needs, goals, and aspirations of youths [33].
5. Limitations
The results of the study should be considered in light of some limitations. Due to
the search inclusion and exclusion criteria used for this study, other publications may
be excluded. The search was limited to studies published between 2009 and 2019, as
2009–2018 were the implementation years for the African Youth Decade plan of action [
10
].
Furthermore, the selection of primary studies focused on programs or interventions that
have been explicitly designed for youth, between the ages of 15 and 35 years. Thus, the
data presented in this study are from papers relevant to the study’s objectives. For future
research, we encourage broadening the scope of the research to ensure the inclusion of the
full spectrum of themes related to youth and agriculture; however, this should take into
consideration the trade-offs between breadth vs. depth.
6. Way Forward: The Role of Youth in Future Food Systems
Based on evidence found in this scoping review, this study therefore recommends:
•
The exposure to agricultural studies at secondary and tertiary level could influence
youth’s intention to participate in agripreneurship. This will expose youths to the full
range of career options in the agricultural sector at earlier stages. This is being carried
out in Zambia through the UniBRAIN program by promoting agricultural innovation
and improving tertiary agribusiness education in Africa. In South Africa, the Junior
LandCare programme creates an environment for school children to participate in
sustainable agriculture activities through food gardens that supplement the school
feeding scheme.
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 12 of 15
•
National agricultural policies need to account for youth aspirations, contributing
factors, challenges facing youth under different contexts, and characterise data based
on age groups. This will assist in developing youth tailored initiatives relevant to the
context.
•
For youths who are inclined to work in agriculture, high-potential value chains that
align with their aspirations and have the potential for increased economic returns
should be identified, including the provision of support and removing barriers for
youth participation, for example, the YEAP program in Nigeria and Youth Agropas-
toral Entrepreneurship Programme in Cameroon. These initiatives are creating decent
employment opportunities along the agricultural value chain for youths in rural areas.
Initiatives can be facilitated through the implementation of regional policies such as
the Malabo declaration and Agenda 2063.
•
For youths who are not inclined to work in the farm, including those without access to
land and production resources, mobilization of support through government and the
private sector could position these youths in nonfarm activities that drive agricultural
transformation and the improvement of rural markets. For example, marketing and
trading of agricultural related products.
•
Regional strategies for developing the agricultural value chain (for example the SADC
Regional Agricultural Policy) must mainstream youth considerations, with the ob-
jective of youth inclusion, capacity development, and sustainable employment op-
portunities. There is a need for more deliberate investments to be made to create
opportunities for youth throughout the value chain.
•
Efforts must be made to create a supportive environment to increase opportunities
through which youths can pursue food system-related careers and interests. This
can be achieved through increasing social capital, improving youths’ connectivity to
value-chain actors, promoting networking, peer-to-peer learning, raising awareness,
mentorship, and other forms of linkages.
•
Modernisation of agricultural production systems and promoting the development
of local value-chains to increase awareness, provoke youth interest, and establish
relevant role models. Additionally, the design of national policies should explicitly
support informal businesses in rural and peri-urban areas.
7. Conclusions
The study sought to investigate youth participation in agriculture in Africa by map-
ping evidence around policies, opportunities, and challenges for youth to pursue a career or
be engaged in agriculture. This was carried out through a scoping review using the PRISMA
extension and published studies retrieved from online databases (Web of Science, Cab
Direct, and Science Direct) for 2009 to 2019. The findings showed that existing agriculture
interventions are production-centric, provide low-income earnings, and inadequate social
protection. Without deliberate investments in creating opportunities for youths in the food
system, the role of youth will continue being primarily concentrated in the primary sector
leaving other aspects of the value-chain untapped. The inclusion of agricultural subjects
and activities in schools could spark an interest in young people, and also expose them to a
variety of aspirational career opportunities in agriculture at a young age. Although there
has been a growing body of knowledge in youth participation in agriculture in the past few
years, the literature is scattered with limited coherence. We also found that the youth have
weak perceptions about agriculture’s capability of improving their living standards. This
could be ascribed to the minimal youth involvement in agricultural activities and youths’
low understanding of the agricultural sector’s contribution to general economic growth.
