Abstract
Introduction:
Youth participation in sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship (SAE) is promoted across Sub-Saharan Africa, yet empirical evidence shows youth engagement remains precarious and constrained by structural, institutional, and socio-cultural barriers.
Methods:
This qualitative case study, situated in Hwedza District, Zimbabwe, employed semi-structured interviews with 15 key informants and four focus group discussions with 32 youth participants across four purposively selected wards. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s Reflexive Thematic Analysis, guided by an integrated framework synthesising Positive Youth Development Theory and Hart’s Ladder of Participation.
Results:
Findings revealed that youth participation in SAE is co-produced through participatory quality, institutional recognition, and intergenerational power dynamics. Meaningful involvement in decision-making strengthened developmental outcomes (competence, confidence, contribution), while tokenistic inclusion, financial exclusion requiring parental guarantorship, politicisation of youth engagement, and substance abuse undermined entrepreneurial gains. Ward-level variation was pronounced: Watershed West exhibited higher-quality participation and stronger agency; Zviyambe remained structurally constrained. Youth proposed innovative rotational land stewardship models balancing customary authority with inclusion.
Discussion:
The study concludes that transforming youth from beneficiaries into co-architects of agrarian futures requires institutional reforms that redistribute power, resources, and recognition. Implications for policy and practice are identified, including institutionalising youth representation on irrigation committees and embedding structured mentorship programmes.
Introduction and contextualisation
Across Sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture remains a cornerstone of rural livelihoods and food security yet is constrained by an ageing farming population and environmental pressures (Geza et al., 2021; Chand, 2022; Mkodzongi, 2022a). Concurrently, the region’s youth demographic surge occurs amidst formal labour markets unable to absorb new entrants (African Development Bank, 2024; FAO, 2023). This convergence has intensified attention on youth participation in agriculture, with entrepreneurial and sustainability-oriented pathways seen as critical responses to rural unemployment (Fiedler, 2020; Sargani et al., 2020). Within this context, this study focuses on youth engagement in Sustainable Agricultural Entrepreneurship (SAE), thus enterprises that are economically viable, socially inclusive, and environmentally responsible (Martinho, 2020; Zulu et al., 2021).
Zimbabwe presents a critical yet precarious context for investigating youth participation in SAE. Agriculture underpins rural livelihoods (Chand, 2022; Zimstats, 2022) but is situated within a complex environment shaped by a transformative yet contentious land reform history (Mkodzongi, 2022b; Mkodzongi and Lawrence, 2019), persistent macroeconomic instability (Gwanongodza, 2020), and escalating climate vulnerabilities (Masama, 2016; FAO, 2018). National frameworks like the National Development Strategy 2 (NDS2) (GoZ, 2025) and the National Youth Policy explicitly promote youth agribusiness and devolution, yet the translation of these aspirations into tangible local outcomes remains uneven and deeply gendered (Masuku and Macheka, 2021; Hlungwani et al., 2021).
The analytical focus of this study is on youth agency and participatory pathways. Rather than framing youth engagement as a matter of individual motivation, a narrative that often masks structural exclusion, this research examines how entrepreneurial capacity is socially produced. It interrogates participatory processes, institutional arrangements, and local power relations in shaping youth ability to act and, critically, how these dynamics are differentiated for young women and men navigating patriarchal agrarian systems. The research moves beyond binary conceptions of participation to analyse how youth become or are prevented from becoming effective agents of sustainable agricultural transformation.
The importance of youth participation in SAE is multidimensional. Economically, youth-led agripreneurship is a strategic response to rural underemployment and the limitations of wage-led development in a context of high informality. It aligns with Zimbabwe’s NDS2 (GoZ, 2025) priorities on agribusiness value chains and rural industrialisation. Furthermore, youth participation in SAE advances SDGs 1, 2, and 8.
Despite robust policy rhetoric across Africa (African Development Bank, 2024; FAO, 2023), empirical evidence shows that youth agricultural participation remains precarious and survivalist (Adeyanju et al., 2021; Geza et al., 2021; Losch, 2014). Existing studies extensively document structural constraints, including limited access to land, finance, and markets (Mmbengwa et al., 2023; Mulema et al., 2021). While valuable, this body of work has prioritised constraint mapping over analysis of enabling processes (Mukwashi et al., 2024), often rendering youth as passive recipients rather than active agents (Finn and Checkoway, 1998; Madende et al., 2023). Less attention has been paid to the quality of participatory mechanisms such as co-creation platforms and youth-state-market interfaces that mediate the relationship between capabilities and sustainable outcomes (Checkoway et al., 2003; Madende et al., 2023). Moreover, district-level qualitative studies in Zimbabwe that integrate youth agency with participatory development remain scarce, particularly those that sustain a gender lens (Mukwashi et al., 2024; Zulu et al., 2021).
This study addresses these gaps by foregrounding participatory pathways through which youth agency is translated into SAE. It responds to calls within development studies for actor-centred, context-sensitive analyses of rural transformation, with attention to how gender norms shape entrepreneurial trajectories (Figure 1).
Figure 1
The study is situated in Hwedza District, a predominantly smallholder farming area in Mashonaland East Province. The district exemplifies the contradictions of Zimbabwe’s agrarian policy landscape: it is targeted for youth and agricultural development interventions, yet it experiences high youth out-migration, underemployment, and reliance on rain-fed production vulnerable to climate shocks (Pindiriri, 2018). Local structural challenges include a dualistic land tenure system where communal and resettlement areas coexist, limited irrigation infrastructure, and financial exclusion compounded by the collapse of formal local banking services. Unlike regions dominated by large-scale commercial agriculture, Hwedza’s livelihood systems are marked by diversification, informality, and strong reliance on kin-based networks and patriarchal customary governance (Thebe, 2018; Mkodzongi and Lawrence, 2019). These features make it particularly suitable for examining how national policy aspirations and global development narratives are negotiated at the local level, and how young women and men experience these dynamics differently.
The overarching aim of this study is to examine how youth agency and participatory pathways contribute to advancing SAE in rural Zimbabwe. Specifically, it seeks to understand how participatory processes shape youth capabilities, choices, and entrepreneurial trajectories within the local agricultural ecosystem, with a sustained focus on gendered experiences.
The study is guided by the following central research question:
What participatory pathways enable youth agency and enhance participation in SAE in Hwedza District, Zimbabwe?
Theoretical framework
To capture the dynamics of youth agency and participation in SAE, this study is anchored in an integrated framework synthesising Positive Youth Development (PYD) Theory and Roger Hart’s (1997) Ladder of Participation. These two frameworks are not deployed in parallel but are woven together to analyse youth engagement as both a developmental process and a power-laden participatory practice. This unified framework directly informed the study’s research design, interview protocol development, deductive coding categories, and interpretive analysis.
