Young people are very important resource required for the development of every nation especially for sustainability in agricultural production. However, with low participation of youth in agricultural production, the future of the industry is questionable. Youths are distancing themselves away from farming in the face of government making efforts to attract them into the sector, creating employment while producing food for ever growing populations. The study was aimed at estimating the perception of youth towards farming, establishing the socio-economic characteristics that influence their perception towards farming as well as identifying challenges faced by youth in farming. Primary data was collected from Kwaluseni, Ntontozi and LamGabhi Tinkundla within Manzini Region using questionnaires and interviews. A sample size of 78 was selected using multistage sampling technique. A likerted scale was used to establish youths’ positivity towards farming. Data was analyzed using SPSS and the multiple linear regression models were used to establish factors that influence perception of youth towards agriculture. Results of the study indicated that most respondents were single with an average age of 20years and do not own or have access to land for personal income generating projects. The majority do not have experience in farming and they are mainly getting their income from off-farm activities. The findings further revealed that socio-economic characteristics including gender, years of experience in farming, land ownership, occupation of guardian and the source of income are factors that significantly influence youth perceptions towards farming. The average scores indicated that youth had a negative perception towards farming with less interest caused by lack of knowledge and perceived low attractiveness of the industry. Therefore, the government and other stakeholders should encourage extensive use of modern technologies, provide infrastructure attractive to youth participation in agriculture, assist in arranging lucrative markets for agro-products produced by the youth, draft agribusiness programs in schools, and catalyse land policy reforms that are pro-youth to ease access to agricultural land.

Keywords: environment, food security, youth, perception, attitudes, knowledge socio-economic, agriculture

Central Bank of Swaziland ¹ Used a more extensive range of 16 to 39 years old while² reduced the range to all people between 12 and 24 years. For the purpose of this study, the youth will be defined in terms of age, (15-35yrs). Youth act as catalysts in agricultural development for most developing nations. There is recognition that for Africa to achieve food security, the youth must be regarded as critical agricultural players who need and deserve special attention. They are energetic, passionate and talented and this is thought that if the attributes are applied, they can catalyse agricultural development and solve problems facing the agricultural world today.³ Young people play a very important and active role in all family farms contributing to the overall output.^4,5

Agriculture forms the backbone of Swaziland’s economy constituting a major part of the economy.² It is ranked second to manufacturing and employs over 70% of Swaziland population, and a major contributor to rural household livelihood and income.¹ The sector contributes 10% of the country’s Gross Domestic product (GDP).² Of the total population (1.2milion), only 137,000 people are economically active in agriculture industry.² Youth forms the 43% of Swazi population but with less participation in economic activities including farming⁶ yet a big number of these youth are unemployed. Agribusiness is thought to absorb the youth to reduce the increasing unemployment rate but this is not the case as only 29% of the active youth population are engaged in Agriculture in Swaziland. Like in most African countries, an increasing trend of ageing farming population in Swaziland is causing concern.⁷ Whereas⁸ note that young people are a very important resource required for the development of every nation especially for sustainability in agricultural productivity, in Swaziland, youth have less interest in farming as source of livelihood.⁹ Youth perceptions on agriculture differ amongst individual mainly due to the immediate environments in which they are exposed to.¹⁰

Among others, factors leading to poor youth participation in agriculture may include lack of access to farm credit/loans, limited government support, and lack of information and communication technologies.¹⁰ In addition, the youth are faced with lack of readily available training programmes and education to further develop and support their skills, poor technology, and costly and scarce agro-inputs^10,11 identified the following key youth challenges causing less participation in agriculture and these include: i) the absence of a functional farmer organisations, ii) difficulties in accessing loans, iii) absence of the land policy, iv) absence of comprehensive water resources development programme, v) low levels of knowledge and skills in agriculture, vi) general lack of basic skills in agri-business, vii) Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operative’s (MoAC) structure not responsive to the country’s needs for technical support, viii) agricultural research is not demand driven, ix) too centralized, x) lack of appropriate policy, xi) inadequate capacity, and xii) ineffective delivery systems. Youth also face challenges like inefficient extension service of the MoAC, poor marketing structure, high costs of imported inputs and low prices of produce, inadequate supply of breeding and feeder stock, effects of the HIV/AIDS pandemic result in reduced productivity due to a weakened and sick workforce. Other challenges include strong beliefs in traditions and customs that are often in conflict with development and change concern, low education level, and low management capabilities of youth leaders in the rural areas.¹⁰ There are no safety nets in place to assist young people when it comes to financial accessibility.⁴ Other financial products as insurance for crops and livestock are virtually non-existent in most developing countries, and in cases where some form of insurance for farmers exists, it is limited.