From a policy perspective, the literature revealed that current agricultural development
programs do not adequately address structural issues underpinning youth participation
in the economy. Therefore, to enhance the participation of youths in agriculture, policy
interventions should adopt a value-chain and food-systems approach to open up more
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 13 of 15
opportunities for youths in the sector. Moreover, these policies should be supported by
policies aimed at increasing access to finance/credit and broad capacity development.
Some countries in Africa have begun implementing programs and initiatives to in-
crease youth involvement in agriculture. This is being carried out through skills develop-
ment, facilitating access to resources, promoting agricultural innovation and integrating
agribusiness into tertiary education. Such interventions can increase innovativeness among
youth and attract them toward agribusiness. However, the level of investment remains low,
with most interventions not responding to the dynamism of youth. There needs to be an
account for youth aspirations, contributing factors, challenges facing youth under different
contexts. This will assist in developing youth-led initiatives that take into consideration
their needs and are relevant to the context.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/
10.3390/su13169120/s1, Table S1: Scoping review screening records, Table S2: Grey literature and
policy documents included in the review, Table S3: Reasons for exclusion for articles removed at the
full screening stage, Table S4: Characteristics of studies included in the review and Table S5: Policies
mentioned in included studies.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft, vi-
sualisation, W.G.; supervision, M.N. and T.O.; validation, visualization, and supervision, R.S.;
conceptualisation, methodology, writing—review and editing, and supervision, T.M.; review and
editing, A.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust through the Sustainable and Healthy
Food Systems (SHEFS) Project (Grant number-205200/Z/16/Z). The SHEFS Programme supports
WG, MG, RS and TM. The uMngeni Resilience Project, which is funded by the Adaptation Fund.
This work is based on the research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South
Africa (Grant Numbers 119409).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments:
This research was funded in part by the Wellcome (Grant number: 205200/Z/
16/Z). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to
any author-accepted manuscript version arising from this submission. This research was funded by
the uMngeni Resilience Project, funded by the Adaptation Fund. This work is based on the research
supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Number 119409).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
FAO. Youth Employment in Agriculture as a Solid Solution to Ending Hunger and Poverty in Africa. 2018. Available online:
http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/youth-in-agriculture/en/ (accessed on 20 August 2019).
2.
Mueller, V.; Thurlow, J. Africa’s Rural Youth in the global Context. In Youth and Jobs in Rural Africa; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 1–22.
3. FAO. Proceeding of The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017.
4.
Bank, A.D. African Economic Outlook Chapter 2: Jobs, Growth and Firm Dynamism. 2019. Available online: https://www.
icafrica.org/fileadmin/documents/Publications/AEO_2019-EN.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2020).
5.
Castañeda, A.; Doan, D.; Newhouse, D.; Nguyen, M.C.; Uematsu, H.; Azevedo, J.P.; World Bank Data for Goals Group. A new
profile of the global poor. World Dev. 2018,101, 250–267. [CrossRef]
6.
Gardiner, D.; Goedhuys, M. Youth Aspirations and the Future of Work a Review of the Literature and Evidence; ILO Working Papers:
Geneva, Swizerland, 2020.
7.
Dercon, S.; Gollin, D. Agriculture in African development: Theories and strategies. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.
2014
,6, 471–492.
[CrossRef]
8.
Brooks, K.; Zorya, S.; Gautam, A.; Goyal, A. Agriculture as a Sector of Opportunity for Young People in Africa; The World Bank:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 14 of 15
9.
Akinnifesi, F.K. Can South-South Cooperation offer sustainable agriculture-led solutions to youth unemployment in Africa? Nat.