Positive youth development theory
Positive Youth Development (PYD) Theory emerged as a counterpoint to deficit-oriented models, conceptualising youth as active agents whose growth stems from the interplay between inherent strengths and supportive environments (Lerner et al., 2021; Dimitrova and Wiium, 2021). Central to this framework are the “Five Cs”: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring, which collectively foster a sixth outcome, contribution (Lerner et al., 2021). When applied to SAE, PYD shifts the analytical focus from constraints to capabilities. Competence builds through entrepreneurial and technical skill acquisition; confidence grows from self-efficacy; connection is fostered through mentorship and institutional linkages; character reflects commitment to sustainable practices; and caring encompasses social and environmental responsibility (Adeyanju et al., 2021; Sargani et al., 2020). Within this study, the Five Cs provided sensitising concepts for interview questions exploring youth self-perception, skill development, and relational networks, and served as deductive codes during thematic analysis to identify developmental outcomes in participant narratives.
Hart’s ladder of participation
Roger Hart’s (1997) Ladder of Participation theory provides a power-sensitive framework for distinguishing tokenistic from meaningful engagement (Rahimi et al., 2023). The model’s eight rungs range from non-participation (manipulation, decoration, and tokenism) to progressively substantive engagement culminating in youth-initiated shared decision-making with adults (Justin, 2024). This framework enabled critical assessment of whether youth involvement in agricultural initiatives constituted genuine empowerment or merely symbolic inclusion. In this study, Hart’s Ladder informed the development of interview probes concerning decision-making authority, agenda-setting influence, and resource control. During analysis, participant descriptions of institutional interactions were mapped against the Ladder’s rungs to differentiate shallow consultation from authentic co-creation.
PYD and the ladder of participation synergy
The synergy between PYD and Hart’s Ladder provides a coherent analytical framework for examining youth SAE as both a developmental journey and an institutionally embedded practice. PYD explains why participation matters. Meaningful engagement strengthens competencies, confidence, and contribution. Hart’s Ladder explains how participation is structured: the quality and depth of institutional engagement condition developmental outcomes. The framework posits that higher rungs on Hart’s Ladder, those involving shared or youth-initiated decision-making should correspond with stronger PYD outcomes, while tokenistic participation yields limited developmental returns. This integrated proposition guided the study’s analytical logic. Interview data were coded for both participatory quality (using Hart’s categories) and developmental indicators (using the Five Cs), with constant comparison across wards to examine how institutional arrangements shaped youth trajectories. The framework thus moves beyond celebrating participation as inherently beneficial, instead interrogating the conditions under which engagement becomes truly transformative for young women and men in agrarian settings.
Literature review
This section critically synthesises scholarship on youth agency, participatory development, and SAE. Rather than cataloguing themes, it interrogates how power, institutions, and structural inequalities shape youth participation, highlighting contradictions and empirical weaknesses that motivate this study.
Youth agency and agricultural entrepreneurship
Youth agency has been foregrounded as a counterpoint to deficit-based narratives that frame youth as passive recipients or sources of risk (Checkoway et al., 2003). Within agricultural entrepreneurship, agency is understood through strategic capacities such as opportunity recognition, innovation, and purposeful decision-making (Loga et al., 2022; Mupfasoni et al., 2018). However, a critical synthesis reveals a tendency to individualise agency, treating it as a personal attribute rather than a socially mediated process (Madende et al., 2023; Zulu et al., 2021). Entrepreneurial success is often ascribed to mindset or individual resilience, while structural barriers are treated as contextual backdrops rather than constitutive forces (Fiedler, 2020; Mulema et al., 2021). This approach risks reinforcing neoliberal assumptions that place primary responsibility for outcomes on youth themselves, obscuring relational and institutional dynamics (Fiedler, 2020; Mulema et al., 2021).
Agency is frequently assessed through outcome metrics of business survival, income growth rather than as a negotiated process shaped by intergenerational power, land governance, and institutional gatekeeping (Mkodzongi, 2022a; Mulema et al., 2021). Scholarly debate persists over whether youth disengagement from agriculture stems from attitudinal disinterest or rational resistance to exclusionary systems (Magagula and Tsvakirai, 2020; Geza et al., 2021). This unresolved tension underscores a key conceptual limitation: while youth agency is routinely invoked, it is seldom examined relationally or politically (Madende et al., 2023; Zulu et al., 2021). Consequently, there remains limited insight into how youth enact agency within constrained environments, a gap this study addresses.
Participatory development and youth inclusion
Participatory development has long been promoted as an alternative to top-down models, foregrounding inclusion, voice, and shared decision-making (Checkoway et al., 2003). In youth-in-agriculture contexts, such approaches encompass co-designed programmes, youth-led cooperatives, and multi-stakeholder learning platforms (Adeyanju et al., 2021; FAO, 2023).
Despite its normative appeal, a robust critical literature demonstrates that participatory processes are often shallow, instrumental, or symbolic, functioning to legitimise externally defined agendas rather than redistribute power (Checkoway et al., 2003; Finn and Checkoway, 1998). For youth, this frequently manifests as inclusion limited to consultation or labour provision, with minimal influence over strategic decisions, resource allocation, or institutional design (Madende et al., 2023; Zulu et al., 2021). Within agricultural entrepreneurship programmes, these contradictions are especially pronounced: although youth inclusion is rhetorically embraced, decision-making authority remains concentrated among older elites, customary authorities, or external donors (Mkodzongi, 2022a; Zulu et al., 2021). Furthermore, participatory initiatives often treat youth as an undifferentiated group, masking critical internal disparities based on gender, education, and class (Geza et al., 2021; Mulema et al., 2021). These limitations underscore that participation should not be conflated with empowerment; rather, its quality, depth, and actual effects on power distribution demand careful empirical scrutiny, an imperative that directly informs the analytical framework of this study.
Sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship (SAE)
SAE is used in this study to denote agricultural enterprises that simultaneously pursue three interdependent intents: (1) economic viability through market integration, value addition, and profitability; (2) social inclusion through equitable participation, decent livelihoods, and gender equity; and (3) environmental responsibility through climate-smart practices, resource conservation, and ecosystem stewardship (Sargani et al., 2020; Zulu et al., 2021). This tripartite definition draws on the triple-bottom-line framework adapted to smallholder agrarian contexts, distinguishing SAE from conventional agripreneurship where profit maximisation alone may overshadow social and ecological outcomes. In operational terms, for this study, SAE encompasses activities such as irrigated horticulture using water-efficient methods, agroecological diversification, farmer-led value addition, and cooperative marketing arrangements that explicitly incorporate sustainability principles.
While youth are increasingly acknowledged as potential drivers of sustainability transitions (Adeyanju et al., 2021; FAO, 2018), the literature reveals persistent tensions. First, conceptualisations of sustainability remain inconsistent or superficially applied, often reducing SAE to market integration while neglecting substantive social and ecological dimensions (Sargani et al., 2020; Fiedler, 2020). Second, ecosystem-based approaches to SAE tend to privilege technological and financial solutions, positioning youth as beneficiaries rather than political and economic actors (Mulema et al., 2021; Fiedler, 2020). Third, sustainability is frequently assumed rather than demonstrated, with inadequate attention to trade-offs youth navigate between immediate livelihood needs and long-term environmental stewardship (Zulu et al., 2021; Mukwashi et al., 2024). These unresolved tensions underscore the need for research that examines how youth negotiate sustainability in practice rather than treating it as an inherent attribute of youth-led enterprises.
Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework posits the relational model of youth agency, participation, and SAE in Hwedza District (Figure 1). The framework conceptualises youth engagement as embedded within structural and institutional conditions and influenced by the quality of participatory pathways. Youth agency (PYD Five Cs) and SAE outcomes (triple bottom line) are co-produced through processes of mutual influence rather than linear causation.
Methodology
Research paradigm and design
This study is situated within an interpretivist–constructivist paradigm, which posits that social phenomena such as youth agency and participation are subjectively constructed through human interaction and contextual experience (Alharahsheh and Pius, 2020; Flick, 2015). This ontological stance shaped the research by prioritising participant meanings, contextual depth, and the researcher’s reflexive engagement over objective measurement. It guided the choice of open-ended interviews, the use of probing questions to explore lived experiences, and the analytical focus on how youth themselves interpret agency and participation rather than imposing external categories. A qualitative case study design was employed, focusing on Hwedza District (Kumar, 2019). The design enabled in-depth, contextually embedded investigation of complex social processes within real-life settings, capturing how agency is facilitated or constrained by local institutional arrangements and socio-cultural norms (Flick, 2015; Madende et al., 2023).
Study area and site selection
The study was conducted in Hwedza District, a rural district in Zimbabwe characterised by smallholder farming systems, high youth underemployment, climate vulnerability, and emerging youth-focused agricultural initiatives (Pindiriri, 2018). Specifically, the district features a dynamic land tenure system (A1, A2, commercial farms, small-scale commercial farms, communal and resettlement), irrigation infrastructure, and financial exclusion. Four wards thus Watershed West, Sengezi, Chigodora, and Zviyambe were purposively selected to capture intra-district variation in ecological conditions, institutional landscapes, and socio-economic profiles (Flick, 2015; Kumar, 2019).
Research population and sampling strategy
The research population consisted of youth aged 18–35 years, consistent with Zimbabwe’s national youth definition, including those actively engaged in agricultural entrepreneurship, those who had previously attempted but discontinued such activities, and aspiring youth agripreneurs. A hybrid sampling strategy combining purposive and snowball sampling was employed, following a predetermined process: initial identification of potential participants through local agricultural extension officers and youth group leaders, stratification based on predefined criteria (ward, gender, entrepreneurial stage), and subsequent snowball referral to peers meeting study criteria. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved.
The final sample comprised 47 participants: 15 key informants and 32 youth who took part in four focus group discussions (8 per ward, one FGD per selected ward). The key informant sample included:
4 youth-focused agricultural extension officers from Agritex and the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development;
4 representatives from agriculture-supporting institutions such as NGOs, development agencies, or youth empowerment organisations operating in the Hwedza district;
4 community leaders or ward councillors knowledgeable about youth initiatives and agricultural development in their constituencies; and
3 agriculture educators or trainers from vocational training centres and local agricultural colleges involved in youth capacity-building initiatives.
A total of 32 youth participants took part in focus group discussions. Each focus group consisted of 8 youth participants. The focus group participants included 19 male and 13 female youth, who were purposively selected. The final sample size included 8 early-stage entrepreneurs (5 female, 3 male), 8 established entrepreneurs (2 female, 6 male), 8 discontinued entrepreneurs (3 female, 5 male), and 8 FGD participants who were exclusively enrolled in the study based on their farming knowledge and educational levels (4 female, 4 male). Each ward hosted one focus group discussion (FGD), ensuring balanced representation and enabling context-specific insights into youth experiences within each locality Data
Collection methods and procedures
Data were collected over 8 weeks using semi-structured interviews (60–90 min) and focus group discussions (90–120 min), triangulated to capture expert perspectives and collective youth dialogues. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all 15 key informants, comprising agricultural extension officers, NGO and development agency representatives, community leaders and ward councillors, and agriculture educators from vocational training centres and local colleges. A flexible protocol guided these interviews, covering institutional support structures, youth programme implementation, intergenerational governance, and policy–practice gaps. Four focus group discussions, one per ward with 8 youth participants each (total 32 youth), explored shared challenges, ward-level dynamics, and collective experiences related to agency, participation, and SAE. All sessions were conducted primarily in Shona, audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English, with accuracy ensured through bilingual research assistant cross-checking and selective back-translation. Field notes captured contextual observations and non-verbal cues.
Data analysis
Analysis Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2019) Reflexive Thematic Analysis, facilitated by NVivo software. The six-phase process began with familiarisation through repeated reading of transcripts and field notes. Systematic coding combined deductive codes (derived from PYD’s Five Cs and Hart’s Ladder rungs) with inductive codes emerging from the data. For example, descriptions of decision-making authority were coded to Hart’s rungs, while expressions of self-belief were coded to confidence. Codes were then grouped into candidate themes through iterative refinement. Themes were reviewed against the full dataset, defined, and named, with final analysis supported by illustrative extracts. An audit trail documented all analytical decisions, including coding rationales and theme revisions. Peer debriefing among the research team challenged interpretations, and respondent validation was conducted with 8 participants who provided feedback on preliminary findings. Triangulation across interviews, FGDs, and field notes further strengthened analytical rigour.
Ethical considerations
The Ethical clearance was obtained from the MUAST ethics review board. The study followed rigorous protocols including written informed consent in the local language after detailed explanation of research purposes and procedures, anonymisation of all identifying information in transcripts and publications, respectful observance of cultural protocols through prior engagement with local leaders, password-protected secure data storage, and debriefing sessions for participants to address sensitive topics. This framework ensured scientific rigour and ethical integrity throughout the research process.
Findings
This section presents qualitative findings from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions conducted across Watershed West, Sengezi, Chigodora, and Zviyambe wards in Hwedza District. Findings are organised thematically around key dimensions of youth participation in SAE, with explicit comparative analysis across wards to illuminate spatial variation in agency, institutional support, and entrepreneurial outcomes.
Strengthening youth agency and entrepreneurial identity
Across all wards, youth agency emerged as a socially cultivated process shaped by mentorship, institutional recognition, and access to productive opportunities. However, the depth and expression of entrepreneurial identity varied markedly by ward context, as summarised in Table 1.
