Young farmers in agriculture: Synthesis of resilience factors to empirical gaps and new conceptual integration design (literature review)
Аннотация
Background. The agricultural sector is experiencing a gradual decline in youth participation at a time when farming systems are confronted with climate risks, market volatility, and accelerating technological shifts. This situation elevates the importance of understanding and strengthening the resilience of young farmers as a key component of sustainable agricultural development.
Purpose. This study aims to review and integrate existing research published between 2015 and 2025 in order to identify major research trends, determine the principal internal and external drivers influencing youth farmer resilience, examine their interconnections, and develop an integrated conceptual framework explaining how young farmers maintain resilience within a rapidly evolving agricultural environment.
Materials and methods. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach was applied following the PRISMA protocol to ensure transparency and methodological rigor. The review analyzed peer-reviewed national and international publications indexed in SINTA and Scopus databases during the period 2015–2025. The synthesis of these studies indicates that the resilience of young farmers is shaped through the interaction of three key dimensions: personal readiness (motivation, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial competence, and digital literacy), social readiness (family support, farmer networks, and institutional policies), and environmental adaptation (responses to climate change and technological developments).
Results. Analysis of 54 selected articles demonstrates a clear evolution in the scholarly discussion of young farmer resilience. Early studies (2015–2017) primarily examined youth participation and structural barriers such as limited land access and unstable income. Between 2018 and 2020, research increasingly emphasized agripreneurship and adaptive capacity, presenting young farmers as active agents responding to market and environmental uncertainty. Since 2021, studies have adopted more integrative perspectives, linking resilience with digital agriculture, climate-smart farming, and broader sustainability transitions, often supported by advanced analytical methods including structural equation modelling and bibliometric analysis. Despite the global growth of this research area, empirical studies from Indonesia remain relatively limited within international knowledge networks.
Thematic analysis further identifies three interconnected dimensions shaping young farmers’ resilience: personal readiness, social readiness, and environmental adaptation. Personal readiness relates to motivation, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial capacity, and digital competence that enable young farmers to remain engaged in agricultural activities. Social readiness refers to supportive relationships and institutional environments, including family encouragement, farmer organizations, and government policies that help mitigate social and economic risks. Environmental adaptation reflects the ability to respond effectively to climate variability, market dynamics, and technological innovation through the adoption of new knowledge and tools.
Nevertheless, the literature still reveals several conceptual and methodological limitations. Many studies address only one or two aspects of resilience rather than examining the phenomenon in an integrated manner. Quantitative methods dominate the field, whereas mixed-methods approaches remain relatively underutilized. Additional research gaps include the limited use of longitudinal studies, insufficient integration of social, ecological, and digital perspectives, weak application of spatial or big-data approaches, and limited attention to gender equity and local wisdom systems, particularly in the Indonesian context.
Overall, these findings indicate that young farmers’ resilience should be understood as a dynamic and systemic process influenced by multiple interacting factors. More comprehensive and context-sensitive analytical frameworks are therefore needed to better explain and strengthen the resilience of young farmers in contemporary agricultural systems.
Скачивания
Литература
FAO. (2021). The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4476en
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2023). Climate Change 2022 — Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
Leavy, J., & Hossain, N. (2014). Who wants to farm? Youth aspirations, opportunities and rising food prices. IDS Working Papers, 2014(439), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2014.00439.x
Brooks, S. (2021). Configuring the digital farmer: A nudge world in the making? Economy and Society, 50(3), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2021.1876984. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GFNOED
Chamberlin, J., et al. (2021). Youth and the rural economy in Africa: Hard work and hazard. CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781789245011.0000
Kumeh, E. M., & Omulo, G. (2019). Youth’s access to agricultural land in Sub Saharan Africa: A missing link in the global land grabbing discourse. Land Use Policy, 89, 104210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104210
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
Folke, C. (2016). Resilience. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.8
Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman & Co.