Faune 2013,28, 19.
10.
African Union. The African Youth Decade 2009–2018 Plan of Action. In Accelerating Youth Empowerment for Sustainable Development-
Road Map towards the Implementation of the African Youth Charter; African Union: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011.
11.
NEPAD. Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme; New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD): Midrand,
South Africa, 2003.
12.
Global Partnership for Youth Employment. Promoting Agricultural Entrepreneurship among Rural Youth. 2014. Available online:
https://iyfglobal.org/sites/default/files/library/GPYE_RuralEntrepreneurship.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2018).
13.
AGRA. Africa Agriculture Status Report. Feeding Africa’s Cities: Opportunities, Challenges, and Policies for Linking African Farmers with
Growing Urban Food Markets 2020; Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA): Nairobi, Kenya, 2020.
14.
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation. Youth E–Agriculture Entrepreneurship; Technical Centre for Agricultural
and Rural Cooperation (CTA): Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016.
15.
Hamidu, K. Entrepreneurship Intention and Involvement in Agribusiness Enterprise among Youths in Gombe Metropolis, Gombe
State, Nigeria: Potentials of Agribusiness in Nigeria. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2015,5, 75–84.
16. Chinsinga, B.; Chasukwa, M. Youth, agriculture and land grabs in Malawi. IDS Bull. 2012,43, 67–77. [CrossRef]
17.
Lindsjö, K.; Mulwafu, W.; Djurfeldt, A.A.; Joshua, M.K. Generational dynamics of agricultural intensification in Malawi:
Challenges for the youth and elderly smallholder farmers. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020, 1–14. [CrossRef]
18.
Sumberg, J.; Yeboah, T.; Flynn, J.; Anyidoho, N.A. Young people’s perspectives on farming in Ghana: A Q study. Food Secur.
2017
,
9, 151–161. [CrossRef]
19. Checkoway, B. What is youth participation? Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2011,33, 340–345. [CrossRef]
20.
Chinsinga, B.; Chasukwa, M. Agricultural policy, employment opportunities and social mobility in rural Malawi. Agrar. South J.
Political Econ. 2018,7, 28–50. [CrossRef]
21. Yeboah, F.K.; Jayne, T.S. Africa’s evolving employment trends. J. Dev. Stud. 2018,54, 803–832. [CrossRef]
22.
Richard, A.-A. Understanding Farming Career Decision Influencers: Experiences of Some Youth in Rural Manya Krobo, Ghana. J.
Sci. Res. Rep. 2015,7, 567–578. [CrossRef]
23. Auta, S.J.; Abdullahi, Y.M.; Nasiru, M. Rural youths’ participation in agriculture: Prospects, challenges and the implications for
policy in Nigeria. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2010,16, 297–307. [CrossRef]
24.
Kadzamira, M.A.; Kazembe, C. Youth engagement in agricultural policy processes in Malawi. Dev. South. Afr.
2015
,32, 801–814.
[CrossRef]
25.
Schwebel, D.; Estruch, E. Policies for Youth Employment in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Youth and Jobs in Rural Africa: Beyond Stylized
Facts; IFPRI; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
26.
Betcherman, G.; Khan, T. Jobs for Africa’s expanding youth cohort: A stocktaking of employment prospects and policy interven-
tions. IZA J. Dev. Migr. 2018,8, 1–20. [CrossRef]
27.
ILO. Youth Employment Interventions in Africa: A Mapping Report of the Employment and Labour Sub-Cluster of the Regional Coordination
Mechanism (RCM) for Africa; International Labour Organization: Addis Ababa, Ethopia, 2012.
28.
Ayinde, J.O.; Torimiro, D.O.; Koledoye, G.F.; Adepoju, O.A. Assessment Of Rural Youth Involvement In The Usage Of Information
And Communication Technologies (Icts) Among Farmers’in Osun State, Nigeria. Sci. Pap. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev.