Table 1
| Dimension | Watershed West | Sengezi | Chigodora | Zviyambe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency and Identity | Strong agripreneur identity; enterprise orientation | Moderate; mentorship-dependent | Moderate; constrained by social mistrust | Weak; survivalist framing |
| Participation Quality (Hart’s Ladder) | Tokenistic-Shared decision-making (Rung 3–7) | Tokenistic-Consultative (Rung 3–5) | Tokenistic-Consultative (Rung 3–5) | Tokenistic-consultative (Rung 3–5) |
| Financial Access | Constrained by guarantorship | Informal reliance | Informal reliance | Severely constrained |
| Land Access Pathway | Hybrid governance; stewardship proposals | Stewardship proposals; land disputes | Inheritance-dependent; disputes | Underutilised state land; low interest |
| Digital Engagement | High; WhatsApp integration | Moderate | Moderate | Low; poor network coverage |
| Governance Context | Supportive headmen; hybrid committees | Gerontocratic norms | Gerontocratic norms | Weak institutional presence |
| Politicisation Impact | High distortion | High distortion | High distortion | High distortion |
| Substance Abuse Impact | Significant | Significant | Significant | Significant |
Comparative synthesis of ward-level findings.
Source: Fieldwork Data (2026).
In Watershed West, where irrigation infrastructure and NGO-supported training programmes were relatively established, youth articulated strong self-identification as agripreneurs. Participation in scheme governance reinforced entrepreneurial confidence. As one participant said:
“Before the irrigation scheme, I was just helping my parents. The training changed how I see myself. Now I keep records, calculate costs, plan for next season. It's a business, and I am an agripreneur” (F1).
In contrast, in Zviyambe rain-fed agriculture and limited institutional support constrained agency to survivalist framing. As one participant said
“Here, you hear about schemes in other wards. Here, you are on your own. Without tools, knowledge, reliable water sources for irrigation, how can you build anything? You're not an entrepreneur; you're just trying to get by” (F6).
In Sengezi and Chigodora, youth agency was closely linked to mentorship from extension officers and experienced farmers. Youth who received sustained guidance demonstrated higher confidence and a greater willingness to invest in sustainable practices, underscoring that entrepreneurial identity is relationally produced rather than individually driven.
The findings further reveal that youth agency in Sengezi and Chigodora area agency was closely tied to mentorship from extension officers. However, social-religious dynamics, particularly fear of jealousy and witchcraft within Apostolic church communities, actively undermined collective enterprise formation, fragmenting potential solidarity and limiting the “connection” dimension central to PYD. One participant explained,
“Youth fear one thing that, if one start doing well, people in the community even fellow youth may think you are using witchcraft. Some in our church believe success not blessed by the congregation is suspicious. So, many prefer to work alone, even if it means failing alone” (KI9).
This climate of apprehension fragmented potential solidarity, reducing the synergy of effort necessary for collective agency and limiting the scale and impact of youth-led agricultural initiatives. This social-religious dimension underscores how informal institutions can actively undermine the “connection” and “confidence” central to PYD, further complicating participatory pathways in already constrained settings.
Participatory institutional support and co-creation platforms
Participatory spaces differed significantly across wards, directly shaping the quality of youth inclusion. Table 1 (below) maps these differences against Hart’s Ladder of Participation.
Watershed West exhibited the highest quality participation, with youth-inclusive committees enabling shared deliberation across generations. One participant explained:
“Youth are offer the opportunity to sit with older farmers and officers. Sometimes they disagree, but at least there ideas are discussed, and sometimes they are even taken seriously. It makes them feel part of shaping the community future, not just following instructions” (KI5).
By contrast, participation in Chigodora and Sengezi was largely consultative rather than deliberative. Youth were invited to meetings but excluded from agenda-setting and decision-making authority:
In Chigodora and Sengezi, participation was largely consultative, with youth invited to meetings but excluded from agenda-setting. One participants explained
“We are called to the ward meetings, yes. We are given the time to speak, and we share our views. The community leaders nod and write things down. But when the next meeting comes, the agenda is already set without us, and the decisions are made elsewhere. It is evidently clear that our role is to be heard, not to influence” (F3).
Meanwhile, Zviyambe exhibited the weakest participatory infrastructure, with tokenistic inclusion reported across development initiatives.
Access to finance and productive resources
Financial exclusion operated as a cross-cutting constraint, though its manifestations varied. Formal institutions consistently denied youth applications due to perceived risk and lack of collateral. In response, youth relied on informal arrangements that reinforced intergenerational dependency. Contract farming access required parental guarantorship, curtailing autonomy. As one participants revealed:
“To get a contract with the tobacco company, you don’t just need land, you need a guardian to sign. They want a signature from someone with a history or who is already established. My father signed, but now the proceeds go through his account, and the production and income decisions are centered on him. The narrative feels like I am farming his contract, not mine. It keeps you a child in their eyes?” (F1).
State-led input schemes were similarly exclusionary, with opaque allocation processes systematically disadvantaging youth without household headship. As one participant revealed:
"The inputs arrive late, and distribution is haphazard. As a youth without a registered plot, you are at the back of every line. It sends a clear message: you don't count" (F4).
As a result, youth relied heavily on family resources, constraining enterprise scalability and reinforcing dependence. The findings suggest that participatory and transparent financing mechanisms are critical for enhancing youth agency and entrepreneurial independence.
Intergenerational land stewardship
Rather than demanding wholesale redistribution, youth articulated innovative stewardship arrangements that sought to balance respect for tradition with meaningful inclusion. A commonly proposed solution was a rotational or temporary land allocation model that balanced customary authority with youth inclusion. As the participant highlighted:
“Imagine a formal arrangement where an elder allocates a portion of their land to a youth for five years. The youth works, invests, and learns alongside the elder. The elder becomes a mentor. It’s a living classroom, not a theoretical transfer” (F6).
Youth also emphasised the need for formal recognition to ensure security and encourage investment, particularly in wards where land disputes over former grazing areas had undermined tenure certainty.
“Due to land running out given the increase in population. Youth have been vulnerable to being allocated land that was designated as pasture land. The land has been subjected to disputes as residents with cattle and goats often cry foul about the land as to where would they graze their livestocks. The situation has resulted in youth being offered land and later the land being possessed back. There are often left as destitutes without clue about their future and sustainability of agriculture. So in future there is need for written agreements that honour both youth land stewardship and the land’s long-term preservation” (KI15).
These proposals reflect pragmatic yet transformative thinking, positioning land as a shared intergenerational resource rather than a zero-sum asset.
Knowledge, innovation, and digital mediation
Digital tool engagement varied significantly by infrastructure rather than youth motivation. In Watershed West and Sengezi, WhatsApp groups facilitated market coordination, climate information sharing, and peer troubleshooting. The participants revealed:
“Our WhatsApp group is more than just a chat; it’s our mobile office. The extension officer posts advise. When someone travels to Mbare, they inform others about market conditions through the platform immediately. When a strange pest appears, someone shares a picture, and a group member with specialised training identifies it and recommends a pesticide or alternative solution. It stops us from working in the dark” (F12)
In Zviyambe, however, poor network coverage constrained digital engagement despite widespread smartphone ownership. One participant said:
“Youth have smartphones and applications, but the network here is unreliable. They try to join online trainings, but the connection drops, and they miss out” (KI8).