The unexploited youth agricultural labour and skills would be one of the reasons for reducing agricultural productivity in Swaziland leading to increased dependence on food imports, hence a net food importe.¹² The country is increasingly loosing lots of money through increased imports. High dependence on imports and reducing productivity due to the aging generation of farmers with less participation of the youth, this exposes the country further more into food insecurity and wide spreading poverty levels. Swaziland government is trying to come up with strategies to change the attitudes and perceptions of youth regarding agriculture.⁹ The strategies included modern school agriculture in curriculums,¹³ designed to develop a positive attitude towards agriculture in pupils.³ Nierenberg D¹⁴ asserts that today’s youth are tomorrow’s family farmers; therefore it is of paramount importance to maintain their interest in farming as a profession for it is vital to food security.

In addition to agricultural school curium, the government of Swaziland together with it development partners are making efforts to provide opportunities and infrastructural development for the youth and such efforts includes Ngwempisi Training Centre for youth and other existing infrastructure around the country available for the youth like Central Cooperative Union (CCU) under SWAFCU and Emfumbaneni poultry houses.^9,15 Using such strategies,⁹ asserts that the banks can fund the youth projects without requiring collateral, which youth normally do not possess, once the youth have gone through under mentorship programme. Despite the efforts offered by the government and the developing partners, youth have not yet fully comprehended the agro-based activities and how they can fully participate in the process as low youth participation in this sector has been observed by.⁹ Dlamini BM³ indicated that there could be other variables such as socio-economic characteristics of the youth resulting into behaviour in different situations. Generally, the attitude has been noted as a disposition to respond positively and favourably or negatively and unfavourably.¹⁶ Based on the researchers’ knowledge, there is literature gap related to youth perceptions towards farming in Swaziland. Therefore there is a need to seek further insights of youth perception towards farming and factors affecting the perceptions of youth towards farming in Swaziland, a case of Manzini region.¹⁷

Manzini region holds a population of 319 530 people and youth makes 32% of the total population.¹⁸ It has an area of 4,093.59km^²and is divided into 16 tinkhundla. It borders all three other regions: Hhohho in the north, Lubombo in the east, and Shiselweni in the south. Manzini subsequently remains the commercial, agricultural and transportation heart of Swaziland, earning the town the nickname "The Hub”. The study was narrowed to youth in three Tinkundla (chiefdoms) under Manzini region namely Kwaluseni, Ntontozi and LaMgabhi. The region is located in the center-west of the country. A questionnaire was used to collect primary data during the research process collection. The study used descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of the sample, frequencies, averages and other statistical calculations. Two main sampling techniques (probability sampling and non-probability sampling) were adopted and applied for the study. A representative sample was used to represent the population. The independent variables of the study included personal characteristics of the respondents such as age, sex, educational level, farming experience, land ownership and marital status, source of income. The dependent variable of the study is the perception towards farming. A sample size of 78 was selected (n=78) as predetermined by the research work where this paper is extracted. A stratified sampling method was used to select the focus Tinkundla (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Showing a map of Swaziland and Manzini region’s selected study areas.

To select the focus population a multistage sampling method was used. A school was selected per each Inkhundla and a cluster of 10 pupils were grouped according to subject being learned at school (agriculture and non-agriculture) and interviewed. A self- administered questionnaire was developed following literature review and based on the objectives of the study. Participants were asked to rate the formulated questions using a four point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree). Personal interviews were also done on selected participants to gather extra information.