2015,15, 17–23.
29.
Amsler, K.; Hein, C.; Klasek, G. Youth Decision Making in Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change; CCAFS Working Paper no. 206;
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS): Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017.
30.
Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.
2005
,8, 9–32. [CrossRef]
31.
Moher, D.; PRISMA-P Group; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.P. Preferred
reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev.
2015
,4, 1–9. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
32.
Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; The PRISMA-P Group.
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ
2015,349, g7647. [CrossRef]
33. Trivelli, C.; Morel, J. Rural Youth Inclusion, Empowerment, and Participation. J. Dev. Stud. 2020,57, 1–15. [CrossRef]
34.
Q-International. NVivo 11 for Windows: Getting Started Guide. 2015. Available online: http://download.qsrinternational.com/
Document/NVivo11/11.3.0/en-US/NVivo11-Getting-Started-Guide-Pro-edition.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2015).
35.
Flanagan, S.M.; Greenfield, S.; Coad, J.; Neilson, S. An exploration of the data collection methods utilised with children, teenagers
and young people (CTYPs). BMC Res. Notes 2015,8, 1–14. [CrossRef]
36.
Cheteni, P. Youth participation in agriculture in the Nkonkobe district municipality, South Africa. J. Hum. Ecol.
2016
,55, 207–213.
[CrossRef]
37.
Larsson, I.; Staland-Nyman, C.; Svedberg, P.; Nygren, J.M.; Carlsson, I.-M. Children and young people’s participation in
developing interventions in health and well-being: A scoping review. BMC Health Serv. Res.
2018
,18, 1–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Ayinde, J.O.; Olatunji, S.O.; Ajala, A.O. Assessment of rural youth adoption of cassava production technologies in Southwestern
Nigeria. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2018,18, 21–26.
Sustainability 2021,13, 9120 15 of 15
39.
Kidido, J.K.; Bugri, J.T.; Kasanga, R.K. Dynamics of youth access to agricultural land under the customary tenure regime in the
Techiman traditional area of Ghana. Land Use Policy 2017,60, 254–266. [CrossRef]
40.
Naamwintome, B.A.; Bagson, E. Youth in agriculture: Prospects and challenges in the Sissala area of Ghana. Net. J. Agric. Sci.
2013,1, 60–68.
41.
Nwankwo, O. Major Factors Militating against Youths Participation in Agricultural Production in Ohafia Local Government Area
of Abia State, Nigeria. J. Environ. Issues Agric. Dev. Ctries. 2014,6, 25–38.
42.
Adeogun, S.O. Participatory diagnostic survey of constraints to youth involvement in cocoa production in cross river state of
Nigeria. J. Agric. Sci. 2015,60, 211–225. [CrossRef]
43.
Yunusa, P.M.; Giroh, D.Y. Determinants of Youth Participation in Food Crops Production in Song Local Government Area of
Adamawa State, Nigeria. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2017,17, 427–434.
44.
Mabhaudhi, T.; Simpson, G. Assessing the State of the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus in South Africa; WRC Report No KV 365/18;
Water Research Commission; University of KwaZulu-Natal: Durban, South Africa, 2018; Volume 1.
45. SADC. Regional Agricultural Policy; Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) Directorate: Gaborone, Botswana, 2013.
46.
African Union. Agenda 2063 Report of the Commission on the African Union Agenda 2063 The Africa We Want in 2063; African Union:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
47.
Mukembo, S.C.; Edwards, M.C.; Ramsey, J.W.; Henneberry, S.R. Intentions of Young Farmers Club (YFC) Members to Pursue
Career Preparation in Agriculture: The Case of Uganda. J. Agric. Educ. 2015,56, 16–34. [CrossRef]
48.
Falola, A.; Ayinde, O.E.; Ojehomon, V.E. Economic analysis of rice production among the youths in Kwara State, Nigeria. Albanian
J. Agric. Sci. 2013,12, 503–510.
49.