These findings indicate that digital innovation is mediated by infrastructural and institutional conditions rather than youth motivation alone.
Socio-cultural governance and local power dynamics
Traditional leadership stances proved decisive in shaping youth recognition as legitimate agrarian actors. Where headmen were supportive (notably Watershed West), youth gained symbolic validation and practical access to land and committees. Conversely, entrenched gerontocratic norms in Chigodora and Sengezi delayed youth entry into independent decision-making until parental passing. Notably, in Zviyambe, vast state land remained underutilised due to limited youth interest, complicating narratives of land scarcity as the sole constraint. As one participant explained:
“If the headman supports you, the community starts to take you seriously. People listen, and you can even be considered for land or join committees” (KI8).
However, youth also noted that land allocated or inherited was often less fertile, requiring higher input investment.
Entrenched gerontocratic norms severely curtailed youth voice and delayed their entry into agrarian spaces. Land allocation remained tightly bound to inheritance practices, with youth often excluded from independent ownership or decision-making until the passing of a parent or elder relative. As one participant acknowledged:
“In some cases youth accessed land only after the death of a parent. Before that, they farm under supervision, but they cannot make big farm investment decisions” (KI2).
However, the narrative varied across participants. While many emphasised exclusion and delayed access, others highlighted a contrasting dynamic. It was highlighted that youth especially in Zviyambe had limited interest in possessing or acquiring land. The ward is evident with the availability of vast state land that remained underutilised due to limited youth interest. As one participant observed:
“There are vast pieces of state land here, but no youths are coming forward to seek custodian of that land. It is there, but there are not interested” (KI6).
Watershed West presented a contrasting scenario, characterised by hybrid governance arrangements that deliberately incorporated youth representatives into irrigation management structures alongside traditional leaders and extension officers. This co-governance model reduced intergenerational tensions by creating a space where youth could articulate priorities and negotiate resource use in dialogue with elders.
Participants revealed:
“We sit with older farmers and officers. Sometimes we disagree, but at least our ideas are discussed, and sometimes they even take them seriously” (F1).
Politicisation of youth engagement
Excessive politicisation emerged as a pervasive structural constraint across all wards, redirecting youth energy away from developmental pathways toward short-term patronage. As one participant observed:
“You will see a hundred youth at a political rally receiving T-shirts and a meal, but only a handful at a free agriculture entrepreneurship training the following day. The reward systems are competing, and politics offers what feels tangible now” (KI4).
This dynamic cultivated a dependency on short-term patronage, which actively discouraged long-term investment in personal enterprise.
Furthermore, development actors operating outside of political channels faced suspicion, further constraining programme reach and effectiveness. As one participant observed
“If you are not aligned with the politics of the environment, you are seen as opposing, and your programs are labelled as foreign or divisive” (KI11).
The environment not only distorted youth priorities but also eroded the foundations of self-reliance and sustained effort essential for SAE, ultimately constraining the emergence of genuine, developmental forms of participation. Collectively, the findings suggest that political patronage systems redirect youth energy away from productive economic engagement, weakening the foundations of SAE.
Drug abuse and youth responsiveness to development initiatives
Substance abuse emerged as a critical cross-cutting barrier, eroding foundational attitudes necessary for sustained entrepreneurial engagement. As one participant summarized,
“You can provide seeds, training, and land, but if the youth mind and discipline are compromised, the intervention simply will not take root” (KI9)
This behavior not only weakened personal focus and long-term goal orientation but also reduced the overall effectiveness and sustainability of empowerment programs. The finding underscores that youth participation in SAE cannot be isolated from broader well-being; meaningful engagement requires integrated approaches that address psychosocial vulnerabilities alongside economic support.
Affected youth displayed low seriousness and inconsistent participation, reducing overall programme effectiveness and underscoring the need for integrated psychosocial support.
Integrated summary
Taken together, the findings reveal youth participation in SAE as a co-produced, spatially uneven, and institutionally mediated process. Watershed West approximates an enabling ecosystem with higher-quality participation and stronger PYD outcomes. Sengezi and Chigodora reflect partial, consultative inclusion constrained by gerontocratic norms and social mistrust. Zviyambe remains structurally constrained across multiple dimensions. Across contexts, however, youth articulate not resignation but strategic vision, positioning themselves as active agents navigating, negotiating, and, where possible, reshaping agricultural futures.
Discussion
The study examined how youth agency and participatory pathways shape engagement in SAE in Hwedza District. Interpreted through the integrated PYD and Hart’s Ladder framework, the findings move beyond binary conceptions of participation as mere presence or absence. Instead, participation emerges as a differentiated, relational, and power-laden process that yields developmental gains only when meaningful decision-making authority is shared.
Youth agency as a relational developmental process (PYD)
The findings support PYD’s core proposition that agency emerges from interactions between individual capacities and enabling environments rather than fixed traits (Lerner et al., 2021; Madende et al., 2023). Across wards, youth confidence, competence, and entrepreneurial identity were most visible where mentorship, institutional recognition, and continuous learning opportunities were present. However, the study extends this understanding by demonstrating that agency is spatially uneven and contingent on institutional context. In Watershed West, young people moved beyond survivalist engagement toward contribution, combining profitability with ecological awareness. In contrast, Zviyambe’s fragile institutional support constrained agency despite evident motivation. These patterns challenge policy narratives that frame low youth participation as attitudinal disinterest (Magagula and Tsvakirai, 2020; Geza et al., 2021), instead reinforcing arguments that apparent “disengagement” reflects rational responses to exclusionary systems (Fiedler, 2020; Mulema et al., 2021).
Participation quality and power redistribution
When analysed through Hart’s Ladder, most youth involvement in Hwedza clustered around lower to middle rungs rather than shared or youth-initiated decision-making. This pattern confirms critiques that participatory development often reproduces existing power hierarchies while maintaining an appearance of inclusivity (Checkoway et al., 2003; Finn and Checkoway, 1998). Crucially, the study demonstrates that the quality of participation outweighs its mere presence. In Watershed West, hybrid governance arrangements enabled adult-initiated shared decision-making, allowing youth to influence irrigation management and strengthening PYD outcomes. In Chigodora and Zviyambe, tokenistic inclusion constrained confidence and connection. These findings suggest that participation without meaningful power transfer yields limited developmental returns (Madende et al., 2023; Zulu et al., 2021).
Financial exclusion and the limits of individualised entrepreneurship
Youth exclusion from formal financial systems reinforces established themes in agripreneurship literature (Mmbengwa et al., 2023; Mulema et al., 2021). However, this study shows how financial exclusion actively erodes both PYD outcomes and participatory advancement. Reliance on parental guarantorship curtailed youth autonomy, restricting movement from assigned participation toward self-directed enterprise. From a PYD perspective, this constrains competence and confidence; from Hart’s perspective, it fixes participation within adult-controlled structures. The findings indicate that exclusion is institutional and relational rather than remediable through training alone (Fiedler, 2020; Mulema et al., 2021), challenging programmatic approaches that prioritise mindset change while leaving structural gatekeeping unaddressed.
