The purpose of this study is to systematically review existing literature to identify the key enablers and barriers influencing agripreneurship and to propose a comprehensive research agenda for fostering sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship. This paper seeks to identify the key enablers and barriers influencing agripreneurship by reviewing existing literature and proposing a research agenda.
The study highlights important enablers, barriers and socio-cultural constraints using the TCCM Approach. By identifying these factors, the paper provides a framework for understanding the ecosystem surrounding agripreneurship and its dynamics.
The study identifies key enablers of agripreneurship such as access to finance, government support, technology adoption and skill development, while highlighting major barriers including inadequate infrastructure, limited market access and lack of entrepreneurial training. The findings emphasize the need for integrated policy and institutional frameworks to strengthen agripreneurial ecosystems and guide future research.
The study offers policy implications for overcoming barriers with the help of the enablers in agripreneurial activities. It is suggested that policymakers, practitioners and researchers should create an environment conducive to agripreneurship, thereby contributing to sustainable agricultural transformation.
The study contributes to academic literature and informs policymakers, practitioners and researchers to create an environment conducive to agripreneurship, thereby contributing to sustainable agricultural transformation.
1. Introduction
Agriculture is the science, art and practice of cultivating plants and livestock, serving as the backbone of many economies, including India's (Mariappan & Zhou, 2019). It encompasses a wide range of activities from crop cultivation to animal husbandry and plays a crucial role in food production and economic development (Gamage et al., 2023; Malhotra & Aman, 2024). The agriculture sector has been the backbone of rural economies, but traditional practices often come with challenges like low productivity, limited income and vulnerability to market fluctuations. Agripreneurship are the innovators who are not afraid to take risks and drive change in rural economy and can address these issues and create opportunities for economic growth. Agripreneurship is the process of adopting new methods, processes, techniques in agriculture or the allied sectors of agriculture, for better output and economic earnings.
This literature review on youth agripreneurship gives a comprehensive understanding of the diverse factors affecting young people in different cross-cultural contexts regarding engaging in agricultural entrepreneurship. According to Adeyanju et al. (2023a, b), agribusiness empowerment interventions do positively affect the beneficiaries, more with the ENABLE-TAAT program. The study shows that participating in such programs contributes to a higher degree of income and food security among young agripreneurs, thus indicating that specific policy options may further target youth involvement in agricultural production. The results suggest that more investments should be made into the agribusiness initiatives run by youth to cultivate economic resilience and innovation in the agricultural systems of developing countries.
In agreement with this view, Baishya et al. (2021) present a case study of the ARYA project in Wokha district of Nagaland, where rural tribal youth engaged in agri-enterprises for a period of four years in a successful way, leading to a significant generation of income and lowering of migration. Some 194 youths established enterprises in piglet production to mushroom farming, generating incomes ranging from Rs 61,000 to 460,000, which serves as a great testimonial for empowering youth in the local economy through targeted agricultural initiatives. Magagula and Tsvakirai (2020) further delve into how youth perceiving agriculture influences their intentions towards Agripreneurship. The study reported a general optimism regarding the economic viability of the sector while underscoring the significance of agricultural education in secondary schools and financial backing in shaping such perceptions. By suggesting targeted programs to alleviate socio-economic barriers and cognitive restraints, they recommend ways to better engage youth within agricultural entrepreneurship. Singh and Misra (2021) speak of the transition in agribusiness toward an entrepreneurial model in India and of the various support programs and policies important to agripreneurs. With the ISM–MICMAC technique, they have identified key factors such as courses for agripreneurs and government collaboration that encourage youth to engage in agriculture. Their conclusion is that targeted initiatives for developing agripreneurship among youth would greatly enhance sustainable agricultural development.