The data analysis for this study employed qualitative (descriptive) method. Data was collected and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Appropriate statistical procedures for description (frequencies, percentages, and means), were used. Solutions were adequately presented in tables. The different statistical methods were used to achieve the research objectives. Percentages were used to describe the characteristics of youth participating in farming in the study area while average scores from a likert-type scale were used as an estimate of youth perceptions towards farming. A multiple linear regression model was used to identify factors that significantly affect youth’s perception toward farming as indicated in equation 1. Percentages and frequencies were used to identify the most problematic challenge faced by young people participating in farming in the study area.

The econometric model

$\Psi ={\beta }_o+{\beta }_1{\Xi }_1+{\beta }_2{\Xi }_2+{\beta }_3{\Xi }_3+{\beta }_4{\Xi }_4+{\beta }_5{\Xi }_5+{\beta }_6{\Xi }_6+{\beta }_7{\Xi }_7+\propto \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots 1$

$Y$   = Perception towards farming (average score)

${\beta }_o$   = Constant

${\beta }_1-{\beta }_7$ = Parameters to be estimated

$X_1$ – Age (years)

$X_2$   – Gender (0=Female, 1=Male)

$X_3$   – Level of education (1=primary, 2=secondary, 3=tertiary)

  $X_4$ – Farming experience (years)

$X_5$ – Size of farm income (hacters)

$X_6$ – Access to land (1=yes, 0 = no)

$X_7$ – Parent’s occupation (0=none agriculture, 1= agriculture)

  $\mu$ - Random error term

To estimate perception, several statements were formulated and respondents were asked to give a ranking/score to each statement according to their level of agreement using a likert scale ranked from 1- 4 (1= strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Agree, 4= strongly agree). Scores were added per statement and an average score was obtained. Mean scores were again added to come up with the overall mean as the estimate of perception across all respondents. Statements asked sought to establish individual attitudes, knowledge, and level of training, business prospects, career prospects, responsibility, and interests concerning farming. A mean score bellow three (3) shows a negative result towards the subject in question and any score from three and above shows a positive result to the subject in question.

The Socio-economic characteristics of youth

Age: Table 1 shows different ages of the respondents, their frequencies and their percentages. The highest age frequency was found to be between 20 and 24years (41%). Only 5 were between the age 30 and 35 (6.5%). Age is one of the most important factors in the farming industry. Older farmers are expected to make sound farming decisions, ensuring sustainability of their projects. In the process of planning they can forecast and guard against risks.

Gender: Table 2 shows gender balance in the farming industry. Traditionally male youths are expected to provide labour and manpower in the fields while their female counterparts attend to home household chores. The boy child is expected to have good farming skills and be of a responsible character for sustainability when they inherits the land and assets from the parents while the girl joins another family when married.

Marital status: Table 3 depict that most of the respondents were single, 85.9%. Young people cannot make concrete decisions whether to farm or not to farm as a lot of options are still at their disposal and they can easily migrate. Getting married entails some kind of responsibility including providing food for the family. This might be a reason why most couples and families have at least a small portion of land for gardening.

Level of education: Most youth in the study area are literate. About 43% reached tertiary level, some are still in high school. The level of education tells an individual’s level of understanding of different situations. An educated individual is expected to make better decisions concerning the subject matter.¹⁹ Educated youth are better knowledgeable about current technology for better production hence the level of education affects an individual’s perception towards an object or a situation (Table 4).

Employment status: Table 5 depicts that a total of 58 respondents are not employed (74.4%) and 15% are employed in the agricultural industry or in one way or the other they are engaged in activities linked to farming and 10.3% are self-employed. If an individual is employed in farming related job it is thought that he/she positively perceive farming important because of exposure to such environment unlike the unemployed population who are yet to choose between farming and non-farming pursuit. The authors believe that individuals who are self-employed in the farming industry have chosen to pursue faming as a business.

Access to farming land: Results in Table 6 shows that most respondents (85.9%) do not own land.²⁰ Traditionally children farm in their parents’ land until when they get married. However the majority are not free to start projects for personal income generation. This has a negative bearing on youth participation and perception towards farming. The national land policies need to be flexible to allow the youth gain access to cultivation land as individuals or groups. The 14.1% made up of respondents owning land in varying sizes from less than 0.5 ha to as much as 100ha.