Intergenerational land stewardship as a transformative participatory pathway
A theoretically significant finding is youth’s articulation of rotational land stewardship models. Rather than demanding outright redistribution, young people proposed hybrid arrangements that retain customary authority while widening access. This insight extends land governance literature by positioning youth as institutional innovators rather than antagonists of tradition. When mapped onto Hart’s Ladder, these proposals signal aspirations for shared decision-making with adults. Viewed through PYD, they demonstrate character and caring reflecting ethical commitments to sustainability and intergenerational equity (Lerner et al., 2021). These portrayals of youth as disruptive actors, instead, position them as pragmatic reformers capable of negotiating context-sensitive agrarian transformation.
Digital mediation: opportunity without automatic empowerment
The findings affirm youth inclination toward digital tools in agriculture (Adeyanju et al., 2021) but nuance techno-optimistic narratives. Digital engagement did not inherently catalyse empowerment; effectiveness was contingent on underlying infrastructure and institutional linkages. Viewed through the integrated framework, digital platforms fostered competence and connection only when supported by complementary institutional conditions. Through Hart’s Ladder, such tools facilitated informal youth-initiated engagement but did not translate into formal decision-making authority. This evidence challenges deterministic narratives framing digitalisation as a standalone remedy for youth exclusion.
Governance, gerontocracy, and the politics of recognition
The findings underscore recognition as critical in traditional leadership contexts. Where leaders endorsed youth involvement, young people ascended Hart’s Ladder, gaining legitimacy and voice. Conversely, gerontocratic norms relegated youth to subordinate roles irrespective of competence. This supports arguments that agrarian change revolves as much around authority and legitimacy as resources (Madende et al., 2023; Zulu et al., 2021). However, hybrid governance in Watershed West demonstrates that customary systems are not immutable; inclusive leadership can reshape participation without institutional disruption.
Politicisation as a structural distortion of participation
The politicisation of youth engagement emerged as an underexplored finding with significant implications. While political mobilisation is often framed as civic participation, this study reveals that in tshe Zimbabwean context, it frequently displaces productive engagement and undermines long-term entrepreneurial development. When analysed through Hart’s Ladder, such politicised participation often functions as manipulation or decoration, where youth presence is instrumentalised to serve external agendas. From a PYD perspective, this dynamic erodes confidence, character, and contribution by rewarding political dependency over initiative (Lerner et al., 2021). This finding reinforces the imperative to critically assess the quality and purpose of youth involvement rather than its mere presence.
Drug abuse as a cross-cutting constraint on PYD outcomes
The influence of substance abuse, though seldom central in agripreneurship research, offers critical insight into uneven programme outcomes. Substance abuse directly erodes core PYD dimensions of confidence, character, and competence, constraining youth capacity to engage meaningfully even when opportunities exist (Dupont et al., 2022). This finding helps explain why otherwise well-designed interventions sometimes fail and underscores that youth SAE cannot be detached from broader wellbeing and social support systems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study repositions youth not as the problem of agricultural development, nor merely as its solution, but as co-architects of sustainable agrarian futures. Recognising and institutionalising youth agency through meaningful participatory pathways is not only a matter of inclusion, but a prerequisite for resilient, equitable, and sustainable rural transformation.
The study identified several participatory pathways that enable youth agency in Hwedza District. These include youth-inclusive supportive scheme committees that facilitate shared decision-making with older farmers; hybrid governance arrangements that integrate youth representatives into ward-level agricultural planning; structured mentorship linkages with extension officers and experienced farmers; digital peer-learning platforms for market coordination and knowledge exchange; NGO-supported entrepreneurship training programmes that build competence and confidence; and youth-proposed rotational land stewardship models that offer a negotiated pathway to land access within customary tenure systems.
The findings reveal that youth participation in SAE is not determined solely by individual motivation or skill, but is co-produced through the quality of participation, institutional recognition, and intergenerational power dynamics. Youth agency emerges relationally and developmentally, nurtured by mentorship, resource access, and meaningful inclusion in decision-making. Where participation was limited to consultation or symbolic inclusion entrepreneurial confidence and autonomy remained constrained. Conversely, where shared governance structures existed, as in Watershed West, youth advanced beyond survivalist activities toward enterprise growth and ecological stewardship. These pathways are, however, spatially uneven and contingent on local institutional contexts, underscoring that enabling youth SAE requires context-sensitive, ecosystem-oriented approaches rather than uniform interventions.
Transforming youth from beneficiaries into partners in agrarian governance requires institutional reforms that redistribute power, resources, and recognition, a shift essential for realising the aspirations of Zimbabwe’s National Development Strategy and the Sustainable Development Goals.
Implications for theory, policy, and practice
Implications for theory
Grounding PYD in structural and political contexts
The study empirically anchors PYD Theory within the institutional and political realities that mediate young people’s actions, demonstrating that youth agency in agricultural entrepreneurship is not an innate trait but a capacity co-produced through enabling environments and institutional recognition. This advances PYD beyond its traditional focus on individual competencies by showing how political economy and power relations shape developmental pathways. The contribution challenges deficit models and neoliberal narratives that attribute entrepreneurial outcomes primarily to personal motivation or skills training, reframing economic participation as a function of equitable access to resources and decision-making authority.
Theorising participation depth as a determinant of developmental outcomes
By integrating Hart’s Ladder of Participation with PYD, the study establishes a testable theoretical proposition: movement toward higher rungs of participation (shared or youth-initiated decision-making) corresponds with stronger PYD outcomes in competence, confidence, and contribution, while tokenistic or consultative participation yields limited developmental returns. This synthesis provides a rigorous lens for analysing youth inclusion than either framework alone, offering a clear criterion decision-making authority, by which to distinguish genuine empowerment from symbolic engagement. The integration directly informs debates on participatory governance and cautions against celebratory uses of “participation” in policy discourse.
Reconceptualising land access as intergenerational stewardship
The study contributes to agrarian theory by reframing youth land access not as a zero-sum intergenerational conflict but as a negotiated process amenable to institutional innovation. Youth-proposed rotational stewardship models theorise a pathway that balances respect for customary tenure systems with youth inclusion, bridging debates on land reform, sustainability transitions, and intergenerational justice. This offers a theoretical alternative to purely redistributive or market-led models, providing a lens for analysing incremental, socially legitimate agrarian change in contexts where customary authority remains salient.
Implications for policy
Institutionalise youth representation on irrigation management committees
The Department of Agricultural Extension should mandate that all district-level irrigation schemes include at least two youth representatives with voting rights on water allocation and maintenance planning. This leverages existing devolution structures under NDS2 and requires no new legislation.