The motivations driving young agripreneurs have also been explained by Thephavanh, Philp, Nuberg, Denton, and Alexander (2022), who revealed that opportunity-driven and necessity-driven motivations induce young Laotians into agripreneurship. Through identity narrative inquiry with 74 young agripreneurs, they identify major motivating paradigms, including income potential and emotional significance, which compel youth to a career in agricultural settings, notwithstanding the peculiar challenges it presents. These understandings underscore the relevance of localized context and motivation to achieve sustainable agricultural practice. Boye et al. (2022) have deployed systematic mapping to examine the current informal landscape vis-a-vis agripreneurship in developing countries. In its findings, the research produces elements of no single definition of agripreneurship, with many opportunities for youth engagement. It also points toward critical factors that affect agripreneurial behavior such as premised personality traits, perceived government support and social networks wherein the research suffers from challenges such as poor credit facilities and poor infrastructure, poverty of which will demand possible interventions identifying modes for increasing youth participation. According to Stevens (2017), agricultural extension services are important for strengthening agripreneurship among small-scale farmers in South Africa. This is a premise in which he asserts that entrepreneurship cannot simply be created but governments should invest in building institutions and infrastructure to create an enabling environment. Furthermore, this study describes the need to link farmers to markets, and it demonstrates the function that extension services perform in providing requisite training and technical guidance to make successful agripreneurs trained. More, Singh, Farhan, Saajan, and Singh (2019) see possible avenues of community entrepreneurship with regard to potato cultivation in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. This research identifies main determinants of farmers' entrepreneurial capability while revealing important productive techniques, marketing strategies and socio-economic involvement of rural women in agribusiness processes. Thus, it points toward integrated models as a priority for making adequate diversified use and marketing strategies develop a competitive environment for farmers. The significance of their research revolves around building a valid scale for assessing agripreneurial performance and which is regarded as vital in assessing the effectiveness of various interventions aimed at further promoting agricultural entrepreneurship. The study establishes a framework capable of effective performance assessment within this sector via rigorous validation involving 94 initial statements assessed by 80 judges. Akrong, Mbogoh, and Irungu (2020) surveyed factors influencing youth productivity among small-scale mango farmers in Ghana and their participation in horticultural value chains as a whole. Such a study indicates that there is a significant difference between youth and older farmers, especially in terms of educational levels and access to services providing institutional support. After all, age, education and access to credit form the most crucial motivating parameters for youth engagement in agriculture. Naz et al. (2023) basically analyzes the role of agripreneurship in redressing food security issues through a questionnaire administration to participants who come from different institutions. Thus, grooming young people through productive opportunities would, thus, contribute to improvement in food security and economic resilience. Using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process analysis to probe different dimensions of the skills required for successful agripreneurship, Ray, Panigrahi, and Mohapatra (2022) prioritized the critical skills needed for farm youth. For example, they define strategic thinking as the most critical skill in this regard, among other competencies necessary for effective participation. Among the themes researched by Ephrem, Nguezet, Murimbika, Bamba, and Manyong (2021) was how social norms influence youth intention to engage with agribusiness in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Their research has shown that positive social perceptions enhance participation intentions, taking into consideration the role of psychological capital. Umeh et al. (2020) looked at socio-economic factors affecting agripreneurship choices among youths in Nigeria. The evidence shows a clear correlation between education and access to capital with making decisions to participate in agripreneurship.
Bannor, Ros-Tonen, Mensah, Derkyi, and Nassah (2021) analyze entrepreneurial behavior among farmers of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and, as a result, emphasize the need to develop entrepreneurship initiatives tailored to address the unique needs of these groups. Findings from Falola, Mukaila, Akanbi, Olohungbebe, and Oluwatobiloba (2022) on women shea butter processors, including dynamics with regard to motivation, such as financial independence and effects of education status on performance, form the background to Gupta, Nain, Singh, Mishra, and Lata (2023), which explore entrepreneurial vigor in Uttar Pradesh by evaluating the components making up this environment but emphasizing measures that need to be put into place for better agripreneurship development. Refiswal, Julıantı, Suprıana, and Iskandarını (2021) delve into the internal and external aspects shaping youth development across Indonesia. They have also underscored a diversification strategy that improves knowledge access. Last is van der Merwe (2024), who addresses the crisis of youth unemployment within agriculture. This study actually proposes the means of changing the negative perceptions about agriculture among young people by enhancing educational resources. By and large, these studies rely on the critical role steam-by-steam interventions and enabling environments play in nurturing youth engagement in diverse contexts of agripreneurship in developing countries. The amalgamation of such findings underlines that socio-economic barriers can be addressed while enhancing educational resources to empower youth within the agricultural sector.