Membership in a farming scheme: The tabulated results are clear that out of the total respondents (n=78) only 4 (5.1%) are members of farming schemes. Membership in a farming scheme helps farmers to engage in mass activities such as purchase of inputs, production, processing and marketing which a single farmer would not access. For credit institutions, schemes are less risky to be served with loans than an individual. The authors think that an individual member in a farming scheme is expected to have a positive perception towards farming (Table 7).

Size of farm income: Table 8 shows that most respondents do not get any income from farming. Only one respondent (1.3%) get E50 from the farm. The largest frequency is 5 and these get E1000 as farm income. There is only one respondent who gets up to E5000 per month from the farm (1.3%). The more the income obtained from farming activities the more positive is ones’ perception towards farming. Individuals are motivated by the level of income they get from a business activity.

Years of experience in farming: The level of experience in farming varied from 0- 25 years. About 28% of the total respondents had no experience in farming followed by 1-5 years farming experience (38.4%), 6-10years (14%) and 11-15 years (17.9%). The least frequency was one respondent who had 25 years of experience, followed by 16-20 years of experience (3.8%). The more an individual gets experienced in farming, the more they realize the benefits and become aware of the importance of the industry. Benefits are realized through efficiency and effectiveness in the production process. An individual has means of reducing production costs while improving product quality (Table 9).

Size of household: Table 10 displays an outline of the size of respondents’ household. Respondents’ household size ranged from 3 to 25 members with the highest frequency at 5 family members (29.5%) followed by 10 families with 6 family members each (12.8%). The biggest family size of the respondents was 25 members constituting (1.3%). Larger families will have a drive to engage in farming activities in order to produce enough food for the family, therefore, all members of the family will be positive about agricultural production. Members of a larger family are likely to have positive perception towards farming because of greater dependence family farm for food production.

Perceptions of youth towards farming: To estimate perception, statements were formulated and respondents answered using a likert scale ranked from 1-4, 1= strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3= Agree, 4= strongly agree. Scores were added per statement and an average score was obtained. Mean scores were again added to come up with the overall scores as the estimate of perception across all respondent. Statements asked sought to establish individual attitudes, knowledge, training, business prospects, career prospects, responsibility, interests concerning farming. Statements were again grouped in two classes i.e. life style and business/income interests. Mean scores were obtained per statement and the scores were used as an estimate of perception. A mean score below three (3) shows a negative result towards the statement while any score above three shows a positive response regarding the statement. Young people’s life style is detached from agriculture. This is proven by the average score of the lifestyle statements (2.47) from Table 11. Most youth prefer to pursue white collar jobs instead of farming and other agriculture based careers. The question about practicing in farming at home and studying agriculture at school scored above three signifying a positive lifestyle towards farming. This is basically because young people find themselves where they have no choice when guided by their parents as well as when at school.

The statements linked to business interests of youth have a positive score mainly because youth are attracted by the returns from the farming business. Most youth believed that farming is capable of generating enough income for an individual therefore there is a desire to own a farm business one day. The overall mean score from the results is 2.55, which shows that the general perception of youth towards farming is negative (Table 12).

Characteristics influencing youth perception towards farming

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 was used to estimate the parameters of the multiple regression models.

The Gender variable was found to be positively and significantly related with youths’ perception towards farming at 10% level. Since male dominated the sampled respondents, thus, they have a more positive perception towards farming than females. This may be attributed to the culture which allows only the boy child to inherit the land and other wealth from the parents. The years of experience in farming also had a positive and significant influence on youths’ perception towards farming at 5% level. This means as years in farming increases, youths’ perception towards farming increase positively. The results in Table 13 show that accessibility to farm land was statistically significant at 10% level. The variable has a positive relationship with youth perception towards farming. By virtue of owning/ accessing farming land, ones’ perception positively increases because land is a major resource in farming. This agrees with²¹ findings in determinants of rural youth’s participation in agricultural activities.²² The researchers found that the rate of rural youth participation in agriculture is attributed to the availability of farm land. Further, results indicated that amount of income obtained from the farm was statistically significantly related to youth perception towards farming with a positive relationship though a unit increase in income increases perception by a very small margin. Youth are motivated by more income they get from the farm.⁹ Found one of the factors causing low participation of youth in farming as low returns compared to other sectors of the economy in most developing countries.