Pilot a district-level youth land stewardship fund
The Ministry of Lands, in partnership with the Hwedza Rural District Council, should establish a small-grants mechanism to formalise temporary land-use agreements between ageing landholders and youth agripreneurs, providing written contracts and minimal input support. This addresses land access without challenging customary tenure.
Link youth agri-finance to participation in recognised cooperatives
The Youth Empowerment Bank should offer collateral-free loans exclusively to youth who are active members of registered agricultural cooperatives or irrigation committees, thereby incentivising collective action and reducing individual risk.
Implications for practice
Shift from measuring attendance to assessing participation quality
Practitioners should replace attendance-based monitoring with tools that capture the depth and influence of youth engagement. This involves integrating youth-led scorecards into ward-level planning processes, where youth rate their perceived influence over agenda-setting and resource decisions. Participatory monitoring frameworks should track not only presence but also instances of youth-initiated proposals adopted by committees. This shift requires minimal additional resources, primarily adjustments to existing monitoring and evaluation templates and directly supports Zimbabwe’s devolution agenda by embedding accountability into local development processes.
Embed structured mentorship as a non-negotiable programme component
Rather than treating mentorship as an optional add-on, youth SAE initiatives should allocate dedicated budget lines and staff time to structured mentorship linkages. Practitioners should establish formal partnerships between youth groups and local extension officers, experienced farmers, and agribusiness advisors, with clear expectations for monthly contact and seasonal planning support. A simple mentorship logbook system, already used in some NGO programmes in Zimbabwe, can track interactions without creating excessive administrative burden. Complementing mentorship with public recognition mechanisms such as youth agripreneur awards at district agricultural shows or designated youth speaker slots at field days enhances social legitimacy and reinforces the connection and character dimensions central to PYD outcomes.
Use digital tools to extend, not replace, offline support systems
Practitioners should deploy mobile platforms as complements to existing extension and governance structures, not as standalone solutions. WhatsApp groups for market price sharing and pest identification are low-cost and effective when anchored to an extension officer who can verify information and escalate issues requiring in-person follow-up. Digital literacy training should be integrated into SAE programming, but infrastructure assessments must precede digital rollouts in wards like Zviyambe where network coverage is unreliable, practitioners should default to SMS-based alerts and prioritise face-to-face peer learning circles. This approach mitigates techno-determinism while still leveraging youth familiarity with mobile tools.
Integrate basic psychosocial screening and referral pathways
Given the cross-cutting impact of substance abuse and mental health vulnerabilities on programme retention, SAE initiatives should incorporate simple screening and referral mechanisms rather than ignoring these dimensions. Practitioners need not become counsellors, but should establish referral partnerships with local health clinics, church-based support groups, or district social welfare officers. A brief wellbeing check-in during routine extension visits can identify youth at risk of disengagement, enabling early linkage to appropriate services. This aligns with Zimbabwe’s National Drug and Substance Abuse Policy and addresses a documented barrier to sustained entrepreneurial engagement without requiring substantial new programme funding.
Limitations of the study
This study is subject to several limitations. First, it is based on a qualitative case study of a single district, which limits the generalisability of the findings beyond similar rural contexts. Second, reliance on self-reported data may introduce recall or social desirability bias. Third, the cross-sectional design captures youth agency and participation at one point in time, limiting insight into how these dynamics evolve. Nonetheless, the study provides in-depth, context-sensitive insights that offer strong analytical and theoretical relevance.
Areas for future research
This study opens several avenues for future research that can deepen the understanding of youth participation in SAE and extend the theoretical and empirical contributions of this work.
Future studies could operationalise and quantitatively test the relationship between participation quality and PYD outcomes. Developing validated indicators that link Hart’s Ladder of Participation with PYD dimensions would enable mixed-methods research capable of bridging rich qualitative insights with broader generalisation. Such work would contribute to methodological innovation in youth and development research.
While this study treats youth as a heterogeneous group, further research should explicitly examine gender, education, class, and marital status as intersecting factors shaping access to land, finance, and participation. Gender-sensitive analyses are particularly important given persistent inequalities faced by young women in agrarian systems. Intersectional approaches would strengthen both theoretical precision and policy relevance.
Future research could adopt institutional ethnography to closely examine how participatory spaces such as ward development committees, irrigation boards, and input allocation systems operate in practice. Such studies would provide granular insight into everyday power dynamics, decision-making processes, and informal norms that shape youth inclusion or exclusion beyond formal policy commitments.
Further inquiry is needed into how digital tools reshape power relations within agricultural value chains, rather than simply enhancing efficiency. Future research could explore whether digital platforms enable youth to bypass traditional gatekeepers or whether they reproduce existing inequalities through differential access to infrastructure, literacy, and market power.
Given the findings on politicisation, future studies should more explicitly examine the political economy of youth participation, including how patronage, party structures, and electoral cycles influence youth engagement in development initiatives. Understanding these dynamics is essential for designing interventions that safeguard productive participation while respecting civic processes.
Finally, future research should integrate youth wellbeing, mental health, and substance abuse dynamics into analyses of agricultural entrepreneurship. This would move the field beyond narrow economic metrics and toward a holistic understanding of what enables or constrains sustained youth engagement in rural development.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Marondera University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Ethical Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
TN: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Data curation, Visualization, Investigation, Conceptualization. MM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Supervision. PM: Conceptualisation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Validation. PH: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this work the author(s) used DeepSeek in order to assist with language refinement, grammar improvement, and enhancing the clarity of the manuscript. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AdeyanjuD. F.MburuJ.MignounaD. (2021). Youth agricultural entrepreneurship: assessing the impact of agricultural training Programmes on performance. Sustainability13:1697. doi: 10.3390/su13041697
2
African Development Bank (2024). The Youth Entrepreneurship and Innovation Multi-Donor Trust Fund - Annual Impact Report 2024. Available online at: https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/youth-entrepreneurship-and-innovation-multi-donor-trust-fund-annual-impact-report-2024 (accessed February 22, 2026).
3
AlharahshehH. H.PiusA. (2020). A review of key paradigms: positivism vs Interpretivism. Glob. Acad. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci.2, 39–43. doi: 10.36348/gajhss.2020.v02i03.001
4
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health11, 589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806
5
ChandR. (2022). Agricultural challenges and policies for the 21st century. Nabard Res. Policy Series6:2002.
6
CheckowayB.Richards-SchusterK.AbdullahS.AragonM.FacioE.FigueroaL.et al. (2003). Young people as competent citizens. Community Dev. J.38, 298–309. doi: 10.1093/cdj/38.4.298
7
DimitrovaR.WiiumN. (2021). Handbook of positive youth development: advancing research, policy, and practice in global contexts. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–16.
8
DupontS.MikolajczakM.RoskamI. (2022). The cult of the child: a critical examination of its consequences on parents, teachers and children. Soc. Sci.11:141. doi: 10.3390/socsci11030141
9
FAO (2018). Empowering Youth to Engage in Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems: Challenges, Opportunities and Lessons Learned from Six African Countries (Côte D’ivoire, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Uganda). Rome: FAO.