Through this study and with the help of TCCM framework, we aim to answer the following questions:
What are the various enablers and barriers of agripreneurship, with special reference to contextual settings?
What are the key theoretical foundations in the existing literature
What are the promising areas for future research on agripreneurship?
1.1 Motivation for the study
The motivation for this study is to understand the dynamics of agripreneurship within the agricultural sector. As agriculture faces increasing challenges from population growth and environmental pressures, it becomes essential to explore how agripreneurship can serve as a tool for sustainable development. To systematically review the literature, we applied the theory-context-characteristics-methodology (TCCM) framework. This framework provides a structured approach that enables to analyze existing literature by identifying relevant theories underpinning agripreneurship, examining the contextual factors, characterizing the types of research conducted and reviewing the methodologies employed in previous studies. By utilizing the TCCM framework, this research aims to uncover both the enablers and barriers to agripreneurship, thereby contributing valuable insights that can inform policy and practice in promoting sustainable agricultural practices.
2. Methodology
This study adopts a systematic literature review (SLR) design aimed at synthesizing existing research on the enablers and barriers to agripreneurship. To define the search string and protocol for the study titled “Enablers and Barriers of Agripreneurship: A Research and Review Agenda,” a comprehensive approach was taken to explore relevant literature surrounding agripreneurship. The search string developed for this purpose was: (“Agripreneurship” OR “Agricultural entrepreneurship”) AND (“Enablers” OR “Barriers” OR “Challenges”). This search string aims to capture a wide range of studies that address both the facilitators and obstacles faced by agripreneurs, thereby providing a robust foundation for the literature review.
The PRISMA Protocol (Figure 1) was then employed following the construction of the search string to guide the systematic screening and selection of relevant literature. The first database search in December 2023 generated a total of 62 records for further scrutiny. At this stage neither duplicate records nor automation-based exclusions were identified. Thus all passed on to the next phase – screening – and none were excluded at this stage. Then, all these 62 records were lifted and assessed for eligibility criteria. Out of them, 47 reports met the eligibility criteria and were, therefore, included in the final literature review. The other 15 reports were excludable based on preset criteria: removed were 13 for being book chapters, conference papers or review articles and two for being out of study scope. Thus, a total of 47 studies were included in the final review. This implies that the selection process would be methodologically rigorous and replicable in the systematic review of youth agripreneurship literature. The exclusion and inclusion criteria are shown in Figure 2.
The flowchart is divided into three vertical sections on the left: “Identification,” “Screening,” and “Include.” The first box in the “Identification” stage reads “Records identified from asterisk: Databases (n equals 62), Registers (n equals 62).” A rightward arrow leads to the second box labeled “Records removed before screening: Duplicate records removed (n equals 0), Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n equals 0).” A downward arrow from the first box leads to the third box in the “Screening” section. The third box reads “Records screened (n equals 62).” A rightward arrow from the third box leads to the fourth box in the same stage, labeled “Records excluded double asterisk (n equals 15).” A downward arrow from the third box leads to the fifth box in the “Screening” stage, which reads “Reports sought for retrieval (n equals 47).” A rightward arrow from the fifth box leads to the sixth box, labeled “Reports not retrieved (n equals 0).” A downward arrow from the fifth box leads to the seventh box in the “Screening” stage, labeled “Reports assessed for eligibility (n equals 47).” A rightward arrow from the seventh box leads to the eighth box labeled “Reports excluded” with two points: “Reason 1 - Book, Book Chapter, Conference Paper and Review (n equals 13),” and “Reason 2 Doesn’t fit with the scope of the study (n equals 2).” A downward arrow from the seventh box leads to the ninth box in the “Include” section, labeled “Studies included in review (n equals 47)”.PRISMA protocol. Authors’ own work