Challenges faced by youth participating in farming in the study area

The study also identified a number of challenges faced by youth who are participating in farming in the study area. These include access to land, access to credit, water and irrigation, extension services, storage facilities, cost of inputs, harvesting, processing, and access to markets,²³ jealousy from other people, adverse weather conditions, pests, diseases, storage losses and transport. Each respondent indicated whether or not the listed problem applies to their situation. From Table 14, about 52% of responses reported to face a challenge of access to land, 58% responses of lack of access to credit and 42% responses indicated that water and irrigation was a problems. A total of 19% responses pointed out extension services as one of their problem. About 65% responses indicated challenges of storage facilities, 47.4% responses reported problems of input cost and only 15.4 responses reported harvesting as a problem.

About 32% responses face processing problems while 46% responses reported that could not easily access the output markets and only a small proportion (17.9%) did not get family support in their farming projects. About 32% responses indicated that other individuals were not happy about the positive progress of other, 42.3% responses indicated being affected by adverse weather conditions while 52.6% responses indicated facing challenges of pests and diseases, and 59.0% responses report facing challenges in storage losses, 58% responses encounter transportation problems. Results in Table 14 indicate that most prevailing challenges were lack of access to land, lack of access to credit, lack of access to water and irrigation facilities, and high cost of inputs.

Based on the results, it can be concluded that male youths have a more positive perception than their female counterparts. Therefore there is need to educate young girls about the opportunities that the farming industry holds as well as the importance of a gender balanced farming community. The government needs to formulate policies supporting young girls in farming. Government and stakeholders can come up with programmes that improve the image of farming in the face of young girls. The level of experience in farming has also been found to be significant to youth perceptions towards farming. The more an individual gets experienced in farming, the more they realize the benefits and become aware of the importance of the industry. An individual has means of reducing production costs while improving product quality and better markets have been established. More experienced farmers are in a better position to guard against risks and uncertainties.

 Access to farming land for personal income motivates young people to think positively about farming. Young people who have access to cultivation land for their personal projects are motivated by the flexibility to plan their activities and budget for their incomes hence positive perception. Size of income obtained from farming activities has a positive bearing on youth perceptions towards farming. If income obtained from farming activities is lower than off-farm activities, young people opt to quit farming activities. Youth are motivated by increasing returns from any business venture.¹⁶ It is therefore urgent to create high income generating farming activities like growing high value crops and identifying niche markets for agricultural products to catalyse the youths’ interest in farming.

From the results, the average mean score of 2.55 shows that youth in Manzini have negative attitudes towards farming even though the majority of them are exposed to and practicing farming at home. There is also little knowledge about farming in most youth and this might be linked to their negative perception. This means young people are not in position to explore the opportunities that the farming business avails. Another key element is that banks and financial institutions are giving less attention towards supporting youth and the farming industry at large. This is a serious problem because the majority of young people practice farming still under the care of their parents, who also own small pieces of land under Swazi Nation Land. Thus, the majority of financers are reluctant to support youth because they lack collateral. The majority of youth pointed out that farming has little returns not enough for individuals to access basic needs. The factors that significantly affect youth perception towards farming include gender, years of experience in farming, land ownership, and the size of income obtained from the farm.^24,25

The government and other stakeholders should formulate strategies that will be able to attract and sustain youth participation in agriculture, particularly farming. One of the strategies that can attract young people in agriculture is the extensive use of modern technologies which includes mechanisation, use of genetic modified varieties and introduction of latest information and communication technology and social media. Organing a platforms for youth producer competitions at different levels (community, regional, national) can sustain their participation while attracting more youth into the industry. The majority of the youth expressed no interests to pursue careers in agriculture therefore, there is a need to use successful farmers as models. This can motivate the youth while improving the image of the industry in their eyes. One would recommend the government to set up infrastructure for youth for example set aside land specifically for youth project, build youth vocational training centers and setting up irrigation systems. Youth needs to be encouraged to form schemes or clubs to ease access to loans, and banks and other financial institutions can avail youth funds or loans which are easily accessible with minimum conditions.

