Factors influencing rural youth engagement in agriculture: The mediating role of extension support services

Introduction

The aging farmer challenge is no longer a distant projection it is a present reality across much of sub-Saharan Africa. In Ghana, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture estimates that over 60% of active farmers are above 50 years of age, while fewer than 12% of agricultural workers are under 30 [1] . If this generational gap is not addressed within the next decade, the country faces serious risks to domestic food production capacity [2] . But telling young people to go into farming isn't enough when the structural conditions that drove them away from agriculture in the first place limited land, scarce capital, low social prestige remain unchanged. Northern Ghana presents an especially sharp version of this challenge, with the highest poverty rates, most landdependent livelihoods, and weakest extension coverage [3] . Youth face a difficult choice: stay in agriculture under constrained conditions or migrate south for uncertain urban employment. Extension services could tip this balance by providing technical knowledge, market connections, and improved inputs that make agriculture more productive and attractive [4] . Previous research has identified several categories of influencing factors: structural (land, credit), human capital (education, training), attitudinal (perceptions of farming), and institutional (extension support, policy) [5] . But most have been examined in isolation. Whether extension support acts as an independent driver or as a mediator amplifying other factors hasn't been adequately tested [6] . This research modeled extension support as a mediating variable in the relationship between structural and human capital factors and youth agricultural engagement [7] .

Conceptual Framework

The research was grounded in a modified Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which posits that behavioral intentions are shaped by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [8] . Attitudes toward agriculture, social perceptions of farming, and perceived control over resources were treated as antecedent factors. Extension support was positioned as a mediating variable hypothesized to strengthen the link between antecedent factors and engagement. The rationale was that extension services don't create land or capital, but may help youth use resources more effectively, access information that shifts perceptions, and build skills that increase perceived control [9] . The model proposed that antecedent factors affect engagement both directly and indirectly through extension support.

Material and Methods

Material

This cross-sectional research was conducted from June to December 2021 in four districts of Ghana's Northern and Savannah regions: Tamale Metropolitan, Sagnarigu, Tolon, and West Gonja. The research was based at the University for Development Studies, Tamale. A total of 324 rural youth aged 18-35 were surveyed using multistage sampling [10] . The structured questionnaire measured demographics (8 items), land access (5 items), credit access (4 items), www.extensionjournal.com agricultural education (6 items), attitudes toward agriculture (7 items, 5-point Likert), extension support index (9 items), and agricultural engagement index (12 items covering crop production, livestock, agribusiness, and investment behavior) [11] .

Methods: Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the mediation model. The measurement model was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis, with model fit evaluated using chi-square/df, CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Mediation was assessed using the Baron and Kenny approach supplemented by bootstrapped indirect effects with 5,000 resamples [12] . Direct, indirect, and total effects were calculated for each antecedent-engagement path through the extension support mediator. Independent samples t-tests compared engagement scores between youth with and without extension contact. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests characterized the sample and identified reported barriers. Analyses used SPSS 27 and AMOS 24. Ethical clearance was obtained from the University for Development Studies Ethics Committee (Protocol UDS-EC/2021/037, May 14, 2021) [13] .

Results

Discussion

The finding that extension support partially mediates rather than independently drives youth engagement has important policy implications. Extension services amplify structural factors like land and credit access but cannot substitute for them [4] . A young person with excellent extension advice but no land or capital will still struggle to engage in agriculture [14] . The 38.2% mediation rate for agricultural education suggests extension and education work synergistically youth with training benefit more from extension contact, possibly because education provides a foundation extension can build upon [15] . The barrier analysis confirms structural issues dominate: land (27.8%) and capital (23.4%) together account for over half of reported barriers, while extensionspecific barriers ranked fifth at only 10.2% [16] .

Practical Applications

These findings yield several actionable recommendations. First, extension programs targeting youth should be codesigned with land reform and credit facilitation rather than operating in isolation [17] . Second, agricultural education institutions should coordinate with extension services to create seamless pathways from training to field support. Third, extension content for youth should emphasize agribusiness and market linkages, given the strong extension effect on agribusiness engagement. Fourth, female youth showed similar engagement when extension support was held constant, suggesting targeted outreach to young women could close gender gaps [18,19] .

Conclusions

This research demonstrates that rural youth engagement in agriculture in northern Ghana is shaped by structural, human capital, and institutional factors in combination. Land access and credit availability were the strongest direct predictors, while extension support acted as a significant partial mediator. Youth with regular extension contact scored substantially higher on all engagement dimensions. The mediation model suggests extension services are most effective when paired with interventions addressing structural barriers. Programs aiming to attract young people into agriculture should adopt integrated approaches combining resource access, education, and extension support [20,21] .

References

1. Ministry of Food and Agriculture Ghana. Agriculture sector progress report 2020. Accra: MoFA; 2021.
2. Yeboah FK, Jayne TS. Africa's evolving employment trends. J Dev Stud. 2018;54(5):803-832.
3. Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana living standards survey round 7. Accra: GSS; 2019.
4. Ahaibwe G, Mbowa S, Lwanga MM. Youth engagement in agriculture in Uganda. Econ Policy Res Cent Res Ser. 2013;106:1-32.
5. Leavy J, Smith S. Future farmers: youth aspirations, expectations, and life choices. Future Agric Discuss Pap. 2010;13:1-15.
6. Betcherman G, Khan T. Youth employment in subSaharan Africa: taking stock of the evidence. World Bank SP Discuss Pap. 2015;1513:1-47.
7. Sumberg J, Yeboah T, Flynn J, Anyidoho NA. Young people's perspectives on farming in Ghana. IDS Bull. 2017;48(3):61-76.
8. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211.
9. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1986.
10. Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1977.
11. DeVellis RF. Scale development. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE; 2017.
12. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182.
13. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Andover: Cengage; 2019. www.extensionjournal.com
14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Youth and agriculture: key challenges and concrete solutions. Rome: FAO; 2014.
15. Aphunu A, Atoma CN. Rural youth involvement in agricultural production in Delta Central Agricultural Zone. J Agric Ext. 2010;14(2):46-55.
16. Akpan SB. Encouraging youth involvement in agricultural production and processing. IFPRI Discuss Pap. 2010:1-28.
17. Bezu S, Holden S. Are rural youth in Ethiopia abandoning agriculture? World Dev. 2014;64:259-272.
18. Doss CR. The role of women in agriculture. ESA Work Pap No. 11-02. Rome: FAO; 2011.
19. Ragasa C. Improving gender responsiveness of agricultural extension. IFPRI Discuss Pap 01361. 2014:1-26.
20. Proctor FJ, Lucchesi V. Small-scale farming and youth in an era of rapid rural change. London: IIED/HIVOS; 2012.
21. White B. Agriculture and the generation problem: rural youth, employment and the future of farming. IDS Bull. 2012;43(6):9-19.