The flowchart is divided into three vertical sections on the left: “Identification,” “Screening,” and “Include.” The first box in the “Identification” stage reads “Records identified from asterisk: Databases (n equals 62), Registers (n equals 62).” A rightward arrow leads to the second box labeled “Records removed before screening: Duplicate records removed (n equals 0), Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n equals 0).” A downward arrow from the first box leads to the third box in the “Screening” section. The third box reads “Records screened (n equals 62).” A rightward arrow from the third box leads to the fourth box in the same stage, labeled “Records excluded double asterisk (n equals 15).” A downward arrow from the third box leads to the fifth box in the “Screening” stage, which reads “Reports sought for retrieval (n equals 47).” A rightward arrow from the fifth box leads to the sixth box, labeled “Reports not retrieved (n equals 0).” A downward arrow from the fifth box leads to the seventh box in the “Screening” stage, labeled “Reports assessed for eligibility (n equals 47).” A rightward arrow from the seventh box leads to the eighth box labeled “Reports excluded” with two points: “Reason 1 - Book, Book Chapter, Conference Paper and Review (n equals 13),” and “Reason 2 Doesn’t fit with the scope of the study (n equals 2).” A downward arrow from the seventh box leads to the ninth box in the “Include” section, labeled “Studies included in review (n equals 47)”.PRISMA protocol. Authors’ own work
The figure shows two tables arranged vertically. The top table has six rows and two columns. The top row presents the column headers as: Row 1: Column 1: (plus) Inclusion criteria; Column 2: (minus) Exclusion Criteria. The complete data from the table is as follows: Row 2: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Period of study- 2014 to 2024; (minus) Exclusion Criteria: Duplicate articles. Row 3: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Only research articles; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Conference proceedings, book chapters, lecture notes, issues enlisting call for papers, panel discussions, symposium articles, tutorials, and unpublished articles. Row 4: (plus) Inclusion criteria: All published articles in the English Language; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Retracted publications. Row 5: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Articles that specify use-case implementations or application-based insights; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Unavailable full-text documents. Row 6: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Articles consisting of case-based empirical studies; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Articles deemed out of scope, that is, not aligned with the research question or objective. The second table at the bottom is titled “Database for Scientific Information- Scopus.” This table has five rows and two columns. The complete data from the table is as follows: Row 1: Column 1: Shortlisting Criteria; Column 2: Exclusion and Inclusion. Row 2: Column 1: Article Search; Column 2: Search Boolean tab for title, abstract, and author-specific keywords. Row 3: Column 1: Document Type; Column 2: Articles. Row 4: Column 1: Language; Column 2: English. Row 5: Column 1: Period of Study; Column 2: 2014 to 2024.A brief overview of inclusion and exclusion criteria. By authors
The figure shows two tables arranged vertically. The top table has six rows and two columns. The top row presents the column headers as: Row 1: Column 1: (plus) Inclusion criteria; Column 2: (minus) Exclusion Criteria. The complete data from the table is as follows: Row 2: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Period of study- 2014 to 2024; (minus) Exclusion Criteria: Duplicate articles. Row 3: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Only research articles; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Conference proceedings, book chapters, lecture notes, issues enlisting call for papers, panel discussions, symposium articles, tutorials, and unpublished articles. Row 4: (plus) Inclusion criteria: All published articles in the English Language; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Retracted publications. Row 5: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Articles that specify use-case implementations or application-based insights; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Unavailable full-text documents. Row 6: (plus) Inclusion criteria: Articles consisting of case-based empirical studies; (minus) Exclusion criteria: Articles deemed out of scope, that is, not aligned with the research question or objective. The second table at the bottom is titled “Database for Scientific Information- Scopus.” This table has five rows and two columns. The complete data from the table is as follows: Row 1: Column 1: Shortlisting Criteria; Column 2: Exclusion and Inclusion. Row 2: Column 1: Article Search; Column 2: Search Boolean tab for title, abstract, and author-specific keywords. Row 3: Column 1: Document Type; Column 2: Articles. Row 4: Column 1: Language; Column 2: English. Row 5: Column 1: Period of Study; Column 2: 2014 to 2024.A brief overview of inclusion and exclusion criteria. By authors
3. Study area
The method employed in this study is based on the TCCM framework developed by Paul and Rosado-Serrano (2019). This framework facilitates a comprehensive, replicable and clear examination of existing literature, ensuring that the review process is systematic and transparent (Paul & Criado, 2020). The TCCM framework allows for a structured analysis of the literature across four key dimensions:
Theories: This involves identifying the theoretical frameworks that underpinning researches on agripreneurship, enabling an understanding of the conceptual foundations that guide current studies.
Context: This dimension examines the geographical and market contexts in which the studies were conducted, providing insights into how different environments influence agripreneurial practices.