Government and other stakeholders should also put in place a support structure like producer incentive for all the youth participating in agricultural production and assist in arranging lucrative markets for youth products. In case of school going youth, agribusiness programs can be formulated where issues beyond production will be addressed to give students a broader understanding of agriculture as business. Current technology which guarantees higher production and productivity can also be used as a tool to improve youth participation in farming. Land policies can also be amended to allow ownership of land by youths. This is thought to expose them to farming business at an early stage in life. Higher value crops can be produced in demonstration areas to show young people the income that can be generated from the industry.

None.

Authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

1. Central Bank of Swaziland. Annual Report. Swaziland; 2007:14‒18 p.
2. FAO. Youth and agriculture: Key challenges and concrete solutions. Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2010.
3. Dlamini BM. Attitudes of secondary students towards agriculture in Swaziland. Journal of international agricultural and extension education. 2007;41:105‒111.
4. Luckey AN. Assessing Youth perceptions and knowledge of Agriculture: The impact of participating in an Agventure program. USA: Texas A&M University; 2012. p. 1‒69.
5. Alawode O. A direct approach. Spore. 2015;176:18‒19
6. Dlamini SP. Transfer of secondary agriculture students skills to home situation. Luyengo, Swaziland: The University of Swaziland; 2012.
7. Sanagorski LA. The starting point: Youth’s perceptions about sustainable agriculture. Farming Matters 27.1, Report, USA; 2011. 1‒2p.
8. Bafana B. Denting youth unemployment through agriculture: Special Edition on Agriculture. Africa Renewal, USA; 2014.
9. Tsikati AFM, Dube MA, Dube H, et al. Youth Participation in Agriculture Development, Collaboration between Swaziland National Agricultural Union & Ministry of Agriculture, Swaziland; 2015.
10. Nyoni T. Current and Emerging Youth Policies and Initiatives with a Special focus on link to Agriculture. Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Case Study Draft Report; 2012. 1‒51p.
11. Dlamini WM. Environmental Effects of Urban Sprawl in Swaziland. Environmental Education Article, Swaziland National Trust Commission, Swaziland; 2012.
12. Magagula SDM. Agricultural Education: Curriculum Reform for Secondary Education in Swaziland. Mbabane, Swaziland; 2005.
13. Gooday DOM. Curriculum innovation in secondary school agriculture in Swaziland: A possible model for developing countries. University of London, London; 1980.
14. Nierenberg D. The future of Family Farming: empowerment and equal rights for women and youth. The Food Think Tank, Discussion no.104, USA; 2014. 1‒8p.
15. Government of Swaziland: Central Statistics Office. Population and Housing Census. Mbabane, Swaziland; 2010.
16. Maia PS. Attitudes of high school students towards agriculture in the Hhohho region of Swaziland. Swaziland: Unpublished Thesis, University of Swaziland; 2015.
17. Shabangu B. Perception of Agriculture teacher’s regarding the use of students- centered approach to learning: A study in the manzini region. Luyengo Campus, Swaziland: Unpublished Thesis, University of Swaziland; 2010.
18. Central Statistics Office. National Accounts. Mbabane, Swaziland; 2011.
19. Examination Council of Swaziland. Swaziland general certificate of secondary education syllabus 6882. Swaziland; 2009.
20. Anonymous. What was the role of children on an 18th-century Virginia farm? 2012.
21. Kimaro PJ, Towo NN, Moshi BH. Determinants of Rural Youth’s participation in Agricultural Activities: A case study of Kahe East Ward in Moshi rural District, Tanzania. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management. 2015;3(2):1‒47.
22. IFAD, FAO. Facilitating access of rural youth to agricultural activities. Paper presented at The Farmers’ Forum Youth session. 2012. 1‒26p.
23. Brixiová Z, Fakudze F, Kangoye T. Labor markets in Swaziland: The challenge of Youth Employment. Swaziland; 2012. 1‒19p.
24. Ministry of Education and Training. Consultative Document, Government Printing Office, Mbabane, Swaziland; 2005.
25. Khumalo L. How JA Company graduates met at University and started a business. The Times of Swaziland, Swaziland; 2015. 33 p.