Birner, R., Daum, T., & Pray, C. (2021). Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply side trends, players and challenges. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(4), 1260–1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13145. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/IOAOSH
Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815447
LaRue, K., Daum, T., Mausch, K., & Harris, D. (2021). Who wants to farm? Answers depend on how you ask: A case study on youth aspirations in Kenya. European Journal of Development Research, 33(4), 885–909. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-020-00352-2. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/UFJDMY
Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/VHSTUI
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Geza, W., Ngidi, M., Ojo, T., Adetoro, A. A., Slotow, R., & Mabhaudhi, T. (2021). Youth participation in agriculture: A scoping review. Sustainability, 13(16), 9120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169120. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/PDHPIS
Mulema, J., et al. (2021). Barriers and opportunities for the youth engagement in agribusiness: Empirical evidence from Zambia and Vietnam. Development Practice, 31(5), 690–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2021.1911949. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YTXMIK
Rope, R., Marengke, M., Mulyo, J. H., Waluyati, L. R., Masyhuri, & Perwitasari, H. (2024). Resilience of farmers on the sustainability of natural farming systems for upland rice in Morotai Island. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 12(2), e2600. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v12i2.2600. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/KKVAKF
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/JFSQRW
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ETVJFT
Kitchenham, B., & Brereton, P. (2013). A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 55(12), 2049–2075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2013.07.010
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824
Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., & Sutton, A. (Eds.). (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Mugridge, R. L. (2011). Introduction to modern information retrieval, 3rd ed. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 35(4), 136–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2011.10766318
Higgins, J. P. T., et al. (Eds.). (2024). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.5, updated August 2024). Retrieved from www.cochrane.org/handbook
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/XAJOYQ
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/XEPHGZ
Amirbagheri, K., Merigó, J. M., & Corrons, A. (2025). 30 years of energy for sustainable development: A bibliometric overview. Energy for Sustainable Development, 87, 101741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2025.101741. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/IFFEEL
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Nitzl, C., Ringle, C. M., & Howard, M. C. (2020). Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS: Use of PLS SEM for mediation analyses! International Journal of Market Research, 62(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320915686. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/RWZEDQ
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Gaviglio, A., Bertocchi, M., Marescotti, M. E., Demartini, E., & Pirani, A. (2016). The social pillar of sustainability: A quantitative approach at the farm level. Agricultural and Food Economics, 4(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-016-0059-4. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ZNLPEG
Kristjanson, P., et al. (2017). Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(5), 482–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411
Ninson, J., & Brobbey, M. K. (2023). Review on engaging the youth in agribusiness. Cogent OA. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2193480
Slovic, P. (2016). The Perception of Risk. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661773
Tamru, S., et al. (2025). Climate information services enhance farmers’ resilience to climate change: Impacts on agricultural productivity. Climate Risk Management, 49, 100724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2025.100724. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YSOJKD
Ungar, M. (2011). Community resilience for youth and families: Facilitative physical and social capital in contexts of adversity. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1742–1748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.027
Ungar, M. (2006). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl343
Nocezo, Y.-I., Manyike, J. Z., Zhou, L., & Ngarava, S. (2024). The impact of access to climate services on smallholder farmers’ cropping decisions and household food security in Elundini municipality, Eastern Cape province. Frontiers in Climate. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2024.1458999
Hassan, R., Suhaili, W. S., Nore, B. F., & Basuni, M. A. (2024). Youth resilience toward climate smart agriculture technology adoption in Brunei Darussalam. ASEAN Journal on Science and Technology for Development, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.61931/2224-9028.1545. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YOXHJL
Rosman, A., MacPherson, J., Arndt, M., & Helming, K. (2024). Perceived resilience of community supported agriculture in Germany. Agricultural Systems, 220, 104068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104068. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/BADOWO
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), art5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205
Faizien, H. A. (2025). Peran perempuan dalam pembangunan ekonomi pertanian. Jurnal Riset Rumpun Ilmu Tanaman, 4(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.55606/jurrit.v4i1.4695. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/WGTIHS
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Yuzan Wardhana, Agussabti Agussabti, Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan, T. Saiful Bahri

Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование — Без производных произведений») 4.0 Всемирная.





















