Characteristics: This dimension analyzes the specific elements and constructs in the literature, including the types of enablers and barriers identified by researchers.
Methodologies: This section reviews the analytical methods utilized in prior studies, highlighting the diversity of approaches taken within the field.
By applying the TCCM framework, this study aims to synthesize knowledge on agripreneurship systematically, identify gaps in existing research and propose future research directions. The SLR method is widely recognized for its ability to trace intellectual development across various domains. Ultimately, this structured approach not only enhances our understanding of agripreneurship but also contributes to building a solid foundation for future investigations in this vital area of agricultural entrepreneurship. Table 1 represents the bibliographic sources on agribusiness.
Bibliographic sources on agripreneurs
| S.no | Journal name | Count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Heliyon | 3 |
| 2 | Current Science | 1 |
| 3 | Development in Practice | 2 |
| 4 | Environment, Development and Sustainability | 2 |
| 5 | Sustainability | 4 |
| 6 | Journal of Global Innovations in Agricultural Sciences | 2 |
| 7 | South African Journal of Agricultural Extension (SAJAE) | 1 |
| 8 | Plant Archives | 1 |
| 9 | Indian Journal of Extension Education | 3 |
| 10 | African Development Review | 1 |
| 11 | Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology | 1 |
| 12 | Journal of Agricultural Extension | 3 |
| 13 | Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, Supplement | 1 |
| 14 | Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences | 4 |
| 15 | Agrekon | 1 |
| 16 | Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | 1 |
| 17 | Studies in Agricultural Economics | 1 |
| 18 | Rural Sustainability Research | 1 |
| 19 | Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship | 1 |
| 20 | Man in India | 1 |
| 21 | International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business | 1 |
| 22 | Forest Policy and Economics | 1 |
| 23 | International Journal of Training Research | 1 |
| 24 | International Journal of Business and Globalization | 1 |
| 25 | Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences | 1 |
| 26 | International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology | 2 |
| 27 | Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies | 2 |
| 28 | African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development | 1 |
| 29 | African Journal of Economic and Management Studies | 1 |
| 30 | International Journal of Agricultural Technology | 1 |
| Total | 47 |
4. Research agenda
This section focuses on systematically exploring the factors that facilitate or hinder agripreneurial activities. It aims to institutional, technological, market and socio-cultural enablers such as entrepreneurial skills, policy support, access to technology, market linkages and community networks, alongside barriers like limited funding, regulatory constraints, inadequate infrastructure and resistance to change. By integrating a literature review the agenda seeks to develop a comprehensive framework for understanding enablers and barriers. The study examines various regional variations, actionable interventions and sustainable agripreneurship practices to inform policymakers, stakeholders and researchers. The extensive studies on agripreneurship have helped gain valuable insights enablers and barriers. However, despite these insights from previous studies, a clear definition of agripreneurship is still lacking. The following section details the reviewed literature on mindfulness in marketing and consumption following the TCCM framework (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019).
