Digital agricultural platforms for attracting young people into farming and agribusiness enterprises

Introduction

Picture this: a generation that grew up with smartphones is being asked to take over an industry that still communicates through leaflets and field days. The disconnect between how young people consume information and how agricultural extension delivers it helps explain why youth participation in farming continues to decline across sub-Saharan Africa [1] . In Kenya, the median age of farmers is 61 years, and fewer than 10% of agricultural workers are under 35 [2] . Digital agricultural platforms mobile apps and web services offering market information, advisory content, input ordering, and peer networking represent a potential bridge between the digital habits of young people and the information needs of farming [3] . Several platforms have emerged in Kenya since 2018, including M-Farm, DigiFarm, and Twiga Foods, each targeting different points along the agricultural value chain [4] . This research examined whether and how digital platforms influence young people's attitudes toward farming and their decisions to enter agricultural enterprises, focusing on which platform features drive the strongest engagement among the 18-35 age group.

Conceptual Model

The research used the technology acceptance model (TAM) [5] as modified for agricultural contexts, examining perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as predictors of platform adoption. This was combined with the theory of planned behavior [6] to capture how attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence young people's decisions to enter farming through digital pathways.

Material and Methods

Material

The research was conducted through the Department of Agricultural Extension, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya, between March and December 2023. A total of 217 young people aged 18-35 participated: 134 active digital platform users and 83 non-users from the same communities. Respondents were recruited from four counties: Nairobi, Kiambu, Nakuru, and Machakos. A 62item questionnaire covered platform usage patterns, agricultural interest, entrepreneurial intent, perceived barriers, and demographic characteristics. In-depth interviews were conducted with 28 platform users and 12 platform developers.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey design with a comparative component was employed. Platform users and non-users from matched demographic backgrounds were compared on agricultural interest, knowledge, and enterprise engagement. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests, independent ttests, binary logistic regression, and Pearson correlations in SPSS v.28. Cronbach's alpha was 0.88. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic coding. Ethics

Discussion

The 2.7-fold higher likelihood of agribusiness entry among long-term platform users provides encouraging evidence that digital tools can shift youth from passive agricultural disinterest to active enterprise engagement [7] . The strong correlation between social-media-like design and sustained use (r=0.69) suggests that platforms competing for young people's attention need to meet them where they already are on interfaces that feel familiar and engaging [8] .

The gap between perceived usefulness and actual engagement for credit access deserves attention. Youth clearly want financial services through platforms but face barriers likely identity verification, collateral requirements, and trust issues that the platform interface alone cannot resolve [9] . Connecting platforms with youth-friendly financial products could unlock this high-potential but currently underperforming feature.

Practical Applications

Platform developers should prioritize features delivering immediate value (market prices, weather) as entry points, then layer in more complex services. Extension organizations should integrate digital platform engagement into youth-targeted programming. Policy makers should address the regulatory and financial barriers that prevent platforms from fully serving as gateways to agricultural credit.

Conclusion

This research demonstrated that digital agricultural platforms significantly increase young people's interest in farming and their likelihood of entering agribusiness. Market information and weather services drove the strongest engagement, while the gap between interest in and access to financial services represents an untapped opportunity.

Platform design that mirrors social media conventions sustained youth engagement most effectively. For a sector struggling to attract the next generation, digital platforms offer a proven pathway provided they are designed with young users, not just for them.

References

1. Adesina A. Agriculture as a Business: Approaching Agriculture as an Investment Opportunity. Abidjan: African Development Bank; 2017. p. 1-28.
2. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Kenya Population and Housing Census 2019: Agricultural Sector Report. Nairobi: KNBS; 2020. p. 1-174.
3. Tsan M, Totapally S, Hailu M, Addom BK. The Digitalisation of African Agriculture Report 2018-2019. Wageningen: CTA and Dalberg; 2019. p. 1-146.
4. Aker JC, Mbiti IM. Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2010;24(3):207-232.
5. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319-340.
6. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179-211.
7. Deichmann U, Goyal A, Mishra D. Will digital technologies transform agriculture in developing countries? Agricultural Economics. 2016;47(Suppl 1):21-33.
8. Baumgartner SE, Hartmann T. The role of health anxiety in online health information search. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2011;14(10):613-618.
9. Krell NT, Giroux SA, Guido Z, et al. Smallholder farmers' use of mobile phone services in central Kenya. Climate and Development. 2021;13(3):215-227.
10. Leeuwis C. Communication for Rural Innovation. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2004. p. 1-412.
11. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003. p. 1-551.
12. Davis K. Extension in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2008;15(3):15-28.
13. Birner R, Davis K. Best practice to best fit. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2009;15(4):341355.
14. Christoplos I. Mobilizing Extension. Rome: FAO and GFRAS; 2010. p. 1-65.
15. Swanson BE. Global Review of Extension Practices. Rome: FAO; 2008. p. 1-82.
16. Sulaiman RV, Davis K. The new extensionist. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2012;19(3):6-18.