10
FAO (2023). Opportunities and Barriers for Advancing Agrifood Systems: Empowering Young People for a Sustainable Future. Rome: FAO.
11
FiedlerY. (2020). Empowering Young Agri-Entrepreneurs to Invest in Agriculture and Food Systems: Policy Recommendations Based on Lessons Learned from Eleven African Countries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
12
FinnJ. L.CheckowayB. (1998). Young people as competent community builders: a challenge to social work. Soc. Work43, 335–345.
13
FlickU. (2015). Introducing Research Methodology: A Beginner's Guide to Doing a Research Project. London: Sage.
14
GezaW.NgidiM. S. C.SlotowR.MabhaudhiT. (2021). The dynamics of youth employment and empowerment in agriculture and rural development in South Africa: a scoping review. Sustainability14:5041. doi: 10.3390/su14095041,
15
GoZ (2025). National Development Strategy 2 (2026–2030). Ministry of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion, Government of Zimbabwe. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
16
GwanongodzaT. (2020). Agricultural Exports and Economic Growth in Zimbabwe (Doctoral Dissertation). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
17
HlungwaniP.MasukuS.MagidiM. (2021). Mainstreaming youth policy in Zimbabwe–what role for rural youth?Cogent Soc. Sci.7:1893907. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2021.1893907
18
JustinJ. (2024). Understanding Meaningful Participation of Young People in Rotterdam Using Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation. London: Sage.
19
KumarR. (2019). Research Methodology: A Step-By-Step Guide for Beginners. London: Sage.
20
LernerR. M.LernerJ. V.MurryV. M.SmithE. P.BowersE. P.GeldhofG. J.et al. (2021). Positive youth development in 2020: theory, research, programs, and the promotion of social justice. J. Res. Adolesc.31, 1114–1134. doi: 10.1111/jora.12609,
21
LogaD. E.KibwikaP.KyazzeF. B. (2022). How do youth innovate to make agriculture gainful? Challenges and youth entrepreneurs in mid-Western Uganda. Int. J. Agric. Res. Innov. Technol.12, 39–44.
22
LoschB. (2014). “African youth in agriculture and rural development,” in Background Paper for the Fao Regional Conference for Africa (Arc 2014) 28th Session, 24–28.
23
MadendeP.HenningJ. I.JordaanH. (2023). Tailor-made development pathways: a framework to enhance active participation of youth in agriculture. Soc. Sci.12:630. doi: 10.3390/socsci12110630
24
MagagulaB.TsvakiraiC. Z. (2020). Youth perceptions of agriculture: influence of cognitive processes on participation in Agripreneurship. Dev. Pract.30, 234–243. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2019.1670138
25
MartinhoV. J. P. D. (2020). Agricultural entrepreneurship in the European Union: contributions for a sustainable development. Appl. Sci.10:2080. doi: 10.3390/app10062080
26
MasamaE. (2016). Research note: impact of climate change on livestock production in Zimbabwe. Int. Open Distance Learning J.2:1.
27
MasukuS.MachekaT. (2021). Policy making and governance structures in Zimbabwe: examining their efficacy as a conduit to equitable participation (inclusion) and social justice for rural youths. Cogent Soc. Sci.7:1855742. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2020.1855742
28
MkodzongiG. (2022a). “Zimbabwe's changing agrarian sector in perspective,” in The Future of Zimbabwe’s Agrarian Sector, eds. PocockS.NoN. Z. S. (London: Routledge).
29
MkodzongiG. Ed. (2022b). The Future of Zimbabwe’s Agrarian Sector: Land Issues in a Time of Political Transition. London: Routledge.
30
MkodzongiG.LawrenceP. (2019). The fast-track land reform and agrarian change in Zimbabwe. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ.46, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/03056244.2019.1622210
31
MmbengwaV.QinX.NkobiV. (2023). Youth Agriculture Entrepreneurship: A Tool to Enhance Entrepreneurial Success in South Africa, 1–65.
32
MukwashiT.MabikaV.MokhemaS.Enokenwa BaaO.DavisK. (2024). Youth Engagement in Agripreneurship in Zimbabwe: Report and Recommendations. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International WaterManagement Institute (IWMI). CGIAR Initiative on Diversification in East and Southern Africa. 58p.
33
MulemaJ.MugambiI.KansiimeM.ChanH. T.ChimalizeniM.PhamT. X.et al. (2021). Barriers and opportunities for the youth engagement in agribusiness: empirical evidence from Zambia and Vietnam. Dev. Pract.31, 690–706. doi: 10.1080/09614524.2021.1911949
34
MupfasoniB.KesslerA.LansT. (2018). Sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship in Burundi: drivers and outcomes. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev.25, 64–80. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-03-2017-0130
35
PindiririC. (2018). Breaking the traditional trap: assessing drivers of modern technology adoption by smallholder farmers in Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe. Building Resilient Sust. Agric. Sub-Saharan Africa22, 33–53. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-76222-7_3
36
RahimiM.SfandyarifardE.TeimouryM. (2023). A systematic literature review of citizens’ participatory ladder models. Creative City Design6, 37–49. doi: 10.71619/
37
SarganiG. R.ZhouD.RazaM. H.WeiY. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector: the Nexus of the triple bottom line measurement approach. Sustainability12:3275. doi: 10.3390/su12083275
38
ThebeV. (2018). Youth, agriculture and land reform in Zimbabwe: experiences from a communal area and resettlement scheme in semi-arid Matabeleland, Zimbabwe. Afr. Stu.77, 336–353. doi: 10.1080/00020184.2018.1466516
39
ZimstatsM. E. (2022). Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency. Harare, Zimbabwe.
40
ZuluL. C.DjenontinI. N.GrabowskiP. (2021). From diagnosis to action: understanding youth strengths and hurdles and using decision-making tools to Foster youth-inclusive sustainable agriculture intensification. J. Rural. Stud.82, 196–209. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.023
Summary
Keywords
agripreneurship, participatory development, sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship (SAE), youth agency, Zimbabwe
Citation
Nyagwaya TJ, Marembo M, Mukarumbwa P and Hove PK (2026) Youth agency and participatory pathways in advancing sustainable agriculture entrepreneurship. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 10:1823768. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2026.1823768
Received
09 March 2026
Revised
27 April 2026
Accepted
29 April 2026
Published
15 May 2026
Volume
10 - 2026
Edited by
Marzia Ingrassia, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy
Reviewed by
Elvin Shava, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Arif Zunaidi, UIN Syekh Wasil Kediri, Indonesia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Nyagwaya, Marembo, Mukarumbwa and Hove.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tonderai J. Nyagwaya, nyagwayajames@gmail.com
ORCID: Tonderai J. Nyagwaya, orcid.org/0009-0004-2457-8023; Peter Mukarumbwa, orcid.org/0000-0002-2387-9236; Precious K. Hove, orcid.org/0000-0001-5914-7531
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.