4.1 Theory development (T):
Various studies, which contributed to the theory development process in the area of agripreneurship or agricultural entrepreneurship, play a significant role in driving rural development, food security and innovation in the agricultural sector. Below are some key enablers and barriers influencing agripreneurship identified in the review and are summarized in Table 2 below:
Some of the relevant theoretical findings
| S.no | Enablers to agripreneurship | Barriers to agripreneurship |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Access to Finance Government grants enable agripreneurs to invest in land, equipment, and technology. Venture capital and impact investors focusing on agriculture are also crucial | Limited Access to Finance High-interest rates, lack of collateral, and stringent lending policies restrict funding for small-scale agripreneurs |
| 2 | Technological Advancements Innovations like drone technology, Internet of Things (IoT), and climate-smart agriculture are critical drivers | Insufficient Market Information Lack of knowledge about market trends, pricing, and customer preferences limits profitability. Poor integration into value chains and market linkages |
| 3 | Policy Support Government subsidies, tax incentives, and policies promoting sustainable agriculture encourage agripreneurship. Programs to support youth and women entrepreneurs in agriculture | Technological Gaps High costs of adopting advanced technologies and limited access to technical knowledge. Digital divide in rural areas where internet and mobile penetration is low |
| 4 | Market Access Access to domestic and international markets via supply chain networks, cooperatives, and e-commerce platforms Demand for organic and value-added agricultural products boosts opportunities | Policy and Regulatory Challenges Complex land ownership laws, bureaucratic hurdles, and inadequate support for startups. Policies often favor large-scale industrial agriculture over smallholder farmers |
| 5 | Capacity Building Training programs, workshops, and mentorship in business management, marketing, and modern farming practices. Agricultural extension services and skill development initiatives for rural populations | Infrastructure Deficiencies Poor road networks, lack of storage and processing facilities, and unreliable power supply create operational challenges |
| 6 | Infrastructure Development Improved logistics, cold storage facilities, and rural connectivity facilitate smoother operations for agripreneurs | Climatic and Environmental Risks Dependence on rainfall and susceptibility to natural disasters like floods, droughts, and pest outbreaks |
| 7 | Social Support Systems Community-based organizations, farmer producer organizations (FPOs), and cooperative models offer collective bargaining and resource pooling | Skill Deficits Lack of entrepreneurial skills, especially among rural youth. Limited access to quality training in modern farming and business management |
| 8 | Sustainability Trends Rising consumer preference for sustainable, organic, and eco-friendly agricultural products opens up niche markets | Social and Cultural Barriers Resistance to change and traditional farming practices. Gender inequality and limited participation of women in decision-making |
4.2 Context (C)
Agripreneurship has emerged as a critical driver of economic development, rural employment and sustainable agricultural practices and in fulfilling the sustainable development goal number two of zero hunger. It encompasses activities that innovate within traditional farming, including the adoption of modern technologies, value addition, market-oriented farming, and sustainable practices, enabling farmers to transition from traditional agriculture activities to profit-driven enterprises. The review suggests that various studies highlight a diverse range of participants across different contexts. The research encompasses 1,435 young agripreneurs from Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda, alongside 200 rural tribal youths aged 18–35 in Nagaland. Additionally, 74 young Laotian agripreneurs were included and a systematic review analyzed 115 articles. Other samples consist of 309 potato farmers, 224 mango farmers in Southern Ghana and 180 youth agripreneurs. Further contributions include data from 480 rural FBOs, 468 respondents and 324 farmers involved in various agricultural practices. The diverse sample sizes and demographics underscore the comprehensive nature of the research, facilitating a broader understanding of agripreneurship dynamics across different populations in different contextual settings.
4.3 Characteristics (C)
The characteristics of agripreneurship revolve around its unique blend of entrepreneurial innovation and agricultural practices, making it a vital sector for rural transformation and economic growth. Agripreneurship is characterized by its focus on value addition, where raw agricultural products are processed, packaged and marketed innovatively to meet consumer demands and enhance profitability. It emphasizes sustainability, leveraging eco-friendly practices, resource efficiency and climate-resilient methods to address environmental challenges. Agripreneurs often exhibit resilience, adaptability and creativity, navigating volatile markets and leveraging opportunities such as digital technologies and modern farming techniques. Furthermore, agripreneurship also involves creating linkages with markets, supply chains and networks to improve market access and competitiveness. The review highlights the dual need for innovation and systemic change to fully realize the potential of agripreneurship. These characteristics underscore the importance of identifying and addressing the enablers and barriers to agripreneurship, ensuring its role as a catalyst for sustainable agricultural and economic development.
4.3.1 Antecedents
The antecedents of agripreneurship includes a range of factors including entrepreneurial attitudes, innovative mindsets, education and prior exposure to farming or business activities, which equip individuals with the skills and confidence to explore agripreneurial ventures. At the systemic level, socioeconomic conditions and the institutional frameworks including government policies, availability of subsidies, access to financial services and agricultural extension programs, plays an important role in creating the environment conducive for agripreneurship. Technological advancements, such as precision farming have emerged as a key antecedent facilitating efficiency and productivity in agripreneurial activities. Social and cultural factors, such as societal attitudes toward entrepreneurship, also form part of the antecedent landscape, influencing how agripreneurship is perceived.