Agboola, A.; Adekunle, I.; Ogunjimi, S. Assessment of youth participation in indigenous farm practices of vegetable production
in Oyo State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. 2015,7, 73–79. [CrossRef]
50.
Emmanuel, F.O.; Olaseinde, A.T. Assessing the future of agriculture in the hands of rural youth in oriade local government area
of osun state, Nigeria. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2016,4, 105–110.
51. Adesina, T.K.; Favour, E. Determinants of participation in youth-in-agriculture programme in Ondo state, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext.
2016,20, 104–117. [CrossRef]
52.
Okon, D.; Nsa, S. Determinants of sustained youth participation in fishing in Mbo Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State,
Nigeria. J. Agric. Biotechnol. Ecol. 2012,5, 74–82.
53.
Ayinde, J.; Olarewaju, B.; Aribifo, D. Perception of youths on government agricultural development programmes in Osun State,
Nigeria. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2016,16, 67–76.
54.
Carreras, M.; Sumberg, J.; Saha, A. Work and Rural Livelihoods: The Micro Dynamics of Africa’s ‘Youth Employment Crisis’. Eur.
J. Dev. Res. 2020. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00310-y (accessed on 7 October 2020). [CrossRef]
55.
Townsend, R.B.R.; Prasann, A.; Maria, L. Future of Food: Shaping the Food System to Deliver Jobs; World Bank: Washington, DC,
USA, 2017.
56.
Internation Labour Organization. World Employment and Social Outlook Trends 2020; Internation Labour Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2020.
57.
Verbruggen, M.; van Emmerik, H.; Van Gils, A.; Meng, C.; de Grip, A. Does early-career underemployment impact future career
success? A path dependency perspective. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015,90, 101–110. [CrossRef]
58. Serrat, O. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, in Knowledge Solutions; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 21–26.
59.
Fukuda-Parr, S. The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Fem. Econ.
2003
,9, 301–317.
[CrossRef]
60.
Frediani, A.A. Sen’s Capability Approach as a framework to the practice of development. Dev. Pract.
2010
,20, 173–187. [CrossRef]
61. OECD. The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working Towards Good Practice; OECD: Paris, France, 2006.
62. OECD. The Future of Rural Youth in Developing Countries: Tapping the Potential for Local Value Chains; OECD: Paris, France, 2018.
63.
Dewbre, J.; Cervantes-Godoy, D.; Sorescu, S. Agricultural Progress and Poverty Reduction: Synthesis Report; OECD Publishing: Paris,
France, 2011.
64. Bezu, S.; Holden, S. Are Rural Youth in Ethiopia Abandoning Agriculture? World Dev. 2014,64, 259–272. [CrossRef]
65.
Maina, W.N.; Maina, F.M.P. Youth Engagement in Agriculture in Kenya: Challenges and Prospects. J. Cult. Soc. Development
2015
,
7, 4–19.
66.
McMillan, M.S.; Harttgen, K. What Is Driving the ‘African Growth Miracle’? National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2014. [CrossRef]
67.
FAO; CTA; IFAD. Youth and Agriculture: Key Challenges and Concrete Solutions; FAO: Rome, Italy; CTA: Rome, Italy; IFAD: Rome,
Italy, 2014.
68.
Magagula, B.; Tsvakirai, C.Z. Youth perceptions of agriculture: Influence of cognitive processes on participation in agripreneurship.
Dev. Pract. 2020,30, 234–243. [CrossRef]
69. IFPRI. 2020 Global Food Policy Report: Building Inclusive Food Systems; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
70.
Hamilton, S.F.; Hamilton, M.A. The Youth Development Handbook: Coming of Age in American Communities, 1st ed.; Sage Publications:
Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
71. Glover, D.; Sumberg, J. Youth and food systems transformation. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020,4, 101. [CrossRef]