4.3.2 Consequences
The consequences of identifying the enablers and barriers of agripreneurship are pertinent for influencing the behavior of individuals, communities, economies and the agricultural sector at large. The identification enhances rural development by generating employment opportunities, reducing poverty and contributing to food security by increasing the efficiency of agricultural value chains and promoting sustainable farming practices. Agripreneurship can have significant socio-cultural consequences, such as empowering marginalized groups, including women and youth, to participate actively in economic activities. On a global scale, the integration of agripreneurship into sustainable development agendas can address climate change challenges and fulfill the sustainable development goals.
4.4 Methodology (M)
The review suggests that the methodologies employed across various studies indicate a diverse approach to agripreneurship. A total of 16 studies utilized quantitative methods, indicating a strong emphasis on numerical data and statistical analysis. A total of 14 studies adopted qualitative methodologies, highlighting the importance of understanding participants' perspectives and experiences. Additionally, seven studies were classified as exploratory, suggesting a focus on gaining insights into emerging topics or phenomena. Only one study each utilized mixed-methods, descriptive study, case study, action research, empirical quantitative research, theoretical and exploratory approaches, explanatory methods and qualitative and analytical techniques. This distribution underscores the varied methodological landscape in the research examined.
4.4.1 Sample and data
The data collection methods employed across various studies reflect a comprehensive and multifaceted approach to gathering insights on agripreneurship. Data collection involved tracking quantitative metrics such as income levels, employment generation and migration rates among rural tribal youth. Additionally, a five-point Likert scale was utilized to gather responses from a stratified sample of 120 youth in the Nkomazi municipality. SLRs and expert feedback through interviews were integral to understanding agriculture and entrepreneurship dynamics. Narrative inquiry was employed through interviews with 74 young agripreneurs, allowing for the collection of detailed personal accounts. Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using systematic mapping techniques across databases like Google Scholar and Science Direct. Other techniques included semi-structured interviews and structured questionnaires administered to farmers regarding production techniques, as well as surveys targeting mango-producing households to capture socioeconomic data. The studies also incorporated various methodologies such as qualitative interviews, structured questionnaires for youth agripreneurs in Ebonyi State, and surveys assessing youth perceptions of agribusiness. Overall, these diverse data collection methods underscore the richness of the research landscape, facilitating a deeper understanding of the factors influencing agripreneurship across different contexts.
4.4.2 Analytical tools
A diverse array of analytical tools was employed across the studies reviewed, each contributing uniquely to the research findings. The methodologies utilized include Endogenous Treatment Effect Regression (ETER) Model, Binary Logistic Regression, and Principal Component Analysis (PCA), among others, with each method being applied once to ensure a comprehensive analysis of the data. Techniques such as Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Narrative Interpretation were also included, alongside systematic approaches like the SLR and Factor Analysis. Other notable tools include the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), and various regression analyses, such as Probit Regression Analysis and Ordinary Least Squares Regression. The studies also incorporated qualitative methods like Thematic Content Analysis and Behavioral Constructs Analysis, which facilitated a deeper understanding of underlying themes and barriers. Each analytical tool was selected to address specific research questions effectively, demonstrating a robust methodological framework that enhances the validity and reliability of the findings across diverse contexts. Overall, the use of these varied analytical techniques reflects a comprehensive approach to understanding complex phenomena within agripreneurship and related fields. Figures 3 and 4 show the economic and institutional enablers and barriers respectively.
The diagram is titled “Institutional underscore and underscore Policy underscore Factors” at the top center. The diagram shows two circles on the left labeled “Barriers” (top) and “Enablers” (bottom). Four rightward arrows lead from these circles to vertically arranged rectangular boxes. From “Barriers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “Bureaucratic hurdles and corruption,” “Inadequate policy implementation or enforcement,” “Insufficient investment in rural infrastructure,” and “Limited institutional support for smallholder farmers.” From “Enablers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “Supportive government policies and regulatory frameworks,” “Programs promoting youth and women in agripreneurship,” “Public-private partnerships for capacity building and market linkages,” and “Agricultural extension services.” The bottom two arrows from “Barriers” pass through the first box in “Enablers”.Institutional and policy factors. Authors’ own work
The diagram is titled “Institutional underscore and underscore Policy underscore Factors” at the top center. The diagram shows two circles on the left labeled “Barriers” (top) and “Enablers” (bottom). Four rightward arrows lead from these circles to vertically arranged rectangular boxes. From “Barriers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “Bureaucratic hurdles and corruption,” “Inadequate policy implementation or enforcement,” “Insufficient investment in rural infrastructure,” and “Limited institutional support for smallholder farmers.” From “Enablers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “Supportive government policies and regulatory frameworks,” “Programs promoting youth and women in agripreneurship,” “Public-private partnerships for capacity building and market linkages,” and “Agricultural extension services.” The bottom two arrows from “Barriers” pass through the first box in “Enablers”.Institutional and policy factors. Authors’ own work
The diagram is titled “Economic underscore and underscore Financial underscore Factors” at the top center. The diagram shows two circles on the left labeled “Barriers” (top) and “Enablers” (bottom). Four rightward arrows lead from these circles to vertically arranged rectangular boxes. From “Barriers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “High costs of inputs, technology, or infrastructure,” “Limited access to financial services, especially for small-scale farmers,” “Market volatility and uncertain returns,” and “Land ownership and tenancy issues.” From “Enablers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “Availability of credit, loans, and microfinancing schemes,” “Government subsidies or grants for agricultural innovation,” “Access to markets with fair pricing mechanisms,” and “Opportunities for diversification into high-value crops or agri-tourism.” The bottom two arrows from “Barriers” pass through the first box in “Enablers”.Economic and financial barriers and enablers. Authors’ own work
The diagram is titled “Economic underscore and underscore Financial underscore Factors” at the top center. The diagram shows two circles on the left labeled “Barriers” (top) and “Enablers” (bottom). Four rightward arrows lead from these circles to vertically arranged rectangular boxes. From “Barriers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “High costs of inputs, technology, or infrastructure,” “Limited access to financial services, especially for small-scale farmers,” “Market volatility and uncertain returns,” and “Land ownership and tenancy issues.” From “Enablers,” the four arrows point to the following boxes: “Availability of credit, loans, and microfinancing schemes,” “Government subsidies or grants for agricultural innovation,” “Access to markets with fair pricing mechanisms,” and “Opportunities for diversification into high-value crops or agri-tourism.” The bottom two arrows from “Barriers” pass through the first box in “Enablers”.Economic and financial barriers and enablers. Authors’ own work
5. Implications of the study
The implications of identifying the enablers and barriers of agripreneurship are critical for creating an agribusiness ecosystem and ensuring sustainable agricultural practices. For policymakers, the findings can help in developing intervention strategies, such as designing inclusive financial schemes, offering capacity-building programs and creating regulatory frameworks that lower entry barriers for aspiring agripreneurs. Policymakers can integrate these insights to provide tailored support and training, equipping agripreneurs with the skills and knowledge necessary to adopt innovative technologies and market-driven approaches. Understanding enablers and barriers can help in optimizing operations, improving efficiency and enhancing value chain performance. Furthermore, integrating sustainability into managerial strategies can help agribusinesses align with sustainable development goals, such as zero hunger and climate change along with improving long-term profitability.
6. Conclusion
To conclude understanding the enablers and barriers of agripreneurship is essential for exploiting the full potential of agripreneurship to drive economic growth, assist rural development and promote sustainable agricultural practices. Agripreneurship represents a transformative approach to agriculture, blending entrepreneurial innovation with traditional farming, but its success is highly contingent on a complex interplay of factors. Identifying enablers such as access to financial resources, supportive policies, technological advancements, market connectivity and entrepreneurial education can help create a conducive environment for agripreneurs to thrive. Addressing barriers like inadequate infrastructure, lack of funding, regulatory challenges and socio-cultural resistance is crucial to overcoming obstacles that hinder progress. By reviewing the existing literature, the study provides a framework for analyzing and understanding the dynamics of agripreneurship. The study suggests that the multi-stakeholder approach is important for the success of agripreneurship, where policymakers, financial institutions, technology providers and community networks collaborate to foster a supportive ecosystem. Additionally, regional variations must be considered to develop tailored strategies that address local needs and challenges. Finally, the study provides actionable insights that empower agripreneurs, ensure the sustainability of agribusinesses and contribute to broader socio-economic and environmental goals of agricultural innovation and development.
Author contributions
All authors contributed equally to the conception, design, analysis, and writing of this paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
